# Mark Dugan inquest



## no-way (Oct 14, 2012)

So, the jury returned their conclusions and they will certainly be seen to be controversial by some!

Lawful killing is the main thing that needed answering and thats what they returned.

Thoughts?


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Thoughts:

If you carry a handgun in public and conceal it in a sock - you deserve to get shot. Case closed, sorry family your son was a drug dealing ar5ehole who endangered the lives of others.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

The fella was a wrong'un, knowing what i know i would say he had the gun.


----------



## no-way (Oct 14, 2012)

They (the jury) have said he had the gun. He threw it in the field before he was shot.

My opinion is, he had the gun, he posed a risk and was dealt with in an appropriate manor considering the risk.

Lots of people won't see it like that though, trouble in north London tonight?


----------



## BettySwallocks (Aug 1, 2012)

I dunno with this one, im a bit on the fence. End of the day he shouldnt of been killed but then again he wasnt exactly an outstanding citizen. Also probably caused more hassle for the police, with the riots that followed, than they could ever of imagined. So in a way they got there come uppance? Maybe?

I dunno, im undecided on this one.


----------



## Gary29 (Aug 21, 2011)

More riots now then is it?


----------



## husky (Jan 31, 2010)

Carry a gun you take the risk of being shot, no qualms about him getting killed, better him than some innocent member of the public while him and his "boys" are doing their "business"-family can cry all they want, seen it all before where parents refuse to accept that their wee boy is a wrong one no matter what he does-pity a few more of his gang weren't dealt with in the same way.


----------



## Shady45 (Jan 5, 2010)

If you walk around with a gun, then it's a risk you take....


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

A death is always a tragedy I think, carrying a gun only increased his risk of being killed. We know he was a wrong'un but I'd rather see him get jail time than killed by a itchy trigger finger of a cop. However, I think the officer that shot him made the correct decision at the time. It's a tough call to make.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

> A death is always a tragedy I think[/b]' date=' carrying a gun only increased his risk of being killed. We know he was a wrong'un but I'd rather see him get jail time than killed by a itchy trigger finger of a cop. However, I think the officer that shot him made the correct decision at the time. It's a tough call to make.
> 
> I dont.One more piece of rubbish out of the system, that we dont have to look after for 30 years.Win,Win.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

I'm torn on this one. On the one hand it's tempting to fall in behind the idea that he was a gun-totting, drug-dealing gangster and that society is better off without him. However, we have laws and they should apply to everyone - ordinary people, the police and even gun-totting gangsters.

The jury's verdict confuses me:

• An inquest jury has found by eight to two that Mark Duggan was lawfully killed.

• But the jury also found by the same margin that when Duggan received the fatal shot, he was not armed.

• The jury felt Duggan had a gun in the taxi with him, but he threw it from the taxi before the police stopped him.

If he was not armed, how could he have been lawfully killed? I thought armed police were only allowed to fire when there was an immediate threat to life. If he was not armed then there was no immediate threat. You could argue that the police officer genuinely believed he was armed but as the jury have found that Duggan threw the gun out the taxi before it was stopped they are effectively saying they don't believe the testimony of the officer.

Finally, whilst we've all been told through the media about how Duggan was heavily involved with guns and drugs, apparently he has only been convicted of minor offences and a judge has commented that much of the police intelligence on him was of poor quality.

So, in summary, much as I'd like to say good riddance to bad rubbish I don't feel our criminal justice system has come out of this in a good light.


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

What's that saying.... Live by the sword.........

He had a firearm and acted in a manner which made a police officer feel threatened either for his own life or for that of another so he was shot. I've met and worked with a fair amount of firearms officers and am yet to find one that comes across as trigger happy or eager for a kill (not saying there isn't one or two that don't slip through the mega strict net they have but the odds are against this copper being one).

There are a few simple rules that I think would stand a lot of people in good stead:

1. If the police are chasing you, you've done something that you shouldn't have, or at least they think you have so just stop running otherwise you'll only make it worse.

2. If a police officer with a gun is chasing you, the same applies, unless you can outrun a bullet, otherwise you may be shot.

3. If a police officer with a gun tells you to do something, just fvcking do it, otherwise you might get shot!!

4. If a police officer with a gun screams something at you and you're unsure of what he said, just hit the deck as quickly as possible with your hands out to your side and you probably won't get shot!!

Simples!!


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Ian_Montrose said:


> I'm torn on this one. On the one hand it's tempting to fall in behind the idea that he was a gun-totting, drug-dealing gangster and that society is better off without him. However, we have laws and they should apply to everyone - ordinary people, the police and* even gun-totting gangsters.*
> 
> The jury's verdict confuses me:
> 
> ...


Live by the sword, die by the sword.


----------



## husky (Jan 31, 2010)

Fatso said:


> A death is always a tragedy I think, carrying a gun only increased his risk of being killed. We know he was a wrong'un but I'd rather see him get jail time than killed by a itchy trigger finger of a cop. However, I think the officer that shot him made the correct decision at the time. It's a tough call to make.


nah i'd rather him and all like him are put in a box 6 foot under than pay for his upkeep in jail - make the streets far safer and bullets are cheaper than jail time


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

Ian_Montrose said:


> I'm torn on this one. On the one hand it's tempting to fall in behind the idea that he was a gun-totting, drug-dealing gangster and that society is better off without him. However, we have laws and they should apply to everyone - ordinary people, the police and even gun-totting gangsters.
> 
> The jury's verdict confuses me:
> 
> ...


I'd say that as long as there was a perceived threat to human life then that is as good as a genuine threat to human life. The officer believed it, which means the officer acted lawfully which also means that the killing wasn't illegal.

As for the intelligence, that to me says that there's technicality holes in the intelligence that could have been picked apart on technicalities rather than it being false. I could be wrong but that's the way I read it.


----------



## Dan100% (Feb 19, 2013)

I do wonder why Michael Adebolajo &Michael Adebowale, was just wounded but the policy was shoot to kill Duggan.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

essexboy said:


> Live by the sword, die by the sword.


I get your sentiment but do we really want to live in a country where the police can go around slotting people because they reckon they're a wrong 'un? I'll match your cliche with another common one - "Innocent until proven guilty" - one of the cornerstone priniples of our legal system. Whether he had a gun or not, unless he presented an immediate threat to life, he had the right to a fair trial - not summary execution in the street by the police.


----------



## Bomber1966 (Aug 19, 2010)

It amazes me when anyone thinks a cop wants to shoot someone! If anyone had even a sniff of the stress and grief the officer who pulled the trigger would go through for years and years after... This is not yet the end of this once the lawyers get digging further, i suspect that we will still be hearing about this in years to come...Duggan was a Broadwater Farm elder, a proper top and bad guy... He had a gun... Nothing else to say...


----------



## banjodeano (Jan 9, 2011)

Ian_Montrose said:


> I'm torn on this one. On the one hand it's tempting to fall in behind the idea that he was a gun-totting, drug-dealing gangster and that society is better off without him. However, we have laws and they should apply to everyone - ordinary people, the police and even gun-totting gangsters.
> 
> The jury's verdict confuses me:
> 
> ...


thats assuming the police didnt place a gun where they wanted it to be...time and again they have been proved to be liars....Hilsborough...plebgate..etc etc


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

mikep81 said:


> I'd say that as long as there was a perceived threat to human life then that is as good as a genuine threat to human life. *The officer believed it, *which means the officer acted lawfully which also means that the killing wasn't illegal.
> 
> As for the intelligence, that to me says that there's technicality holes in the intelligence that could have been picked apart on technicalities rather than it being false. I could be wrong but that's the way I read it.


The officer says he believed it. IIRC, the officer testified categorically that Duggan had a gun when he exited the cab. If that's true then, seeing as the jury have found that the gun was thrown before the stop, at best the officer is an unreliable witness and at worst he is a liar.


----------



## no-way (Oct 14, 2012)

Ian_Montrose said:


> I'm torn on this one. On the one hand it's tempting to fall in behind the idea that he was a gun-totting, drug-dealing gangster and that society is better off without him. However, we have laws and they should apply to everyone - ordinary people, the police and even gun-totting gangsters.
> 
> The jury's verdict confuses me:
> 
> ...


From what I can gather, it was unanimously agreed he had a gun in the taxi. 9-1 that he through the gun out of the taxi when it stopped (the 1 juror didnt agree because there was no specific evidence that he threw it). 8-2 lawful killing in that the police genuinely thought he had a gun in his posession and was reaching for it (the 2 jurors that didnt decide lawful killing also didnt decide un lawful killing, they returned an open verdict so sat on the fence).

So, man picks up gun, police stop vehicle said man is in and throws gun out of window as vehicle stops (presumably without the police seeing this), man jumps out of car at which point is seen reaching across his waist and is shot by police who still believe him to be in possession of the gun.


