The Met - TV documentary - Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The Met - TV documentary

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 7 of 7 << First < 3 4 5 6 7

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 12 Jun 15 9.16am
Quote JL85 at 11 Jun 2015 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) Errr again you are wrong. You have the right to legal representation and any interview under caution, and you also have the right to pass "no Comment" on any questions posed to you. Just the same as if a police officer was arrested and interviewed under caution, the fact is the firearms officers were not arrested, and have every right to refuse to be questioned. Just as if you were a stander by and police asked you to make a statement, you could refuse. So before you start with your 9/11 style wild accusations get your facts straight. "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

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 12 Jun 15 9.16am

Quote JL85 at 11 Jun 2015 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)

Errr again you are wrong. You have the right to legal representation and any interview under caution, and you also have the right to pass "no Comment" on any questions posed to you.

Just the same as if a police officer was arrested and interviewed under caution, the fact is the firearms officers were not arrested, and have every right to refuse to be questioned. Just as if you were a stander by and police asked you to make a statement, you could refuse.

So before you start with your 9/11 style wild accusations get your facts straight.

"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

jamiemartin721 Reading 12 Jun 15 9.28am
Quote dannyh at 12 Jun 2015 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. Edited by JL85 (09 Jun 2015 8.59pm) 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. I've already supplied quotes of valid witness who claim he was. No you haven't the only "valid" witness that "witnessed" the event from their 9th floor flat window, that stated it was an execution (FFS) had their testamony largely ignored by the Jury. 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. The police are valid witnesses too, as is the cab driver (although they're not bystander witnesses). The accounts of Witness B and the Cab driver aren't consistent, and witness B also was shown to have given a different story to journalists (probably not intentionally). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 12 Jun 15 9.28am

Quote dannyh at 12 Jun 2015 9.10am

Quote JL85 at 10 Jun 2015 8.49pm

Quote Y Ddraig Goch at 10 Jun 2015 8.10pm

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.

Edited by JL85 (09 Jun 2015 8.59pm)

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.

I've already supplied quotes of valid witness who claim he was.

No you haven't the only "valid" witness that "witnessed" the event from their 9th floor flat window, that stated it was an execution (FFS) had their testamony largely ignored by the Jury.

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.

The police are valid witnesses too, as is the cab driver (although they're not bystander witnesses). The accounts of Witness B and the Cab driver aren't consistent, and witness B also was shown to have given a different story to journalists (probably not intentionally).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 12 Jun 15 9.34am
Quote Jonsey at 12 Jun 2015 12.12am There is no good reason or any reason at all to own an illegal firearm, he was obviously a scumbag s* c. He is now a dead scumbag s c. One less scumbag s c* on the streets. 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, There are plenty of reasons to own an illegal firearm, especially if your a criminal, most of them are good, if not legal reasons. Its like knives, a lot of people end up carrying knives because they live in places where stabbings are a real possibility. Similarly with criminals and guns, it makes sense at a certain level to have a capacity for self defense and protection of your trade that's proportional to the threat. Being in a knife fight without a knife is a bad prospect, being in a 'gun fight' without a gun is suicidal. I disagree with the idea the idea that the police operating as extra judicial murder squads could ever be a good thing. The world wasn't improved as a result of this shooting, as it essentially triggered events that escalated into some of the worst rioting the UK has seen in decades, in which three people (I think) died. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 12 Jun 15 9.34am

Quote Jonsey at 12 Jun 2015 12.12am

There is no good reason or any reason at all to own an illegal firearm, he was obviously a scumbag s*** c***.
He is now a dead scumbag s*** c***.
One less scumbag s*** c*** on the streets.

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,

There are plenty of reasons to own an illegal firearm, especially if your a criminal, most of them are good, if not legal reasons. Its like knives, a lot of people end up carrying knives because they live in places where stabbings are a real possibility. Similarly with criminals and guns, it makes sense at a certain level to have a capacity for self defense and protection of your trade that's proportional to the threat.

Being in a knife fight without a knife is a bad prospect, being in a 'gun fight' without a gun is suicidal.

