Reply to: Duggan verdict expected at 15:40

[jmo21]

You're stopping a man who you genuinely*, and with good reason*, believe is armed with a semi automatic pistol. You're in a fast moving, dynamic situation - you approach him and he starts to rapidly move/turn to face you/go for his pocket/etc. How long would YOU wait to determine if he's about to shoot? If you've shot weapons like you say, then you know as I do that 9mm pistols are not to be sniffed at.

I'm not saying there was NO way it could have gone differently, but hanging out the officer to dry over this one isn't constructive at all in my opinion.

*These are key points in this case, IMHO. When all said and done, they had solid intelligence, genuinely believed it AND they were proved right at the inquest.

THIS.

[Bunk]

He had the gun in the cab. The cab gets stopped by the police and he tries to avoid getting caught with the gun by throwing it over a fence from the cab. He succeeds in doing this which means the police still think he has the gun. He gets out of the taxi and gets shot. The only part I'm unsure about is whether he did anything to make them think he had it, ie hands in pockets, sudden movements, holding something else in his hand etc. Either way, the sequence of events leading up to the shooting make me think he should have been trying very hard not to give the police any reason to shoot him.

[RedSauce]

What I'm wondering is if it was necessary to create that situation in the first place. The objective is obviously not to execute the guy, so with that in mind perhaps the confrontation could have been contrived to put the police in more advantageous position.

If they had, this whole thing wouldn't have been running for 2 years because it would have been clear cut one way or the other.

The only reason it has run for 2 years is that it sparked the riots and Mark Duggan became infamous, I wonder how many criminals are killed in a similar fashion with no inquest as nobody really hears about it.

[vetran]

These police aren't Jackie Chan or Steven Seagal all that hand slapping stuff is rehearsed repeatedly. Guns kill, you don't mess about, you shoot till he stops moving and then you still treat him as dangerous.

He was the nephew of a known gangster, he was known as a Gangster,he supplied guns & drugs he was known to be armed previously and believed to be armed that day.

on LBC caller - "I feel now the black community should rise up" - not sure if he means rise up and get some new Nike trainers.

strange DAbbot wasn't Baffled when finding a decent school for her kids or getting her snout in the trough. Two faced opportunist idiot.

[vwdan]

What I'm wondering is if it was necessary to create that situation in the first place. The objective is obviously not to execute the guy, so with that in mind perhaps the confrontation could have been contrived to put the police in more advantageous position.

If they had, this whole thing wouldn't have been running for 2 years because it would have been clear cut one way or the other.

I believe that was one of the questions at the inquest - whether the Police acted in the best way possible with regards to the stop. I understand that the answer was also a majority "Yes, they did".

[Peoplesoft bloke]

We don't know the facts as we weren't there.

One thing that does seem factual is that the Police initially lied and said Duggan fired at them. That was at the least unwise if it's true.

It is very hard to determine the truth when all the protagonists appear to be lying.

I don't feel the world is especially the poorer without a gun-toting "big man" gangster (if that's what he was), but it would have been better to take him alive and put him inside, or for nature to take it's course and await his inevitable murder by a rival.

[SpontaneousOrder]

He gave the impression he did when confronted by armed officers and was shot.

If that's the case then fine. It does make the whole fuss seem a bit pointless though

[SpontaneousOrder]

You're stopping a man who you genuinely*, and with good reason*, believe is armed with a semi automatic pistol. You're in a fast moving, dynamic situation - you approach him and he starts to ....

What I'm wondering is if it was necessary to create that situation in the first place. The objective is obviously not to execute the guy, so with that in mind perhaps the confrontation could have been contrived to put the police in more advantageous position.

If they had, this whole thing wouldn't have been running for 2 years because it would have been clear cut one way or the other.

[MyUserName]

I must have missed something - it is confirmed that he had a pistol but the query seems to be whether he had it when he was shot?

Whether he did or not surely is not really the point. He gave the impression he did when confronted by armed officers and was shot.

If I had a dozen armed police pointing guns at me and giving me instructions and I suddenly dived my hand under my coat I would expect to be killed regardless of whether I actually had a gun or not. They can hardly wait until I have pulled a gun out and shot a civilian before opening fire.

[vwdan]

I've used a wide variety of weapons to varying degrees, and unless there's some special circumstance I'm unaware of (as i say - i've not bothered to read up on it) then given that he was only supposed to be carrying a pistol i don't think there really shouldn't be any need, given proper training/procedure/planning, for the armed cop to not be able to determine if the guy actually has a weapon or not before he shoots.