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

husky said:


> nah i'd rather him and all like him are put in a box 6 foot under than pay for his upkeep in jail - make the streets far safer and bullets are cheaper than jail time


That's partly why we are a decent country, what separates us from **** holes like North Korea is that we value life and believe in justice and not revenge.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Fatso said:


> we value life and believe in justice and not revenge.


Unlike the cvnt family of this wastrel, insighting riots again because they didn't get they perceived "justice"


----------



## Dave 0511 (Feb 13, 2009)

waste of time having a trial/inquest. another loser off the streets, one down many more to go and good riddance

This is all just pandering for the south london wannabee gangsters, just like the charles de menenzes inquest was a waste of time, should have been a very simple "illegal immigrant runs from armed police in wake of attempted terrorist attacks wearing backpack", open and closed... unfortunate but his own fault

no sympathy whatsoever


----------



## griffo13 (Dec 7, 2009)

if he was a law abiding citizen... there might be an argument..... but he was so far from it.... he was involved in so many other serious crimes....correct action was taken.... I feel sorry for his family... but the poor chap brought it on himself....


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

no-way said:


> From what I can gather, it was unanimously agreed he had a gun in the taxi. 9-1 that he through the gun out of the taxi when it stopped (the 1 juror didnt agree because there was no specific evidence that he threw it). 8-2 lawful killing in that the police genuinely thought he had a gun in his posession and was reaching for it (the 2 jurors that didnt decide lawful killing also didnt decide un lawful killing, they returned an open verdict so sat on the fence).
> 
> So, man picks up gun, police stop vehicle said man is in and throws gun out of window as vehicle stops (presumably without the police seeing this), man jumps out of car at which point is seen reaching across his waist and is shot by police who still believe him to be in possession of the gun.


OK, I can accept that, it makes some sense. I don't know how reliable the intelligence was as to him having a gun but if the officer(s) had been reliably informed that he was armed and if he behaved in a non-compliant and threatening manner then maybe it's a fair finding.

At the end of the day, I wasn't on the jury and do not care enough to go reading through the entire transcript so I'll accept the judgement as is.


----------



## Dan100% (Feb 19, 2013)

What happened to the police using rubber bullets?


----------



## Bomber1966 (Aug 19, 2010)

Dan100% said:


> What happened to the police using rubber bullets?


They don't work agains real criminals with real guns.....


----------



## Bomber1966 (Aug 19, 2010)

banjodeano said:


> thats assuming the police didnt place a gun where they wanted it to be...time and again they have been proved to be liars....Hilsborough...plebgate..etc etc


I think it's reasonable to assume that if they were going to go to the trouble of planting a gun they would have put it somewhere better than 6meters away... Like in his hand !


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Ian_Montrose said:


> I get your sentiment but do we really want to live in a country where the police can go around slotting people because they reckon they're a wrong 'un? I'll match your cliche with another common one - "Innocent until proven guilty" - one of the cornerstone priniples of our legal system. Whether he had a gun or not, unless he presented an immediate threat to life, he had the right to a fair trial - not summary execution in the street by the police.


Yes.Im perfectly comfortable for the police to randomly shoot anyone who is carrying an unlicensed firearm, whether they present an immediate threat or not.


----------



## Dan100% (Feb 19, 2013)

Bomber1966 said:


> They don't work agains real criminals with real guns.....


I thought rubber bullets can kill, but are less likely too?


----------



## husky (Jan 31, 2010)

Fatso said:


> That's partly why we are a decent country, what separates us from **** holes like North Korea is that we value life and believe in justice and not revenge.


no thats why this country has become the $hithole of europe where gangs run wild doing what they want to who they want and know fine well that they get away with it 99/100- well in this case it was the one that didnt get away- revenge was not a factor in this lawful killing, him failing to do as he was instructed by armed officers was, the second he chose to not do as they told him was the deciding factor.


----------



## cub (Jul 14, 2011)

He was a gang member, a drug dealer, with six kids by different mothers. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over the death of a lowlife. They're ten a penny in London, just look at the scumbags who rioted after his death.


----------



## Bomber1966 (Aug 19, 2010)

Dan100% said:


> I thought rubber bullets can kill, but are less likely too?


Exactly that....If you perceive you need to stop someone to stop them killing you or someone else, then you need to be sure you will stop them... Only a real bullet to the central core mass is pretty much guaranteed to do this...


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

Ian_Montrose said:


> OK, I can accept that, it makes some sense. *I don't know how reliable the intelligence was as to him having a gun but if the officer(s) had been reliably informed that he was armed and if he behaved in a non-compliant and threatening manner then maybe it's a fair finding.*
> 
> At the end of the day, I wasn't on the jury and do not care enough to go reading through the entire transcript so I'll accept the judgement as is.


That's what I was getting at with my comment on belief. He believed the guy was armed and believed he was doing something that would ultimately endanger life so made a judgement.


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

Dan100% said:


> I do wonder why Michael Adebolajo &Michael Adebowale, was just wounded but the policy was shoot to kill Duggan.


There isn't really anything other than shoot to kill. All firearms trained officers are trained to shoot at the centre of mass and that's it, unless it's a special case like a suicide bomber etc. You aim for centre of mass and you shoot until you believe the target is no linger a threat.



Dan100% said:


> What happened to the police using rubber bullets?


Rubber bullets aren't what I imagine you think they are. They're 40mm baton rounds and used for riot control. They're not really bullets in the common perceived sense of the word.


----------



## Dan100% (Feb 19, 2013)

mikep81 said:


> There isn't really anything other than shoot to kill. All firearms trained officers are trained to shoot at the centre of mass and that's it, unless it's a special case like a suicide bomber etc. You aim for centre of mass and you shoot until you believe the target is no linger a threat.
> 
> Rubber bullets aren't what I imagine you think they are. They're 40mm baton rounds and used for riot control. They're not really bullets in the common perceived sense of the word.


Cleared that up, thanks


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

husky said:


> no thats why this country has become the $hithole of europe where gangs run wild doing what they want.


Do you think other European countries don't have such problems?


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Fatso said:


> That's partly why we are a decent country, what separates us from **** holes like North Korea is that we value life and believe in justice and not revenge.


North Korea?

To be fair, the way things are going in the world, governments can't afford to be as decent and just as they used to be anymore...the lawless and violent are getting out of hand. If a drugdealer is walking down the street or whatever the case maybe with a hidden handgun (and Mark Dugan had been under surveillance so the police more than likely knew he was out to shoot somebody) he is literally playing with peoples lives, his own included. (Live by the sword).

I for one don't want to live in a world where people like that are given the benefit of the doubt.

America is an urban war zone mate and the government are losing...believe me, North Korea is far more civilised than America..U.K. is only trying to keep one step ahead of that and rightly so.


----------



## husky (Jan 31, 2010)

Fatso said:


> Do you think other European countries don't have such problems?


Dont honestly give too flying fecks about other european countries mate, THIS is my country and it fallen so far down the gutter due to the likes of Duggan getting let run around and do what they like to who they like with no fear of getting brought to justice, if it takes the police going out and targeting this type of lowlife i'm sure that most of the population will be all for it- carry a gun you take a risk of getting one in the head from the coppers fair do's.


----------



## cub (Jul 14, 2011)

Duggan's uncle was a Manchester crime lord. Duggan's brother shouted "Fvck them" to the jury and to the media afterwards he said "The people who do need to hide know who they are", the aunt thrust her fist in the air and said "No justice, no peace", echoed by another brother.

Lovely family.


----------



## Ballin (Aug 24, 2011)

Ask yourself would you have been given Special treatment by him if he pulled a gun you?

Would he ****, so why does he deserve preferential treatment over his victims?


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

husky said:


> Dont honestly give too flying fecks about other european countries mate, THIS is my country and it fallen so far down the gutter due to the likes of Duggan getting let run around and do what they like to who they like with no fear of getting brought to justice, if it takes the police going out and targeting this type of lowlife i'm sure that most of the population will be all for it- carry a gun you take a risk of getting one in the head from the coppers fair do's.


You said this country is the **** hole of Europe due to gangs etc etc. I don't think that is true.

Ultimately, I am pleased he is no longer on the streets and I am pleased other members of his gang are locked up.


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

Ballin said:


> Ask yourself would you have been given Special treatment by him if he pulled a gun you?
> 
> Would he ****, so why does he deserve preferential treatment over his victims?


Because the state has a responsibility to its citizens to enforce the law and ensure justice is carried out. As far as I know, unlawful killing is...unlawful.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

cub said:


> ....with six kids by different mothers.....


With poor safety drills like that he's lucky he never shot himself in the foot. Oh wait......

