The Mark Duggan trial.

end of the road

seamus wrote: »

There's a hierarchy of importance here.

Top of the priorities is the safety of the public and bystanders (i.e. everyone who's not a police officer or a suspect). Next comes the safety of their colleagues and themselves. Bottom of the pile comes the safety of the suspect.
Yes, innocent until proven guilty and all that, but when it comes to the use of a firearm, the officers' lives and their colleagues' lives come above the life of the suspect. Where the former are believed to be threatened, the latter does not take priority.

It cannot work any other way, otherwise what you're saying is that officers should never fire until they've been fired at. Which is absolute madness, and is a surefire way to introduce corruption and poor decisions into armed units.

not at all, either corruption is there or it isn't, its their jobs to risk their lives for the public and thats it, its what i expect and what their payed for

end of the road

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Assumed with very good reason. As far as the officers were concerned, he was.

yet they weren't able to prove it, so they failed

end of the road

Gatling wrote: »

It wasn't assumed it was fact

no, it wasn't fact

Fratton Fred

end of the road wrote: »

yet they weren't able to prove it, so they failed

Prove what? The jury unanimously agreed he had been carrying a gun.

end of the road

Skylinehead wrote: »

Doesn't really change anything though, nobody knew that.

actually thats debatible. they saw something, then they didn't, then they didn't know, either way, they failed again, its their job to know he threw away the gun, he was supposed to be under survailence, make all the excuses you like they shot an unarmed man again, they bungled this up

end of the road

Gatling wrote: »

He was armed getting into the taxi

Was he armed when shot I believe so ,

not armed when shot

end of the road

old hippy wrote: »

Except that the Met are known to bend the rules or ignore them completely.

exactly, their rottin to the core, they have a history of corruption and bending the rules probably since their inception

end of the road

FTA69 wrote: »

Did anyone actually read what happened? He was "wielding" f*ck all, the gun was in a sock which was in a box. Which was 10 feet away from him when he was shot dead as he exited a car.

infact his DNA wasn't even found on the gun, it could have easily been planted for all we know

end of the road

seamus wrote: »

You appear to be the one in denial of the facts here. He had a gun. He was seen with a gun, in a public place, while running from the police.
That he didn't have it on him when he was shot, doesn't erase the fact that he was wielding a weapon in public.

he was seen, then he wasn't, then they didn't know, their was no gun found on him, his DNA wasn't on the gun, doesn't add up i'm afraid

Khomeini

I hope the family of Mark Duggan find justice. I doubt they will though.

I am interested as to why the British media are so adamant on stating he was one of 'Europe's most dangerous men'. Is this true?

Some digging has found this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25363828

In this article, Det Ch Insp Foote contradicts himself. He states that Duggan was "very lightly convicted" and some of the intelligence on him was graded 'E'. He also states he had no information on which he could arrest Duggan. He also states Duggan was "confrontational and violent". Which is it?

FTA69

In fairness they said Duggan was affiliated to the Man Dem, who are a shower of horrible bastards. I don't think he was the upstanding citizen some people are portraying him to be.

Khomeini

FTA69 wrote: »

In fairness they said Duggan was affiliated to the Man Dem, who are a shower of horrible bastards. I don't think he was the upstanding citizen some people are portraying him to be.

I don't think anyone is stating he is upstanding member of the community. Even his family have said he wasn't.

I now see the media are focusing in on his Uncle, Desmond Noonan (confirmed IRA member) and how he took him under his wing.

old hippy

Khomeini wrote: »

I don't think anyone is stating he is upstanding member of the community. Even his family have said he wasn't.

I now see the media are focusing in on his Uncle, Desmond Noonan (confirmed IRA member) and how he took him under his wing.

Do you think that isn't newsworthy, then? Seeing as the IRA are/were an illegal organisation who are responsible for many deaths in this country?

seamus

FTA69 wrote: »

Do you know what the word "wield" means? It means to brandish or to display a weapon threateningly.

Throwing a gun, in a sock, in a box on to the ground is not "wielding" a weapon.

wield transitive verb \ˈwēld\
: to hold (something, such as a tool or weapon) in your hands so that you are ready to use it

Let's not get pedantic here.

end of the road wrote: »

he was seen, then he wasn't, then they didn't know, their was no gun found on him, his DNA wasn't on the gun, doesn't add up i'm afraid

8 civilian jurors disagree with you. Though I'm sure you have evidence that they never saw, right?

Khomeini

old hippy wrote: »

Do you think that isn't newsworthy, then? Seeing as the IRA are/were an illegal organisation who are responsible for many deaths in this country?

The IRA has never and will never be an illegal organisation.

My impression is that the Brit press is trying to assassinate the character of Mark Duggan any way the can. Including his Uncle, given the views the majority of British people have on the IRA is jut another attempt.

Donkey Oaty

Khomeini wrote: »

The IRA has never and will never be an illegal organisation.

Considering that this is a thread that is discussing the rule of law and whether or not it was applied correctly, I think it has become somewhat unspooled...

end of the road

seamus wrote: »

wield transitive verb \ˈwēld\
: to hold (something, such as a tool or weapon) in your hands so that you are ready to use it

Let's not get pedantic here.
8 civilian jurors disagree with you. Though I'm sure you have evidence that they never saw, right?

officers changed their stories so therefore i have to take from it that they just didn't know what was what

FTA69

seamus wrote: »

wield transitive verb \ˈwēld\
: to hold (something, such as a tool or weapon) in your hands so that you are ready to use it

Let's not get pedantic here.

