This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
The Met - TV documentary
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 JL85  London,SE9 10 Jun 15 6.56pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 10 Jun 2015 6.46pm
Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 6.01pm
I think ultimately, the below highlights how lacklustre and amature the whole operation was: One of the officers who had surrounded Duggan was hit by a bullet, which had lodged in his radio. However, it had not been fired by Duggan but by the policeman identified only as V53, before it passed through Duggan's arm and hit the officer. The shot policeman was taken to a hospital and released the same evening. Forgive the cut and paste from Wikipedia. Duggan could have been apprehended better, contained better and probably left serving a long sentance if not for the poor judgement of a Police officer. That's not a lawful killing for me. However, the fact that the shooting officer has been removed from firearms duty is definetly the right course of action to take. Clearly not up to the job. I also find it incredible that officers can and did refuse to be interviewed by the IPCC. Edited by JL85 (10 Jun 2015 6.04pm) Oh right its on Wikipedia it must be true, I'd be more convinced if it appeared in the Sport on Sunday. Well, Wikipedia does provide the source of its quotes (the telegraph and independent)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 10 Jun 15 7.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Right next point,. Just how could it have been done better ? Please take into account: Current climate.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Y Ddraig Goch  In The Crowd 10 Jun 15 8.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
G Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 10.49am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Jun 2015 9.41am
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.58pm
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm
I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't act on balance of probability. As a juror you have to be absolutely 100% sure a defendant is guilty to pass a guilty judgement. The same should go for armed police, imo. Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too. It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms. You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest. It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man. That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman.
You can only really work on the information that you have available to you. Duggan had just purchased a firearm from friend, who was also a police informant I believe, when the police intercepted the taxi he was travelling in, Duggan disposed of the gun it seems, but its reasonable to assume the police, from the evidence, we not aware of that fact, and were still to the best of their knowledge dealing with an armed suspect. Its a regrettable outcome, that an unarmed man was shot and killed. Pending further evidence, its hard not to accepted that whilst regrettable, the evidence points towards a lawful shooting. It's still all assumption based though Jamie, and whilst i appreciate that you never have 100% knolwdge that man is armed/unarmed, the way he is followed, contained etc makes a big difference. He was shot whilst running away. And he was unarmed. It's not acceptable imo. As already mentioned he wasn't running away. As for being unarmed that is a moot point. If you were walking down the street and the police pulled up in front of you and shot you, then that's shooting an unarmed person. You decide to roam the streets with a firearm you are armed. Deciding to throw it away at the last moment is irrelevant Big boys games - big boys rules.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Lofty3rgj 10 Jun 15 8.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 10 Jun 2015 10.31am
Hahaha!!.. Honestly though they are great. Complaints have dropped by around 40% since we started wearing them.. I had a black guy ring up and make a complaint that I called him a 'f***in spade' during a traffic stop.. The Inspector said 'ok Sir I'll look at the footage from the officers body camera and get back to you'... The guy said 'don't bother... Your all c***s' and hung up as he knew he'd been found out making things up!!
You're asking me what it's all about, and I can't tell you because I don't know what's going on myself. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| JL85 London,SE9 10 Jun 15 8.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 10 Jun 2015 8.10pm
G Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 10.49am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Jun 2015 9.41am
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.58pm
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm
I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't act on balance of probability. As a juror you have to be absolutely 100% sure a defendant is guilty to pass a guilty judgement. The same should go for armed police, imo. Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too. It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms. You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest. It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man. That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman.
You can only really work on the information that you have available to you. Duggan had just purchased a firearm from friend, who was also a police informant I believe, when the police intercepted the taxi he was travelling in, Duggan disposed of the gun it seems, but its reasonable to assume the police, from the evidence, we not aware of that fact, and were still to the best of their knowledge dealing with an armed suspect. Its a regrettable outcome, that an unarmed man was shot and killed. Pending further evidence, its hard not to accepted that whilst regrettable, the evidence points towards a lawful shooting. It's still all assumption based though Jamie, and whilst i appreciate that you never have 100% knolwdge that man is armed/unarmed, the way he is followed, contained etc makes a big difference. He was shot whilst running away. And he was unarmed. It's not acceptable imo. As already mentioned he wasn't running away. As for being unarmed that is a moot point. If you were walking down the street and the police pulled up in front of you and shot you, then that's shooting an unarmed person. You decide to roam the streets with a firearm you are armed. Deciding to throw it away at the last moment is irrelevant Big boys games - big boys rules.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Jun 15 1.07pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 5.49pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Jun 2015 11.33am
Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 10.49am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Jun 2015 9.41am
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.58pm
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm
I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't act on balance of probability. As a juror you have to be absolutely 100% sure a defendant is guilty to pass a guilty judgement. The same should go for armed police, imo. Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too. It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms. You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest. It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man. That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman.