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

"He was once allegedly treated in hospital for a gunshot wound to his foot"


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

I mean, ****, a former very senior ex cop at my work recently told a load of us down the pub how he fitted people up those he "knew" were wrong'uns...hate that ****.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Fatso said:


> Do you think other European countries don't have such problems?


Truth is mate, EVERYWHERE has these type of problems, and not just recently. This type of thing has always gone on.


----------



## husky (Jan 31, 2010)

Fatso said:


> Because the state has a responsibility to its citizens to enforce the law and ensure justice is carried out. As far as I know, unlawful killing is...unlawful.


was lawful


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

Anyway, Duggan's mum looks like a right bulldog.


----------



## husky (Jan 31, 2010)

Fatso said:


> You said this country is the **** hole of Europe due to gangs etc etc. I don't think that is true.
> 
> Ultimately, I am pleased he is no longer on the streets and I am pleased other members of his gang are locked up.


maybes i see more than you do mate


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Ian_Montrose said:


> With poor safety drills like that he's lucky he never shot himself in the foot. Oh wait......
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25363828:
> 
> "He was once allegedly treated in hospital for a gunshot wound to his foot"


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## Ballin (Aug 24, 2011)

Fatso said:


> Because the state has a responsibility to its citizens to enforce the law and ensure justice is carried out. As far as I know, unlawful killing is...unlawful.


Well this was ruled a lawful killing so that's the end of the matter.

I don't understand why people are being so romantic about this.

I bet if he shot your mum because the police didn't apprehend him you'd be asking why they did nothing.


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

husky said:


> was lawful


I never said it wasn't. I was responding to Ballin. I was commenting that the state's internal security have a duty of care, unlike gangsters who don't give a ****.


----------



## benno_2010 (Oct 8, 2010)

i truly love it and seek happiness in seeing scumbag cvnts like him shot and killed


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Fatso said:


> I mean, ****, a former very senior ex cop at my work recently told a load of us down the pub how he fitted people up those he "knew" were wrong'uns...hate that ****.


Why?


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

Ballin said:


> Well this was ruled a lawful killing so that's the end of the matter.
> 
> I don't understand why people are being so romantic about this.
> 
> I bet if he shot your mum because the police didn't apprehend him you'd be asking why they did nothing.


No romance mate, I agree with the verdict. I am arguing against those who have a cavalier attitude to justice.


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

mixerD1 said:


> Why?


Because the police enforce the law, as far as I am aware, planting drugs on villains is not legal. Corruption is wrong full stop.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Fatso said:


> Because the police enforce the law, as far as I am aware, planting drugs on villains is not legal. Corruption is wrong full stop.


Ya but villains are corrupt. You should hate them too by the same token. In the case of the retired cop, he was probably pre-empting the villains in his own mind. As two others here said, live by the sword die by the sword...the villains don't play straight, why should the cops?

You're coming across a little bitter about this whole thing. Like as if you're on the side of the Dugan fellow.


----------



## husky (Jan 31, 2010)

Fatso said:


> No romance mate, I agree with the verdict. I am arguing against those who have a cavalier attitude to justice.


who has a cavalier attitude to justice?


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

Dan100% said:


> What happened to the police using rubber bullets?


they used them all in ireland


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

mixerD1 said:


> Ya but villains are corrupt. You should hate them too by the same token. In the case of the retired cop, he was probably pre-empting the villains in his own mind. As two others here said, live by the sword die by the sword...the villains don't play straight, why should the cops?
> 
> You're coming across a little bitter about this whole thing. Like as if you're on the side of the Dugan fellow.


You may want to try reading my posts again, in particular the one where I said I am pleased he and members of his gang are off the streets.

No bitterness, where did you get that from? If you can show me where I may indicate that I would be grateful. I am big on justice (through work) and four square behind the officer that shot him. It's an awful decision to make in a split second, I don't envy him.

Those who believe a citizen should be killed without due process of a fair trial - I believe they have a cavalier attitude to justice. Without fair trials etc we get tyranny.


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

Fatso said:


> Ultimately, I am pleased he is no longer on the streets and I am pleased other members of his gang are locked up.


----------



## Paisleylad (Jan 22, 2013)

The "he was shot due to being black" line is already doing me tits in... If this was the case then im paying for lenny henry to take an open top bus tour of london....the unfunny.annoying pr**k.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Fatso said:


> You may want to try reading my posts again, in particular the one where I said I am pleased he and members of his gang are off the streets.
> 
> No bitterness, where did you get that from? If you can show me where I may indicate that I would be grateful. I am big on justice (through work) and four square behind the officer that shot him. It's an awful decision to make in a split second, I don't envy him.
> 
> Those who believe a citizen should be killed without due process of a fair trial - I believe they have a cavalier attitude to justice. Without fair trials etc we get tyranny.


Sorry mate, I picked you up wrong, my apologies.


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

Paisleylad said:


> The "he was shot due to being black" line is already doing me tits in... If this was the case then im paying for lenny henry to take an open top bus tour of london....the unfunny.annoying pr**k.


Yeah I hate that rubbish. MP Diane Abbot is using that line.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Paisleylad said:


> The "he was shot due to being black" line is already doing me tits in... If this was the case then im paying for lenny henry to take an open top bus tour of london....the unfunny.annoying pr**k.


Was he black? Dugan's an Irish name.


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

There are loads of procedures the cops have to abide which in my view makes their job harder to arrest and convict serial offenders; I reckon these should be reviewed. I mean, I am all for human rights but too often the rights of the victim are ignored.


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

mixerD1 said:


> Was he black? Dugan's an Irish name.


Mixed race; he's related to the Irish/Mancunian Noonan family. Another bunch of scumbags that need locking up.


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

Fatso said:


> There are loads of procedures the cops have to abide which in my view makes their job harder to arrest and convict serial offenders; I reckon these should be reviewed. I mean, I am all for human rights but too often the rights of the victim are ignored.


the victim being Mark Dugan


----------



## Fatso (Dec 4, 2011)

barsnack said:


> the victim being Mark Dugan


If that is a coded jibe I missed it, sorry.


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

Fatso said:


> If that is a coded jibe I missed it, sorry.


you mustn't have, since you quoted me


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Fatso said:


> Mixed race; he's related to the Irish/Mancunian Noonan family. Another bunch of scumbags that need locking up.


Noonan, aye, another Irish name. AFAIK originally from Limerick, which is the criminal capital of Ireland and one of the most uncontrollable, corrupt cities in Europe. As you said yourself, scumbags, they really are of no benefit to the world...do they deserve much in the line of justice? No IMO.


----------



## Southern Karate Guy (Feb 27, 2014)

What about all the lives that little scumbag has ruined ,i dont have any sympathy for him at all


----------



## spod (Mar 25, 2010)

It boils my pi55 that the police have to apologise or explain themselves to the PC brigade for *doing their fcuking job *and protecting the public by removing an armed criminal from society.

I wish someone in the public eye would have the balls to say it's not a racial thing and that black, white, asian....whatever you are.....we're happy to shoot *any* known criminal and gang member carrying illegal firearms!

I don't particularly believe the police account word for word, but i sincerely believe the fact that a man with intent to commit serious crime (which is the* only *reason why anyone would carry an unlicensed pistol) now hasn't got the opportunity to harm others is absolutely a cause for celebration! :gun_bandana:


----------



## Steviant (Sep 6, 2013)

Ian_Montrose said:


> I'm torn on this one. On the one hand it's tempting to fall in behind the idea that he was a gun-totting, drug-dealing gangster and that society is better off without him. However, we have laws and they should apply to everyone - ordinary people, the police and even gun-totting gangsters.
> 
> The jury's verdict confuses me:
> 
> ...


You can read the whole text of the findings online, the Guardian has a transcript as do some government websites. Essentially though the jury had to decide if the Policeman who shot Duggan reasonably believed that he was armed and posed a threat at the time he was shot. The jury have accepted that he was not armed at this point, but this is based on evidence (such as the location of the firearm) that would not have been available to the officer at the time.

Duggan had convictions for cannabis dealing and posession, and posession of stolen goods. He had been arrested twice for murder, although never charged, and been the focus of a Police operation (Dibri) related to a sudden rise in gun related incidents in London nightclubs. On the other hand some of the Police intelligence was rated "E", their lowest grade, and could not be considered reliable.

What is beyond question is that Mark Duggan had obtained a gun from a man known to be a "quartermaster" for gangs. This individual has been convicted by a jury of supplying him with a weapon, and sent to prison. So the intelligence that he was armed was accurate.

This is what the jury had to consider when assessing the policeman's actions and they were considering what that policeman would have been able to base his decision on, and how much time he had to make his decision.

That his family and other community activists have chosen to avoid discussing or acknowledging that he had a gun with live ammunition in the car with him and have preferred to act as if the Police had something to gain by shooting him is disappointing but predictable.