I disagree with the idea the idea that the police operating as extra judicial murder squads could ever be a good thing. The world wasn't improved as a result of this shooting, as it essentially triggered events that escalated into some of the worst rioting the UK has seen in decades, in which three people (I think) died.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 12 Jun 15 9.41am
Quote JL85 at 11 Jun 2015 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) Firstly, at a work disciplinary, you do not have to talk, have the right to representation and the onis is on the employer to provide grounds for sackings. As the statements made in a disciplinary can be used in a tribunal you are under no obligation to provide self incriminating evidence. If the interview statements could be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution, then you do not have to participate. The UK justice systems are accusatory and the onis is on those bringing the case and charges to prove their case. What the individuals probably are required to do is provide an official statement of the events that transpired, as part of their role as police officers. If the IPCC interview could be used as evidence, then they have no obligation to comply with proceedings - In likelihood they would be suspended, pending the outcome, or placed on administrative duties. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 12 Jun 15 9.41am

Quote JL85 at 11 Jun 2015 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:

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)

Firstly, at a work disciplinary, you do not have to talk, have the right to representation and the onis is on the employer to provide grounds for sackings. As the statements made in a disciplinary can be used in a tribunal you are under no obligation to provide self incriminating evidence.

If the interview statements could be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution, then you do not have to participate. The UK justice systems are accusatory and the onis is on those bringing the case and charges to prove their case.

What the individuals probably are required to do is provide an official statement of the events that transpired, as part of their role as police officers.

If the IPCC interview could be used as evidence, then they have no obligation to comply with proceedings - In likelihood they would be suspended, pending the outcome, or placed on administrative duties.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

JL85 London,SE9 20 Jun 15 8.18am
Quote dannyh at 12 Jun 2015 9.16am Quote JL85 at 11 Jun 2015 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) Errr again you are wrong. You have the right to legal representation and any interview under caution, and you also have the right to pass "no Comment" on any questions posed to you. Just the same as if a police officer was arrested and interviewed under caution, the fact is the firearms officers were not arrested, and have every right to refuse to be questioned. Just as if you were a stander by and police asked you to make a statement, you could refuse. So before you start with your 9/11 style wild accusations get your facts straight. You seem so desperate to drag this to a some sort consiparcy chat? My facts are straight, the Cab Driver was closer then anyone to the shooting. Seems you're the one who needs to get his wild accusations under control. Also, once again, i would HAVE to attend an inteview under caution. I'd have no choice in the matter. Somehow, the Police don't. Which is staggering, considering they just shot an unarmed man. But, in your frothing, finger pointing quest to label everyone who disagree's with you a "9/11 conspiracy theorist" you glossed that point over.
Alert a moderator to this post

JL85

London,SE9 20 Jun 15 8.18am

Quote dannyh at 12 Jun 2015 9.16am

Quote JL85 at 11 Jun 2015 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:

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)

Errr again you are wrong. You have the right to legal representation and any interview under caution, and you also have the right to pass "no Comment" on any questions posed to you.

So before you start with your 9/11 style wild accusations get your facts straight.

You seem so desperate to drag this to a some sort consiparcy chat? My facts are straight, the Cab Driver was closer then anyone to the shooting.

Seems you're the one who needs to get his wild accusations under control.

Also, once again, i would HAVE to attend an inteview under caution. I'd have no choice in the matter. Somehow, the Police don't. Which is staggering, considering they just shot an unarmed man. But, in your frothing, finger pointing quest to label everyone who disagree's with you a "9/11 conspiracy theorist" you glossed that point over.

Alert a moderator to this post

JL85 London,SE9 20 Jun 15 8.21am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Jun 2015 9.41am Quote JL85 at 11 Jun 2015 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) Firstly, at a work disciplinary, you do not have to talk, have the right to representation and the onis is on the employer to provide grounds for sackings. As the statements made in a disciplinary can be used in a tribunal you are under no obligation to provide self incriminating evidence. If the interview statements could be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution, then you do not have to participate. The UK justice systems are accusatory and the onis is on those bringing the case and charges to prove their case. What the individuals probably are required to do is provide an official statement of the events that transpired, as part of their role as police officers. If the IPCC interview could be used as evidence, then they have no obligation to comply with proceedings - In likelihood they would be suspended, pending the outcome, or placed on administrative duties. The differnece being Jamie, we are required to attend. The Police are not. Being there and not talking are two differnt thing entirely.
Alert a moderator to this post

JL85

London,SE9 20 Jun 15 8.21am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 12 Jun 2015 9.41am

Quote JL85 at 11 Jun 2015 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:

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)

What the individuals probably are required to do is provide an official statement of the events that transpired, as part of their role as police officers.

The differnece being Jamie, we are required to attend. The Police are not.

Being there and not talking are two differnt thing entirely.

Alert a moderator to this post