You can only really work on the information that you have available to you. Duggan had just purchased a firearm from friend, who was also a police informant I believe, when the police intercepted the taxi he was travelling in, Duggan disposed of the gun it seems, but its reasonable to assume the police, from the evidence, we not aware of that fact, and were still to the best of their knowledge dealing with an armed suspect. Its a regrettable outcome, that an unarmed man was shot and killed. Pending further evidence, its hard not to accepted that whilst regrettable, the evidence points towards a lawful shooting. It's still all assumption based though Jamie, and whilst i appreciate that you never have 100% knolwdge that man is armed/unarmed, the way he is followed, contained etc makes a big difference. He was shot whilst running away. And he was unarmed. It's not acceptable imo. Except he wasn't shot whilst running away, he was shot whilst stationary, and holding a mobile phone. History of shootings have shown that its quite common for an officer to shoot someone they believe to be holding a firearm, which turns out of be something else and this is a common psychological phenomena in high pressure situations. Even the eye witness claims Duggan wasn't running when he was shot, but does state that his arms were raised as if surrendering, which does contradict the intercepting officers statements. But without further evidence its impossible to corroborate (one eye witness, from a 9th floor window is not reliable).
The car that had stopped – men got out of it very quickly who were carrying guns in their hands. Then I heard the sound of my rear door opening. I saw that Mark Duggan got out and ran. At the same time, I heard firing from the front. I saw shots strike Mark Duggan. He fell to the ground. Another witness:
Edited by JL85 (10 Jun 2015 5.50pm) That's not what the witness B stated, at the inquest, he said that Duggan got out of the cab, ran, and then realizing he was surround stopped and turned around. The witness claimed that he was certain it was a mobile phone, but was confronted by the fact that he had earlier told a journalist, who had corroborating interview notes etc that he had said 'Duggan had a gun'. The Cab drivers evidence, also is conflicting with Witness B, as he states that Duggan didn't raise his hands, or have anything in his hands. Unfortunately witnesses that contradict each other don't make for a great case. The verdict was an 8-2 so I wouldn't go so far as to say the Police were entirely vindicated, but further evidence is required. Both witnesses thought that Duggan did nothing to warrant being shot, but that is irrelivent, what is important is whether the officer could be reasonably believe he should open fire.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Jun 15 1.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 10 Jun 2015 8.10pm
I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't As already mentioned he wasn't running away. As for being unarmed that is a moot point. If you were walking down the street and the police pulled up in front of you and shot you, then that's shooting an unarmed person. You decide to roam the streets with a firearm you are armed. Deciding to throw it away at the last moment is irrelevant Big boys games - big boys rules. The question isn't whether he was armed, but whether it is reasonable for the police to have believed he was armed, which it was. I don't think he was roaming the streets with a gun per se, he'd just bought it and was presumably transporting to a place to store, or use and dispose of. But his decision to throw it away, cannot be said to be relevant, because there is no way the police officers could have known the gun was gone.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Jun 15 1.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 10 Jun 2015 7.07pm
Right next point,. Just how could it have been done better ? Please take into account: Current climate. Well for a starter, allowing informants to engage in gun trafficking is highly questionable. Secondly, the interception, risked the life of the cab driver. Presuming that Duggan had arranged to collect the gun, the best point of interception would be when he left with the gun, or arrived at the point of departure. Also, to return to the first issue, allowing someone to actually leave the flat with a gun in the first place is questionable. Given the informant is working with the police, arresting the purchaser at the scene was an option. Or supplied Duggan with a fake firearm (he's unlikely to notice the difference, even if he knew his firearms as it was a converted 'blank' pistol. The police definitely screwed the pooch on this one and it sounds like the whole thing was 'thrown together on the fly' and then the intercepting officers were left to take the blame (rather than being an intelligence led operation).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 Jun 15 1.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 6.01pm