I would only make the following point - an armed criminal is shot in the street by the Police. The officer is automatically suspended and an inquiry launched. Regardless, several nights of rioting and looting follow.

A soldier is murdered in the street by two muslim extremists, who attempt to behead him. No rioting follows.

In response to the first incident, newspapers write long articles about the breakdown in "trust" with the "community", the head of the met offers to meet the family, and a police officer is spat on outside court. MP's like Diane Abbott openly criticise the jury process undermining its legitimacy etc.

In response to the second, the media focus on the possibility of a rise in Islamophobia, and the need for calm etc. In the event there is no violent anti-muslim backlash. The accused are given the best medical treatment available, and allowed to plead not guilty at a jury trial, despite overwhelming evidence against them.

I'm sure Mark Duggan's family are upset, but they need to ask themselves how he ended up getting shot and what they could have done to prevent it, rather than pretending it's the evil racist police.


----------



## Wheyman (Sep 6, 2011)

what is a man dem?


----------



## latsius (Jul 16, 2012)

Although he was shot while unarmed with the weapon inside a sock some feet away

I must say... done believe all that u read in the papers... if the met police believe u a threat to society just like teror suspects. U will be either shot and killed or taken to prison for 20-30 years for a minor offence. The system is controlled by lords and peers not the house of commons.

Lads in bham that shot at a police helicopter no bullets were ever going to hit that chopper but the offenders were known gang members. They were wiped off the streets fro 20 odd years. Dont fcuk around and u wont be on there target list. As for his aunty... psht... deluded chav acting black whwn shes white. Feel sorry for these people. Its sad when a life is lost. But u cant beat the goverment. And if u ****ss around too mich. Ur gtn killed or taken away. Believe it.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

Steviant said:


> You can read the whole text of the findings online, the Guardian has a transcript as do some government websites. Essentially though the jury had to decide if the Policeman who shot Duggan reasonably believed that he was armed and posed a threat at the time he was shot. The jury have accepted that he was not armed at this point, but this is based on evidence (such as the location of the firearm) that would not have been available to the officer at the time.
> 
> Duggan had convictions for cannabis dealing and posession, and posession of stolen goods. He had been arrested twice for murder, although never charged, and been the focus of a Police operation (Dibri) related to a sudden rise in gun related incidents in London nightclubs. On the other hand some of the Police intelligence was rated "E", their lowest grade, and could not be considered reliable.
> 
> ...


Lots of good points. As I said in my original post I was "confused" by the verdict. Having had time to review it properly I am now much less confused. My main point was not being sure about the need for the police to actually see a gun before opening fire. All is a lot clearer now. For the record, I am very much pro law and order but that includes believing that the police do so by consent, are fallible and thus should be subject to public scrutiny.

Your point about the riots and protests is an interesting one. I was watching the news last night and the various scenes of rabid mobs shouting abuse at the police and anyone else that caught their eye. Yet where was all this outrage and concern each time someone has fallen victim to gun crime which seems to be ever increasing?


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Ian_Montrose said:


> Lots of good points. As I said in my original post I was "confused" by the verdict. Having had time to review it properly I am now much less confused. My main point was not being sure about the need for the police to actually see a gun before opening fire. All is a lot clearer now. For the record, I am very much pro law and order but that includes believing that the police do so by consent, are fallible and thus should be subject to public scrutiny.
> 
> Your point about the riots and protests is an interesting one. I was watching the news last night and the various scenes of rabid mobs shouting abuse at the police and anyone else that caught their eye. Yet where was all this outrage and concern each time someone has fallen victim to gun crime which seems to be ever increasing?


It's trendy for the scum of society to hate the police. These mouth-breathers are little more than vermin.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

From what came out in the inquest, I have no problem whatsoever with this guy being shot.

He was a known scumbag, who the police were targeting in an operation because they knew he had picked up a gun. The officer who shot him made a split second decision, and though this decision later turned out to be incorrect, it's the sort of mistake that will inevitably happen when the police are dealing with armed criminals.


----------



## spod (Mar 25, 2010)

Wheyman said:


> what is a man dem?


...an unemployed petty criminal with delusions of grandeur. :thumb:


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Major Eyeswater said:


> From what came out in the inquest, I have no problem whatsoever with this guy being shot.
> 
> He was a known scumbag, who the police were targeting in an operation because they knew he had picked up a gun. The officer who shot him made a split second decision, and though this decision later turned out to be incorrect, it's the sort of mistake that will inevitably happen when the police are dealing with armed criminals.


I was reading in the paper the other day that the Met Police drew their guns 1000+ times last year and on only 6 occasions did they actually fire them, this goes to show they're not exactly trigger happy.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Wheyman said:


> what is a man dem?


A group of men.

Innit.


----------



## Jim78 (Aug 20, 2010)

The only justice that wasn't served yesterday was the auntie declaring "no peace" being shot through the hand by the old bill as she thrust her fist in the air....deluded ****wits spring to mind......glad the old bill shot him tbh, **** if he had a gun about him at the time, he was a loose cannon roaming the streets armed and dangerous, funny how when the police actually get serious the underworld gangs are the 1st to moan about rights and justice, what about the people who lost their lives in their path of destruction? about fukin time the coppers shot 1st and answered questions later, he was a leech on society anyway.


----------



## Andy Dee (Jun 1, 2008)

Im glad he got shot, kill every other tw4t just like him, and then some more of them. that is all.


----------



## Wheyman (Sep 6, 2011)

Smitch said:


> A group of men.
> 
> Innit.


ok so a bit like your peers or friends, like the chess group or something like that?


----------



## AshleyW (Feb 28, 2013)

still though the jury said the gun wasn't in his hand so I ask the question why was he shot? regardless of his past which might I add he only had minor convictions, why wasn't he jailed why did they chose to shoot when no gun was present?


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Wheyman said:


> ok so a bit like your peers or friends, like the chess group or something like that?


Pretty much yeah.

Or your local church group.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

AshleyW said:


> still though the jury said the gun wasn't in his hand so I ask the question why was he shot? regardless of his past which might I add he only had minor convictions, why wasn't he jailed why did they chose to shoot when no gun was present?


If you had intelligence that he had a gun, and you hadn't seen him throw it you'd assume he still had it. If he then made a sudden move you may think he was going for his gun and shoot him. It was a tragic thing, but not a case of the police executing him, he wasn't that much of a criminal kingpin.

At the end of the day if you're prepared to carry a gun you should accept that there's a chance you're gonna get shot, these d1ckheads think it's some kind of badge of honour though or something.


----------



## AshleyW (Feb 28, 2013)

Smitch said:


> If you had intelligence that he had a gun, and you hadn't seen him throw it you'd assume he still had it. If he then made a sudden move you may think he was going for his gun and shoot him. It was a tragic thing, but not a case of the police executing him, he wasn't that much of a criminal kingpin.
> 
> At the end of the day if you're prepared to carry a gun you should accept that there's a chance you're gonna get shot, these d1ckheads think it's some kind of badge of honour though or something.


I just think coming from a military background that we where told to fire as a last resort, doesn't seem like the office had no other choice but to fire, I don't even know the guy but I do think the police where a little to hasty just like the Brazilian guy that was shot running through a London train station! I respect the job they do but I feel the training is not geared around how random some armed officers may react when under serious pressure


----------



## josephbloggs (Sep 29, 2013)

If you decide to run around with a gun then getting shot by the police is an occupational hazard. Who knows what would have happened with that gun the next day, maybe another innocent bystander caught in the crossfire of some idiot gang sh9t.

That said the police acted so shady and really fcked up when originally releasing a statement that Duggan was shot during an exchange of gun fire. I think the whole original kick off in tottehnam could have been avoided but for that misinformation. Because there were a lot of eye witnesses that saw that there was definitely no exchange of gun fire, so it just looked like a another Jean Charles de Menezes case were an innocent man had been wrongly targeted and the police were making up some BS story of a gun fight to cover their 9rses.

They always seem to lie their 9rses off in these events . Even with the de Menezes case they made up lie after lie about how he failed to stop when they had asked him to, when all eye witnesses said at the inquest that no attempt to stop him or no warning was given before he was grabbed on the train and shot dead. The Duggan case is completely different as he was an armed criminal, but the immediate lies about events in the Duggan shooting played a part in stirring up all the sh9t that followed.


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

latsius said:


> Although he was shot while unarmed with the weapon inside a sock some feet away
> 
> I must say... done believe all that u read in the papers... if the met police believe u a threat to society just like teror suspects. U will be either shot and killed or taken to prison for 20-30 years for a minor offence. The system is controlled by lords and peers not the house of commons.
> 
> *Lads in bham that shot at a police helicopter no bullets were ever going to hit that chopper* but the offenders were known gang members. They were wiped off the streets fro 20 odd years. Dont fcuk around and u wont be on there target list. As for his aunty... psht... deluded chav acting black whwn shes white. Feel sorry for these people. Its sad when a life is lost. But u cant beat the goverment. And if u ****ss around too mich. Ur gtn killed or taken away. Believe it.