Well considering the gun was double wrapped in a sock and box and numerous feet away from him I think we can both agree he wasn't "ready to use it" at all. Thus words like "wielding" give a false impression of what happened and give succor to the confirmed lie that the cops saw a gun when they shot him.

FTA69

Khomeini wrote: »

I don't think anyone is stating he is upstanding member of the community. Even his family have said he wasn't.

I now see the media are focusing in on his Uncle, Desmond Noonan (confirmed IRA member) and how he took him under his wing.

You're on a wind up. First of all the Noonans had f*ck all to do with the IRA, they're local gangsters nothing more.

Secondly, there have been people trying to portray him as simply a bit rough around the edges and I'd say he was a bit more than that to be fair.

Fratton Fred

FTA69 wrote: »

Well considering the gun was double wrapped in a sock and box and numerous feet away from him I think we can both agree he wasn't "ready to use it" at all. Thus words like "wielding" give a false impression of what happened and give succor to the confirmed lie that the cops saw a gun when they shot him.

Are guns not usually fired through a sock to reduce residue?

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

no, it wasn't fact

It was fact

FTA69

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are guns not usually fired through a sock to reduce residue?

I've never heard of that to be honest. It's as likely the sock would catch in the slide or the ejection port and it wouldn't fire again. I'd say it was stuffed in a sock for concealment as opposed to anything else.

Gatling

FTA69 wrote: »

Well considering the gun was double wrapped in a sock and box and numerous feet away from him I think we can both agree he wasn't "ready to use it" at all. Thus words like "wielding" give a false impression of what happened and give succor to the confirmed lie that the cops saw a gun when they shot him.

Where did you get that from ,

The gun was only concealed in a box in the taxi wrapped in a sock or no sock it was a live ,loaded semi automatic pistol could easily have been fired while in a sock

FTA69

Gatling wrote: »

Where did you get that from ,

By examining the facts of the case. Have a go at it yourself.

The gun was only concealed in a box in the taxi wrapped in a sock or no sock it was a live ,loaded semi automatic pistol could easily have been fired while in a sock

So you can fire a gun in a sock in a box? His DNA wasn't found on the gun or the sock. He was shot without the gun in his hand. The taxi driver in question didn't see him with any sort of weapon at all for that matter. He in no way pointed or brandished the gun, he got out of the car unarmed, ran and then was shot.

The cops then said they saw him exist the car and point a gun at them, a blatant and utter lie.

FTA69

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/09/mark-duggan-verdict-relations-police

An interesting article here by Stafford Scott, an advisor who hitherto worked with Operation Trident as an advisor.

Sierra Oscar

FTA69 wrote: »

He in no way pointed or brandished the gun, he got out of the car unarmed, ran and then was shot.

Why did he run? Why did he not stop after having received verbal warnings from the police officers, something which witnesses confirm occurred?

The police were aware that he had a gun with him in the taxi and he attempted to flee the scene, with the officers believing that their lives were in threat as they still had not secured the gun from Duggan.

What did you expect to happen? Also, what do you think Duggan was going to do with the gun?

FTA69

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Why did he run? Why did he not stop after having received verbal warnings from the police officers, something which witnesses confirm occurred?

Because he was about to be arrested I imagine. The question is whether someone deserves to be shot dead for running away from the police.

What did you expect to happen? Also, what do you think Duggan was going to do with the gun?

I don't know. I don't believe he was an innocent young lad at all. The point isn't so much about Duggan, rather the behaviour of the police in exercising lethal force when the situation didn't require it.

Why do you think the police told a load of lies after the fact? Why did various cops bang on about their eyes being "glued to the gun" when in fact he was unarmed when they shot him?

mrsbyrne

FTA69 wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

By examining the facts of the case. Have a go at it yourself.



So you can fire a gun in a sock in a box? His DNA wasn't found on the gun or the sock. He was shot without the gun in his hand. The taxi driver in question didn't see him with any sort of weapon at all for that matter. He in no way pointed or brandished the gun, he got out of the car unarmed, ran and then was shot.

The cops then said they saw him exist the car and point a gun at them, a blatant and utter lie.

Are you saying that Mark Duggan engaged a mini cab and for very bad luck a previous customer had left a gun in a sock in a shoebox and Mark Duggan touched the shoebox and that's it?

Sierra Oscar

FTA69 wrote: »

Because he was about to be arrested I imagine. The question is whether someone deserves to be shot dead for running away from the police.

Or the question could be do we believe that police officers have to be first shot and injured before they can take action to defend themselves? I really do believe that the police officer who fired that shot thought that he and his colleague were in lethal danger as per his testimony, and that is why they took the action that they did. I don't think that police officers go out to purposefully kill people in London. Would you, considering the amount of public scrutiny that police forces are under these days?

FTA69 wrote: »

I don't know. I don't believe he was an innocent young lad at all. The point isn't so much about Duggan, rather the behaviour of the police in exercising lethal force when the situation didn't require it.

Totally agreed that it could have been handled better, but I think people forget that this all occurred in an instant and the officers did not have the benefit of hindsight at the time.

old hippy

Khomeini wrote: »

The IRA has never and will never be an illegal organisation.

My impression is that the Brit press is trying to assassinate the character of Mark Duggan any way the can. Including his Uncle, given the views the majority of British people have on the IRA is jut another attempt.

An illegal organisation.

I don't know if Duggan was squeaky clean or the opposite. However, my problem is with the fact he was shot - another death at the hands of the police.