I think ultimately, the below highlights how lacklustre and amature the whole operation was: One of the officers who had surrounded Duggan was hit by a bullet, which had lodged in his radio. However, it had not been fired by Duggan but by the policeman identified only as V53, before it passed through Duggan's arm and hit the officer. The shot policeman was taken to a hospital and released the same evening. Forgive the cut and paste from Wikipedia. Duggan could have been apprehended better, contained better and probably left serving a long sentance if not for the poor judgement of a Police officer. That's not a lawful killing for me. However, the fact that the shooting officer has been removed from firearms duty is definetly the right course of action to take. Clearly not up to the job. I also find it incredible that officers can and did refuse to be interviewed by the IPCC. Edited by JL85 (10 Jun 2015 6.04pm) Police officers are also entitled to the same rights as anyone interviewed under caution.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| JL85 London,SE9 11 Jun 15 10.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 11 Jun 2015 1.19pm
Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 6.01pm
I think ultimately, the below highlights how lacklustre and amature the whole operation was: One of the officers who had surrounded Duggan was hit by a bullet, which had lodged in his radio. However, it had not been fired by Duggan but by the policeman identified only as V53, before it passed through Duggan's arm and hit the officer. The shot policeman was taken to a hospital and released the same evening. Forgive the cut and paste from Wikipedia. Duggan could have been apprehended better, contained better and probably left serving a long sentance if not for the poor judgement of a Police officer. That's not a lawful killing for me. However, the fact that the shooting officer has been removed from firearms duty is definetly the right course of action to take. Clearly not up to the job. I also find it incredible that officers can and did refuse to be interviewed by the IPCC. Edited by JL85 (10 Jun 2015 6.04pm) Police officers are also entitled to the same rights as anyone interviewed under caution. Was it under caution? If I refused a disciplinary at work, I'd be sacked. Regardless, they refused to be interviewed altogether, a right that doesn't extend to me and you. Edited by JL85 (11 Jun 2015 10.40pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Jonsey wherever I lay my toolbox thats my... 12 Jun 15 12.12am |
|
|---|---|
|
There is no good reason or any reason at all to own an illegal firearm, he was obviously a scumbag s*** c***. I call that a win. Wether he was shot rightly or wrongly I couldn't care less. Bring me the copper I'll shake his hand and buy him a drink,
MISSED MORE THAN YOU'LL EVER KNOW |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 12 Jun 15 9.10am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 8.49pm
Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 10 Jun 2015 8.10pm
G Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 10.49am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 10 Jun 2015 9.41am
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.58pm
Quote kennybrowns leftfoot at 09 Jun 2015 8.48pm
Quote JL85 at 09 Jun 2015 8.01pm
I'm with ghosteagle and unfortunately the law doesn't act on balance of probability. As a juror you have to be absolutely 100% sure a defendant is guilty to pass a guilty judgement. The same should go for armed police, imo. Balance of probability killed Mark Duggan, who, yes, was scum. But balance of probability also killed alot of innocent people down the years too. It's not acceptable and we should demand more from our police, especially those carrying live fire arms. You're right the law doesn't act on the balance of probability, but this wasn't a criminal trial, it was an inquest. It doesn't matter what it was or wasn't. A humans life should never be taken on a balance of probability. The officer failed his duty, in my eyes, and wrongly killed a man. That's not to say he should be demonised, I won't claim to have done differently, but then, I'm not a trained Police marksman.
You can only really work on the information that you have available to you. Duggan had just purchased a firearm from friend, who was also a police informant I believe, when the police intercepted the taxi he was travelling in, Duggan disposed of the gun it seems, but its reasonable to assume the police, from the evidence, we not aware of that fact, and were still to the best of their knowledge dealing with an armed suspect. Its a regrettable outcome, that an unarmed man was shot and killed. Pending further evidence, its hard not to accepted that whilst regrettable, the evidence points towards a lawful shooting. It's still all assumption based though Jamie, and whilst i appreciate that you never have 100% knolwdge that man is armed/unarmed, the way he is followed, contained etc makes a big difference. He was shot whilst running away. And he was unarmed. It's not acceptable imo. As already mentioned he wasn't running away. As for being unarmed that is a moot point. If you were walking down the street and the police pulled up in front of you and shot you, then that's shooting an unarmed person. You decide to roam the streets with a firearm you are armed. Deciding to throw it away at the last moment is irrelevant Big boys games - big boys rules.
All this chest puffing by the family is a money earner, as they have already been informed by their councel that the coroners verdict has no influence on any civil action. No Justice no Peace, Bollicks ! that women is a calculating old hag who can see dollar signs.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.