Unless the chopper was flying too high to see, the bullets could have hit it. Even small, low grain calibres will travel 1 to 2 miles!


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

AshleyW said:


> I just think coming from a military background that we where told to fire as a last resort, doesn't seem like the office had no other choice but to fire, I don't even know the guy but I do think the police where a little to hasty just like the Brazilian guy that was shot running through a London train station! I respect the job they do but I feel the training is not geared around how random some armed officers may react when under serious pressure


The thing is, some people do jobs where a split-second decision literally means the difference between life or death. We need those jobs done so have to accept that sometimes the wrong decision will be made with very serious consequences. Now, when such people make the wrong mistake due to negligence, incompetence or just out of badness, they and/or their superiors must be held to account. However, when they make the wrong decision with the best of intentions it would be unjust to punish them and could ultimately mean that nobody is prepared to do those jobs, to the detriment of our society.

In this case, the officers involved had been briefed by their COC that the suspect was armed and very dangerous. So they stopped his vehicle, which he then exited. The officer in question allegedly believed he was acting in a non-compliant manner and wa reaching for his weapon. So the officer made a split-second decision and opened fire to protect himself and his colleagues. Except, the word "alleged" no longer applies because that version of events has been accepted as the truth by a jury. Unless the verdict delivered at the inquest is later found to be unsound as part of the inevitable appeal or judicial review, that is the end of it and so it should be. Our legal and criminal justice system is not perfect, I don't think it ever could be, but there are few countries where law enforcement is subject to as rigorous oversight as ours is.

The Jean Charles de Menezes shooting that you mention was tragic. Very different from the Duggan shooting in the sense that the victim had no flies on him other than his dubious immigration status. More mistakes were made in that instance and the intelligence that the officers who shot him were acting on was flawed. However, again, we have to look at the factors involved for all those who had to make those split-second life-or-death decisions. Remember that his shooting took place just two weeks after a series of terrorist bombings in the capital and there was still a very real fear that more were imminent. God only knows how much stress and pressure all those involved in protecting us were under at that time. So yes they made mistakes but under the circumstances those mistakes were understandable and, as in the Duggan case, due legal process was followed and our courts found that nobody deserved to be punished for those mistakes. It doesn't change the tragic impact on the victim or his family but what good is served by sacking or jailing people who made honest mistakes, under extremely difficult circumstances, whilst trying to protect the public?


----------



## WannaGetHench (Aug 22, 2010)

did anyone notice the black power salute?


----------



## josephbloggs (Sep 29, 2013)

Ian_Montrose said:


> The thing is, some people do jobs where a split-second decision literally means the difference between life or death. We need those jobs done so have to accept that sometimes the wrong decision will be made with very serious consequences. Now, when such people make the wrong mistake due to negligence, incompetence or just out of badness, they and/or their superiors must be held to account. However, when they make the wrong decision with the best of intentions it would be unjust to punish them and could ultimately mean that nobody is prepared to do those jobs, to the detriment of our society.
> 
> In this case, the officers involved had been briefed by their COC that the suspect was armed and very dangerous. So they stopped his vehicle, which he then exited. The officer in question allegedly believed he was acting in a non-compliant manner and wa reaching for his weapon. So the officer made a split-second decision and opened fire to protect himself and his colleagues. Except, the word "alleged" no longer applies because that version of events has been accepted as the truth by a jury. Unless the verdict delivered at the inquest is later found to be unsound as part of the inevitable appeal or judicial review, that is the end of it and so it should be. Our legal and criminal justice system is not perfect, I don't think it ever could be, but there are few countries where law enforcement is subject to as rigorous oversight as ours is.
> 
> The Jean Charles de Menezes shooting that you mention was tragic. Very different from the Duggan shooting in the sense that the victim had no flies on him other than his dubious immigration status. More mistakes were made in that instance and the intelligence that the officers who shot him were acting on was flawed. However, again, we have to look at the factors involved for all those who had to make those split-second life-or-death decisions. Remember that his shooting took place just two weeks after a series of terrorist bombings in the capital and there was still a very real fear that more were imminent. God only knows how much stress and pressure all those involved in protecting us were under at that time. *So yes they made mistakes but under the circumstances those mistakes were understandable and, as in the Duggan case, due legal process was followed and our courts found that nobody deserved to be punished for those mistakes.* It doesn't change the tragic impact on the victim or his family but what good is served by sacking or jailing people who made honest mistakes, under extremely difficult circumstances, whilst trying to protect the public?


Only difference was that the jury in the de Menezes inquest were instructed that they could not pass an unlawful killing verdict, only an open verdict or lawful killing verdict. Which seems odd as no such restrictions were placed on the Duggan inquest jury.

I'm sure most people would be more likely to see the shooting of a completely innocent wrongly identified man as unlawful than the shooting of a known criminal in possession of a firearm. Almost as if they took that option off the table in the de Menezes case because they knew there was a good chance a jury would have likely opted for that verdict had they been allowed, but didn't bother with that restriction with the Duggan case because they knew it was not a likley outcome anyway. Shady fkers.


----------



## Leeds89 (Feb 13, 2012)

Can't believe people are upset about this piece of sh1t being killed. I've had run ins with this kind of scum before and a bullet is far better than they deserve


----------



## skinnnyfat (Feb 26, 2012)

Dave 0511 said:


> waste of time having a trial/inquest. another loser off the streets, one down many more to go and good riddance
> 
> This is all just pandering for the south london wannabee gangsters, just like the charles de menenzes inquest was a waste of time, should have been a very simple "illegal immigrant runs from armed police in wake of attempted terrorist attacks wearing backpack", open and closed... unfortunate but his own fault
> 
> no sympathy whatsoever


The innocent john Charles De menzies did not Have a back pack and was not running, the police told those lies to justify killing an innocent man. Then the cctv footage magically got deleted by police.

We can assume that mark duggan did not throw the gun into a bush after being shot which indicates he was unarmed when the Police killed him. The police invloved have clearly lied again so what evidence do.we have that any of their claims of his criminality.are legitimate.


----------



## ConstantCut (Apr 21, 2011)

My best wishes lie with the Officer and his/her family who will have had to go through the long investigation process as a result of the shooting.


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

skinnnyfat said:


> The innocent john Charles De menzies did not Have a back pack and was not running, the police told those lies to justify killing an innocent man. Then the cctv footage magically got deleted by police.
> 
> We can assume that mark duggan did not throw the gun into a bush after being shot which indicates he was unarmed when the Police killed him. The police invloved have clearly lied again so what evidence do.we have that any of their claims of his criminality.are legitimate.


With the Duggan case didn't they only state that they believed Duggan was still armed and thus posed an immediate threat to life?!

With the De Menzes case you can't blame the officers involved in the shooting for that fvck up. That was down to the surveillance and int they were given.


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

mikep81 said:


> With the Duggan case didn't they only state that they believed Duggan was still armed and thus posed an immediate threat to life?!
> 
> *With the De Menzes case you can't blame the officers involved in the shooting for that fvck up*. That was down to the surveillance and int they were given.


how?

Oh and anyone mentioning that the cops who shot him must have been under so much stress with the terrorist attack weeks earlier, well if that's the case, they shouldn't have been working


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

barsnack said:


> how?
> 
> Oh and anyone mentioning that the cops who shot him must have been under so much stress with the terrorist attack weeks earlier, well if that's the case, they shouldn't have been working


Because the intelligence they were given was wrong. They were basically told that De Menzes was a suicide bomber already on a train, and given the situation at the time and the nature of suicide bombers they had no option but to shoot him in the head. They were not at fault, it was everyone around them who led them to believe that a suicide bomber had somehow managed to get onto a train that were in the wrong.


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

mikep81 said:


> Because the intelligence they were given was wrong. They were basically told that De Menzes was a suicide bomber already on a train, and given the situation at the time and the nature of suicide bombers they had no option but to shoot him in the head. They were not at fault, it was everyone around them who led them to believe that a suicide bomber had someone how managed to get onto a train that were in the wrong.


was just curious...only thing if I remember, didn't they wrestle him to the ground first then pumped 8 bullets into him....but yeah the intelligence was nearly as bad as the intended cover up


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

josephbloggs said:


> Only difference was that the jury in the de Menezes inquest were instructed that they could not pass an unlawful killing verdict, only an open verdict or lawful killing verdict. Which seems odd as no such restrictions were placed on the Duggan inquest jury.
> 
> I'm sure most people would be more likely to see the shooting of a completely innocent wrongly identified man as unlawful than the shooting of a known criminal in possession of a firearm. Almost as if they took that option off the table in the de Menezes case because they knew there was a good chance a jury would have likely opted for that verdict had they been allowed, but didn't bother with that restriction with the Duggan case because they knew it was not a likley outcome anyway. Shady fkers.