You're stopping a man who you genuinely*, and with good reason*, believe is armed with a semi automatic pistol. You're in a fast moving, dynamic situation - you approach him and he starts to rapidly move/turn to face you/go for his pocket/etc. How long would YOU wait to determine if he's about to shoot? If you've shot weapons like you say, then you know as I do that 9mm pistols are not to be sniffed at.

I'm not saying there was NO way it could have gone differently, but hanging out the officer to dry over this one isn't constructive at all in my opinion.

*These are key points in this case, IMHO. When all said and done, they had solid intelligence, genuinely believed it AND they were proved right at the inquest.

[SpontaneousOrder]

As soon as you here the words "Armed police" your life is in imminent danger. You do EXACTLY what they say.

I should mention that I have no idea whether the guy provoked it like that. So if he did then it makes the question of possessing a gun or not somewhat redundant insofar as lawfulness of killin gis ocncerned.

[vwdan]

Stupid ignorant tulip-stirring cow. As soon as you here the words "Armed police" your life is in imminent danger. You do EXACTLY what they say. If at any time they suspect you have a gun and/or are a danger to the general public, they WILL shoot you.

Whether you possess a gun or not is irrelevant. Whether you are a complete scroat or an upstanding member of the community is irrelevant. All they have to do is believe your are an immediate threat, and you are dead.

That's how it works.

Absolutely. On the flip side to this, I have no issue in taking the opinion that if you choose to arm yourself with an illegal firearm then you're absolutely responsible for anything related that leads to your death. The intelligence that he had a firearm was correct, the officer believed it and I absolutely don't blame him for opening fire regardless of whether it turns out it was in a box, a safe or his hand. Frankly, in this situation, I'd much rather the Police Officer go home to his family than Duggan.

I'm getting upset at people stirring the stop and search debate here - the guy WAS carrying a gun. The fact he was black seems to be immaterial - I certainly don't expect to walk around with a firearm and get away with it. If I did, and I got shot, then so be it.

[EternalOptimist]

Stupid ignorant tulip-stirring cow. As soon as you here the words "Armed police" your life is in imminent danger. You do EXACTLY what they say. If at any time they suspect you have a gun and/or are a danger to the general public, they WILL shoot you.

Whether you possess a gun or not is irrelevant. Whether you are a complete scroat or an upstanding member of the community is irrelevant. All they have to do is believe your are an immediate threat, and you are dead.

That's how it works.

(Note - whether the police were lying or there was a cover-up is an entirely different matter - it's just that that silly cow knows she's spouting rubbish )

what I dont understand is ahy they did not go back to a previous save, reload and try again,
till they got it right - SpontaneousOrder

[SpontaneousOrder]

The jury accepted that the Police Officer honestly (And reasonably) believed that he had, and was reaching for, a weapon. At the time of the shooting, the Officer didn't know that he'd thrown the gun away. This doesn't seem unreasonable if you consider the dynamic nature of such a stop, and the intelligence that the Officer had.

I wasn't there obviously, and I've not read much about it at all.

But... that's sounds to me tantamount to a 'constructive execution' version of constructive dismissal. Why create a situation where you know you'll shoot him *if* he has a weapon, where you are also happy to assume that he has one whether actually true or not.

I've used a wide variety of weapons to varying degrees, and unless there's some special circumstance I'm unaware of (as i say - i've not bothered to read up on it) then given that he was only supposed to be carrying a pistol i don't think there really shouldn't be any need, given proper training/procedure/planning, for the armed cop to not be able to determine if the guy actually has a weapon or not before he shoots.

If he was a gangster then I don't really care - but it's been a man carrying a table leg back from the repair shop before, and next time it might be someone's kid. Or another brazillian.

[NotAllThere]

MP ABBOTT 'BAFFLED' BY CONCLUSION
1619: Labour MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington Diane Abbott MP tweets: If the #duggan jury believe that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot, how can they find it was a lawful killing? #baffled

Stupid ignorant tulip-stirring cow. As soon as you here the words "Armed police" your life is in imminent danger. You do EXACTLY what they say. If at any time they suspect you have a gun and/or are a danger to the general public, they WILL shoot you.

Whether you possess a gun or not is irrelevant. Whether you are a complete scroat or an upstanding member of the community is irrelevant. All they have to do is believe your are an immediate threat, and you are dead.

That's how it works.

(Note - whether the police were lying or there was a cover-up is an entirely different matter - it's just that that silly cow knows she's spouting rubbish )