But how can this be Joe?

We live in a democracy don't we??


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

barsnack said:


> was just curious...only thing if I remember, didn't they wrestle him to the ground first then pumped 8 bullets into him....but yeah the intelligence was nearly as bad as the intended cover up


Well yeah the discrepancies within statements etc, although slight discrepancies is normal, were unacceptable. I think another aspect that made the cover up seem worse was the differing statements from witness reports. One guy said on 4 shots were fired, one guy said 8 shots were fired (I think it was 7 altogether), one guy said no warning was given, one guy said a police officer jumped on the train and shouted for everyone to get off before the shots were fired (which turned out to be wrong as that happened after the shots were fired), and then the media and their bog standard twisting of facts didn't help the situation.

Another thing that caused problems and outrage with the whole incident was the nature in which he was shot. Everyone was shocked that he was shot 6 times in the face because this isn't something that the British public has ever seen before, but unfortunately, in this case, this is the only way you can deal with a suicide bomber. You can't give a warning first because if he has a mercury switch all he needs to do is put his hands in the air and the thing goes off!


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

mixerD1 said:


> But how can this be Joe?
> 
> We live in a democracy don't we??


I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the unlawful killing verdict would mean that the officers who pulled the trigger would be at fault and have to face murder charges, which is why they denied the option to the jury. The officers weren't at fault in the execution of their actions it was the intelligence that led them to believe he was a suicide bomber that was at fault.


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

mikep81 said:


> Well yeah the discrepancies within statements etc, although slight discrepancies is normal, were unacceptable. I think another aspect that made the cover up seem worse was the differing statements from witness reports. One guy said on 4 shots were fired, one guy said 8 shots were fired (I think it was 7 altogether), one guy said no warning was given, one guy said a police officer jumped on the train and shouted for everyone to get off before the shots were fired (which turned out to be wrong as that happened after the shots were fired), and then the media and their bog standard twisting of facts didn't help the situation.
> 
> Another thing that caused problems and outrage with the whole incident was the nature in which he was shot. Everyone was shocked that he was shot 6 times in the face because this isn't something that the British public has ever seen before, but unfortunately, in this case, this is the only way you can deal with a suicide bomber. You can't give a warning first because if he has a mercury switch all he needs to do is put his hands in the air and the thing goes off!


yeah wasn't some special unit involved SRR...anyhow, was a fook up of epic proportions


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

mikep81 said:


> Because the intelligence they were given was wrong. They were basically told that De Menzes was a suicide bomber already on a train, and given the situation at the time and the nature of suicide bombers they had no option but to shoot him in the head. They were not at fault, it was everyone around them who led them to believe that a suicide bomber had somehow managed to get onto a train that were in the wrong.


The thing with the Demenez case is that the police and intelligence services were expecting another imminent attack and were tracking literally dozens of known suspects plus desperately trying to identify any unknown suspects. It's not hard to imagine how stretched they were and how much strain they were under.

As to the men who shot him I can only imagine the weight they carry on their conscience and I feel for them. For all those that criticise them though, I wonder if you have the balls to chase someone you have been told is a soon-to-detonate suicide bomber into a tube station. I'm surprised they could run with balls that big! The manner in which they neutralised him may seem horrific but a suicide bomber is an unconventional threat and so conventional tactics don't work. Shouting warnings to someone intent on dying anyway is hardly going to be met with a surrender. Whoever they were (not conventional firearms officers IMO) it's clear they had been well drilled in very specific tactics and executed them as they believed necessary based on the information fed to them by their controllers.


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

barsnack said:


> yeah wasn't some special unit involved SRR...anyhow, was a fook up of epic proportions


The reports suggest that SRR was only involved in the op from a ground surveillance point of view and that all SRR officers were unarmed. There is speculation, as @Ian_Montrose points out that it was in fact SRR that pulled the trigger. But this is purely speculation and nothing has been written to confirm or deny it as far as I'm aware. The government would probably likely never admit it anyway because I imagine that the public wouldn't take too kindly to the reality that there are armed soldiers operating on home soil.


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

Ian_Montrose said:


> The thing with the Demenez case is that the police and intelligence services were expecting another imminent attack and were tracking literally dozens of known suspects plus desperately trying to identify any unknown suspects. It's not hard to imagine how stretched they were and how much strain they were under.
> 
> As to the men who shot him I can only imagine the weight they carry on their conscience and I feel for them. For all those that criticise them though, I wonder if you have the balls to chase someone you have been told is a soon-to-detonate suicide bomber into a tube station. I'm surprised they could run with balls that big! The manner in which they neutralised him may seem horrific but a suicide bomber is an unconventional threat and so conventional tactics don't work. Shouting warnings to someone intent on dying anyway is hardly going to be met with a surrender. Whoever they were (not conventional firearms officers IMO) it's clear they had been well drilled in very specific tactics and executed them as they believed necessary based on the information fed to them by their controllers.


I don't buy the entire, 'feel bad for the person who pulled the trigger ****e', they got in that type of job knowing that was a possibility, so im guessing there fine with that..i do feel sorry for authority who kill people in 'forced suicides' where someone threatens cops with the only goal to force being shot...otherwise, they picked a job where that's a possibility so don't go crying when you have to follow through


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

barsnack said:


> I don't buy the entire, 'feel bad for the person who pulled the trigger ****e', they got in that type of job knowing that was a possibility, so im guessing there fine with that..i do feel sorry for authority who kill people in 'forced suicides' where someone threatens cops with the only goal to force being shot...otherwise, they picked a job where that's a possibility so don't go crying when you have to follow through


I think he was getting at the fact that those officer will know for the rest of their lives that they killed an innocent man because of someone else's fvck up. That's not something that any one operating firearms signs up for and something that no one wants to have to experience. Them killing an innocent man because of someone else's fvck up is no different really to your scenario in that the decision to kill someone who didn't need to be killed has been removed from them and made by someone else. In your scenario it's a suicidal person that needs help that decides for the cop, in the Menezes case it was sh!t surveillance that made the decision for the officer to pull the trigger.


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

mixerD1 said:


> But how can this be Joe?
> 
> We live in a democracy don't we??


Judges instruct juries all the time.

Most likely because there's a nuance of law that lay people can't necessarily be expected to understand the significance of - that's not why they are there - they are there to come to consensus, or not as the case may be, with the options that the judge gives them on a case.

This is the judicial process, it has no direct connection to the system of government in place, unless you're trying to foist / conflate one.


----------



## Steviant (Sep 6, 2013)

One of the most infuriating thing about this case for me has been the attempt by Duggan's family and supporters to compare his death to Ian Tomlinson, Harry Stanley etc.

Those individuals were unarmed, and posed no credible threat to the Police at the time they were shot or attacked. In Tomlinson's case, camera phones led to the trial of the officer concerned and his removal from duty.

In the De Menezes case, although the Police were rightly criticised for the inaccurate (or dishonest) statements in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the atmosphere at the time was very tense, coming so soon after the 7/7 bombings. In that case the Police on the ground, as far as we can ascertain, had been told that he was a live suicide bomb threat.

Mr Duggan was not an innocent passerby. As has already been noted the Police can use lethal force if they believe that their life is in danger, or that the lives of others are in danger. As has also been noted, out of 12,500 authorisations to use firearms, they pulled the trigger 5 times last year.

Mark Duggan should not be compared with innocent people. As someone said - if the Police hadn't killed Mark Duggan, he would have killed someone with the gun he was carrying. The only certain thing is that someone would have died. Personally I am not sorry that it was Mr Duggan, he made a choice and that choice had consequences.


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

Steviant said:


> One of the most infuriating thing about this case for me has been the attempt by Duggan's family and supporters to compare his death to Ian Tomlinson, Harry Stanley etc.
> 
> Those individuals were unarmed, and posed no credible threat to the Police at the time they were shot or attacked. In Tomlinson's case, camera phones led to the trial of the officer concerned and his removal from duty.
> 
> ...


One of the other aspects that's irritated me, is the attempted insinuation of this being a race issue by some gobby people involved in it. I'm not sure if their contention is that he was especially targeted because he's not white, or whether had he been white he would have got away with it - I'm struggling to understand why that card was played. Is the accusation that more white people get away with getting / carrying guns or something?

Surely what brought this guy to the police's attention was his activity - especially WRT a gun - as opposed to his ethnicity / race / skin colour.


----------



## Steviant (Sep 6, 2013)

Chicken and egg really. Alot of street gang members in London are from ethnic minorities, especially the afro-caribbean community. Mark Duggan was mixed race as it happens, but I don't think his race was a factor, given the intelligence the Police had on his activities and what he was up to that day.

It always amuses me when people complain about "disproportionate" stop and search. The Police stop and search, and profile etc. in order to prevent and solve crime. So if street crime and gang violence is concentrated within young men from one part of the community, then young men from that community will be of greater interest to the police than elderly white women (for example). I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to accept.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

It's a disgrace that the family (and certain cvnt hole poticians) are calling this a "shooting of another black man"

The race is irrelevant - he was wielding a firearm in public. White/black/brown/yellow/ginger whatever - this type of race game has to stop, only serves to exacerbate racism in my eyes.


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

Steviant said:


> Chicken and egg really. Alot of street gang members in London are from ethnic minorities, especially the afro-caribbean community. Mark Duggan was mixed race as it happens, but I don't think his race was a factor, given the intelligence the Police had on his activities and what he was up to that day.
> 
> It always amuses me when people complain about "disproportionate" stop and search. The Police stop and search, and profile etc. in order to prevent and solve crime. So if street crime and gang violence is concentrated within young men from one part of the community, then young men from that community will be of greater interest to the police than elderly white women (for example). I'm not sure why this is so hard for people to accept.


Was this as a result of stop and search, then - truth be told I don't know loads about the case - I kinda thought they had intelligence / were watching him and new he'd obtained a gun - clearly there were armed response available - they aren't just normally there?

I have to say, I've entirely not got why some have been determined to try and foist the race card, because just because he wasn't white, and was shot by the police, doesn't make his skin colour / ethnicity a factor in it - I don't get why it could be taken seriously.


----------



## C.Hill (Nov 21, 2010)

No sympathy for the family at all. Another cúnt gone, lovely


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

C.Hill said:


> No sympathy for the family at all. Another cúnt gone, lovely


I love how you've put a fada over the u in '****'


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

mikep81 said:


> I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the unlawful killing verdict would mean that the officers who pulled the trigger would be at fault and have to face murder charges, which is why they denied the option to the jury. The officers weren't at fault in the execution of their actions it was the intelligence that led them to believe he was a suicide bomber that was at fault.


I was referring to something totally unrelated Mike.


----------



## Marshan (Aug 27, 2010)

Jaff0 said:


> One of the other aspects that's irritated me, is the attempted insunation of this being a race issue by some gobby people involved in it. I'm not sure if their contention is that he was especially targeted because he's not white, or whether had he been white he would have got away with it - I'm struggling to understand why that card was played. Is the accusation that more white people get away with getting / carrying guns or something?
> 
> Surely what brought this guy to the police's attention was his activity - especially WRT a gun - as opposed to his ethnicity / race / skin colour.


Definitely. Any old excuse for pity or attention will do for these people.


----------



## SwAn1 (Jun 4, 2012)

diddums, I was walking with all my bredrins tooled up wid my gunz and sh!t then I got shot, this countries fcuked up blud. RIP dick head


----------



## Steviant (Sep 6, 2013)

Sorry I didn't mean to imply the Duggan incident was stop and search. It was what they call a "hard stop" based on the intelligence and that day's surveillance.

I mentioned stop and search as it is repeatedly used to justify the rioting and the "community's" refusal to assist the police with their investigations. This attitude, which refuses to acknowledge the responsibility of members of the "community" for criminal acts, or seeks to excuse it, while focusing solely on the perceived discrimination by the Police.

Diane Abbott is a prime exponent of this, playing to the gallery and claiming to represent the ghetto, while ensuring her everyday life never comes into contact with them...


----------



## Donny dog (May 1, 2013)

Not read the entire thread but here's my tuppence worth anyway, although I imagine it's already been put across by many people already.

Don't carry guns and you don't need to worry about being shot.

Unless you're a Brazilian electrician trying to ride the underground for free and wearing a winter coat in the middle of July............


----------



## XXVII (Jul 29, 2013)

Steviant said:


> I'm sure Mark Duggan's family are upset, but they need to ask themselves how he ended up getting shot and what they could have done to prevent it, rather than pretending it's the evil racist police.


Pretty much sums it all up. He chose the lifestyle he was in, and everyone knows the consequences of it.

You either end up in jail, or in a box.


----------



## megatron (Apr 21, 2004)

Shame they couldn't have used lethal force on the rest of his sh1thead family


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

Steviant said:


> Diane Abbott is a prime exponent of this, playing to the gallery and claiming to represent the ghetto, while ensuring her everyday life never comes into contact with them...


I ****ing hate it when they do that.

Whenever a politician comes out with that "...in touch with the youth / ghetto / working class..." I've never been more convinced the complete opposite is true.

Galloway tried that crap, years ago, to defend why a supposedly serving MP had gone in as a contestant on CBB.


----------



## josephbloggs (Sep 29, 2013)

mikep81 said:


> With the Duggan case didn't they only state that they believed Duggan was still armed and thus posed an immediate threat to life?!
> 
> With the De Menzes case you can't blame the officers involved in the shooting for that fvck up. That was down to the surveillance and int they were given.


You can certainly blame them for lying about the incident though.

The jury in the de Menezes inquest rejected the police claim that officers shouted "armed police" as they boarded the train and rejected the police claim that de Menezes walked towards them before they shot him , in other words the jury decided that they made up a pack of lies to make the killing not look quite so bad on them. And apparently no member of the surveillance team had positively identified de Menezes as their suspect before he was shot dead.

This is the problem with liars you never know when you can trust they're telling truth or not. I think everyone can appreciate the difficulty and high pressure that these armed units work under, but the police need to stop with their culture of constantly lying and trying to cove up facts.

caught out again today lying in the "plebgate" row.


----------



## SILV3RBACK (Jun 23, 2012)

Glad they shot him. No more threat. And now his family and friends are upset about it.

He gave no thought to his family when he was poncing around with a firearm. Good riddance.


----------



## skinnnyfat (Feb 26, 2012)

Donny dog said:


> Unless you're a Brazilian electrician trying to ride the underground for free and wearing a winter coat in the middle of July............


You know he didn't vault the barrier and he was not wearing a coat don't you? It was 17 degrees and he had a light denim jacket on.


----------



## Keenam (Jan 24, 2010)

Ian_Montrose said:


> I get your sentiment but do we really want to live in a country where the police can go around slotting people because they reckon they're a wrong 'un? I'll match your cliche with another common one - "Innocent until proven guilty" - one of the cornerstone priniples of our legal system. Whether he had a gun or not, unless he presented an immediate threat to life, he had the right to a fair trial - not summary execution in the street by the police.


I agree with this however on that basis a jury has found that the killing was lawful on the basis that the police genuinely believed that he presented a threat to them.

Attempts to make suppositions to undermine the verdict when the jury have listened to extensive evidence means that any judgement that we make is inherently unreliable.

The claim by the family if public support is the part that I considered to be wholly presumptuous. They do not have my support. The jury (who they insulted) and the police have my support in this case; not the family.

Someone dying is not a reason for celebration but the it must have been reasonably foreseeable for him that I he was carrying a weapon then he was liable to encounter the police and there was a possibility of being shot. He chose to run this risk.


----------



## Smoog (Dec 29, 2012)

Keenam said:


> I agree with this however on that basis a jury has found that the killing was lawful on the basis that the police genuinely believed that he presented a threat to them.
> 
> Attempts to make suppositions to undermine the verdict when the jury have listened to extensive evidence means that any judgement that we make is inherently unreliable.
> 
> ...


The family certainly doesn't have my support. Seeing them on the news makes me wonder wtf the UK has given birth to.


----------



## britbull (Mar 18, 2004)

Found the behaviour of the victim's? family totally appalling. Stirring up yet more racial hatred.Normally a placid guy but this sh!t makes my blood boil

They should look at Doreen and Neville Lawrence and learn some fckuing humility!!!

On another note this thread is surprising in that pretty much every poster really disliked the bloke, compare this thread to a Raoul Moat thread on here&#8230;


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

britbull said:


> Found the behaviour of the victim's? family totally appalling. Stirring up yet more racial hatred.Normally a placid guy but this sh!t makes my blood boil
> 
> They should look at Doreen and Neville Lawrence and learn some fckuing humility!!!
> 
> On another note this thread is surprising in that pretty much every poster really disliked the bloke, compare this thread to a Raoul Moat thread on here&#8230;


True.

Never got the "X is a legend" mentality - especially when it was plastered all over facebook, with retards like and linking it. Precisely why was he a legend, then?


----------



## latsius (Jul 16, 2012)

mikep81 said:


> Unless the chopper was flying too high to see, the bullets could have hit it. Even small, low grain calibres will travel 1 to 2 miles!


More than likely the lads were first time shooters.

The weapons are poorly converted pistols with a lack of accuracy. And more than likely with low visibility and adrelanine pumping through thier hoodies. The shots would have been wobbly at best.

My point is that any goverment anywhere in the world will and can male u vanish if u cause problems.


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

latsius said:


> More than likely the lads were first time shooters.
> 
> The weapons are poorly converted pistols with a lack of accuracy. And more than likely with low visibility and adrelanine pumping through thier hoodies. The shots would have been wobbly at best.
> 
> My point is that any goverment anywhere in the world will and can male u vanish if u cause problems.


Your points are irrelevant though as my comment was in response to you seemingly trying to justify shooting a firearm at a police helicopter or at least saying the response was too much. Again you seem to be either trying to justify it or are trying to insinuate that the punishment was too harsh by claiming they were first time shooters with home made guns who wouldn't have been been very accurate. By the same breath should we also let off people who shoot home made guns for the first time at other people if they miss too?? Or how about someone who tries to shoot someone else but is out of range?

I agree with your last statement to a degree though.


----------



## Andy Dee (Jun 1, 2008)

latsius said:


> More than likely the lads were first time shooters.
> 
> The weapons are poorly converted pistols with a lack of accuracy. And more than likely with low visibility and adrelanine pumping through thier hoodies. The shots would have been wobbly at best.
> 
> My point is that any goverment anywhere in the world will and can male u vanish if u cause problems.


i am unsure of the incident at shooting police helicopters. But i can guarantee that a pistol calibre would not travel anywhere near 1-2 miles at any effective range.


----------



## ableton (May 24, 2013)

Raoul Moat Shot and killed someone, shot and injured someone, shot an blinded a police officer and police still tried negotiating with him for hours before he killed himself.

The guy wasn't a saint, but this just shows there were other ways to end it


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

mikep81 said:


> Your points are irrelevant though as my comment was in response to you seemingly trying to justify shooting a firearm at a police helicopter or at least saying the response was too much. Again you seem to be either trying to justify it or are trying to insinuate that the punishment was too harsh by claiming they were first time shooters with home made guns who wouldn't have been been very accurate. By the same breath should we also let off people who shoot home made guns for the first time at other people if they miss too?? Or how about someone who tries to shoot someone else but is out of range?
> 
> I agree with your last statement to a degree though.


can these bullets not cause serious harm when they you know COME BACK DOWN.


----------



## Southern Karate Guy (Feb 27, 2014)

How about they make saint dugans police record available , im sure it would clear up any doubt


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

andysutils said:


> i am unsure of the incident at shooting police helicopters. But i can guarantee that a pistol calibre would not travel anywhere near 1-2 miles at any effective range.


Of course it won't be effective but that's besides the point. It can still travel that distance and the intent to shoot the helicopter is still there.


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

gycraig said:


> can these bullets not cause serious harm when they you know COME BACK DOWN.


I bullet fired directly up generally won't because it'll only hit terminal velocity on the way back down. A bullet fired at an angle can kill if its still traveling under its own power.


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

ableton said:


> Raoul Moat Shot and killed someone, shot and injured someone, shot an blinded a police officer and police still tried negotiating with him for hours before he killed himself.
> 
> The guy wasn't a saint, but this just shows there were other ways to end it


They are two completely different scenarios that can't be compared!!


----------



## gycraig (Oct 5, 2008)

mikep81 said:


> I bullet fired directly up generally won't because it'll only hit terminal velocity on the way back down. A bullet fired at an angle can kill if its still traveling under its own power.


What I mean is if there aiming at a helicopter surely the bullets could come down and cause some damage ?

Meaning it's not as harmless and there wasn't a "overreaction" at all


----------



## ableton (May 24, 2013)

mikep81 said:


> They are two completely different scenarios that can't be compared!!


They are different. Raoul moat was obviously more dangerous, since he had alreadt shot 3 people and killed 1.

One of them is "suspected" of having a gun, the other was a cold blooded killer. Which one should have been shot?


----------



## ableton (May 24, 2013)

i'm stating the facts. Not the made up crap you hear in the news


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

ableton said:


> They are different. *Raoul moat was obviously more dangerous*, since he had alreadt shot 3 people and killed 1.
> 
> One of them is "suspected" of having a gun, the other was a cold blooded killer. Which one should have been shot?


You have to consider the situation as well as the individual. When Moat was finally located he was in an isolated and easily controlled location so posed no immediate danger to the general public. The police could afford the luxury of trying to talk him down. Neither should have been shot on the basis of what they had done previously, only on what they could have done imminently.


----------



## ableton (May 24, 2013)

Ian_Montrose said:


> You have to consider the situation as well as the individual. When Moat was finally located he was in an isolated and easily controlled location so posed no immediate danger to the general public. The police could afford the luxury of trying to talk him down. Neither should have been shot on the basis of what they had done previously, only on what they could have done imminently.


how could someone with a shotgun,who has just shot 3 people pose no immedate danger to the public?


----------



## barsnack (Mar 12, 2011)

Ian_Montrose said:


> You have to consider the situation as well as the individual. When Moat was finally located he was in an isolated and easily controlled location so *posed no immediate danger to the general public*. The police could afford the luxury of trying to talk him down. Neither should have been shot on the basis of what they had done previously, only on what they could have done imminently.


he could have shot Gazza


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

ableton said:


> how could someone with a shotgun,who has just shot 3 people pose no immedate danger to the public?


Because he was sitting on a log in the middle of a field surrounded by armed police and a cordon had been established around the area. The threat was contained.


----------



## Jaff0 (Oct 3, 2008)

ableton said:


> They are different. Raoul moat was obviously more dangerous, since he had alreadt shot 3 people and killed 1.
> 
> One of them is "suspected" of having a gun, the other was a cold blooded killer. Which one should have been shot?


Yet there was still plenty of people saying Moat was a legend.

I mean, really - what was that all about?


----------



## Dave 0511 (Feb 13, 2009)

It was gripping TV though watching Raoul moats standoff. Better than celeb big brother for sure.


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

ableton said:


> They are different. Raoul moat was obviously more dangerous, since he had alreadt shot 3 people and killed 1.
> 
> One of them is "suspected" of having a gun, the other was a cold blooded killer. Which one should have been shot?


Both. As @Ian_Montrose has already pointed out one was a contained situation. They had the time to negotiate. The other was a hard stop because they'd already witnessed him purchasing an illegal firearm. They knew he had a gun on him when the made the decision to stop him. Yes he threw it away but the officers at the time did not know this. He exited the vehicle and made the police think he was going to pull the firearm that they thought he still had in his possession. They had no choice but to pull the trigger because to hesitate could have meant a member of the public or an officer being hurt.


----------



## latsius (Jul 16, 2012)

mikep81 said:


> Your points are irrelevant though as my comment was in response to you seemingly trying to justify shooting a firearm at a police helicopter or at least saying the response was too much. Again you seem to be either trying to justify it or are trying to insinuate that the punishment was too harsh by claiming they were first time shooters with home made guns who wouldn't have been been very accurate. By the same breath should we also let off people who shoot home made guns for the first time at other people if they miss too?? Or how about someone who tries to shoot someone else but is out of range?
> 
> I agree with your last statement to a degree though.


quite the contary... my general point being if ur a nuisance, the police will lock u up for a long time or have u under soil. so before u take it off on a tangent,. grasp the concept.


----------



## mikep81 (Oct 8, 2010)

latsius said:


> quite the contary... my general point being if ur a nuisance, the police will lock u up for a long time or have u under soil. so before u take it off on a tangent,. grasp the concept.


Taking it off on a tangent?! Hmmm, maybe you should read the whole post!! I quite clearly state at the bottom of my post "I agree with your last statement". Just to clarify that for you, that means that I agree with your statement that any government can make you disappear at any point, which would indicate that I did in fact "grasp the concept". As I said, your points were irrelevant, even more so now that you seem to be saying that your whole point was that you'll be locked up if you're a nuisance and not that the police reaction to shooting at a helicopter was over the top. And if that is your only point then mentioning the fact that the rounds would never hit the helicopter was also irrelevant! In fact your whole comment is irrelevant because most people in a civilised world would class shooting at a police helicopter as more than just a nuisance and would agree that people like that should be made to go away for a long period of time!


----------



## Steviant (Sep 6, 2013)

Raul Moat believed he was persecuted by the Police - rightly or wrongly, I don't know enough about his case to comment on that. He was also a very jealous man by all accounts, and prone to violence. During the final standoff with police, he was holding the gun to his own head, so the main threat he posed was to himself. He was within a police cordon, and there were no civilians at risk. Police negotiated with him for some time, including bringing his best fried to talk to him to try and persuade him to surrender.

This is not a comparable situation to the Mark Duggan incident in any way, since Moat shot himself.

People who think Moat is a legend are deluded or idiotic.


----------

