Mark Duggan - Lawful killing

Mark Duggan - Lawful killing

82 posts
8 Jan 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
SteveSav
You are spot on of course, a lot of comments prove this country is going (gone) soft, chosing to back a thug over the police??? Liberalism, don't you love it!
It doesn't prove that at all, it proves (certainly much of this thread) that people are too lazy to read the full report about anything, and most can't actually look past the most simplistic conclusions. It just reflects a general dumbing down of society. Just as many people are happy to believe stories about immigrants or recipients of benefits which a moment's intelligent thought (or indeed investigating facts) reveal to be ridiculous.
Posted 11 Jan 2014
Edited by stolenfaces 11 Jan 2014
mr_mick
Photographer
mr_mick
It is simplistic. He was known for carrying guns. If he did not use guns chances are he would not be dead. His own action's caused his downfall.

Posted 11 Jan 2014
stolenfaces

It doesn't prove that at all, it proves (certainly much of this thread) that people are too lazy to read the full report about anything, and most can't actually look past the most simplistic conclusions. It just reflects a general dumbing down of society. Just as many people are happy to believe stories about immigrants or recipients of benefits which a moment's intelligent thought (or indeed investigating facts) reveal to be ridiculous.


Even more simplistic, this thread and others on a similar subject just want us believe the police are always in the wrong, if we believe that view where do we go from here??
Posted 11 Jan 2014
Sdeve
Photographer
Sdeve
Firstly, let's be clear, I have no doubt that Mr Duggan's leaving of the world made it a slightly better place. Secondly, regardless of the finding of the jury, I think it interesting that Duggan was not holding a firearm when he was killed. Just interesting. That interest is not, BTW, making any argument whatever. One inescapable conclusion though, is that if the police officer thought Duggan was holding a gun, a prerequisite to killing him, he was wrong. As I say, that is interesting.

But, the jury are going to be swayed completely by the evidence, which I have yet to absorb fully, due to it's sheer volume (link posted previously, and thanks to the person linking) given by the police. Now, who are the experts in shooting people in this country? Answer, the police. So, the immortal statement of Ms Mandy Rice-Davies spring to mind, "They would say that, wouldn't they." It's also worth remembering that the jury was hoghly directed in a manner that could be argued would herd them in a particular direction.

Oh, and juries are never, ever, wrong, are they, as many people, if they were not executed, might disagree with. Timothy Evans, Stefan Kiszko, the Birmingham Six, the somewhere else others, quite a few really.

My worries are more directed at the poor quality of the investigation by the IPCC, their attempts to conceal relevant documents from the inquest (read the documents in the link), the unprofessional actions of the investigating officers. The police officer who told an IPCC investigator that the police had thrown the pistol over the fence. Little things like that.

I have a great deal of reading to do in respect of this incident, but there's already enough information to cause concern, and concerns are just that. Asking questions is not answering them. Answers come later.

Posted 11 Jan 2014
Edited by Sdeve 11 Jan 2014
So both the police and juries sometimes get things wrong, there's evidence to prove that, so where do we go from here, what is the perfect system or do we just make it everyman for himself

Posted 11 Jan 2014
Sdeve
Photographer
Sdeve
clearview_photography
So both the police and juries sometimes get things wrong, there's evidence to prove that, so where do we go from here, what is the perfect system or do we just make it everyman for himself
Where we go from here is where others have gone before in cases where injustice has been believed. you question, you examine, you form opinions, you seek action. There is no perfect system, but a system where decisions are challenged is a far better system that one of blind, unquestioning, acceptance of authority. Unless, of course, you are part of that authority.
Posted 11 Jan 2014
I believe there's a right to appeal this verdict, if that happens and the result is the same will that be the end of it, or do we keep tossing the coin until we get the result which please us

Posted 11 Jan 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Sdeve
Firstly, let's be clear, I have no doubt that Mr Duggan's leaving of the world made it a slightly better place. Secondly, regardless of the finding of the jury, I think it interesting that Duggan was not holding a firearm when he was killed. Just interesting. That interest is not, BTW, making any argument whatever. One inescapable conclusion though, is that if the police officer thought Duggan was holding a gun, a prerequisite to killing him, he was wrong. As I say, that is interesting. But, the jury are going to be swayed completely by the evidence, which I have yet to absorb fully, due to it's sheer volume (link posted previously, and thanks to the person linking) given by the police. Now, who are the experts in shooting people in this country? Answer, the police. So, the immortal statement of Ms Mandy Rice-Davies spring to mind, "They would say that, wouldn't they." It's also worth remembering that the jury was hoghly directed in a manner that could be argued would herd them in a particular direction. Oh, and juries are never, ever, wrong, are they, as many people, if they were not executed, might disagree with. Timothy Evans, Stefan Kiszko, the Birmingham Six, the somewhere else others, quite a few really. My worries are more directed at the poor quality of the investigation by the IPCC, their attempts to conceal relevant documents from the inquest (read the documents in the link), the unprofessional actions of the investigating officers. The police officer who told an IPCC investigator that the police had thrown the pistol over the fence. Little things like that. I have a great deal of reading to do in respect of this incident, but there's already enough information to cause concern, and concerns are just that. Asking questions is not answering them. Answers come later.
So are you saying something or not ? everything is 'interesting' blah blah blah. If you can't understand that the jury's decision hinges on whether they believe the policeman who shot him when he says that he believed that Duggan had a gun in his hand. Therefore your observations (or deranged ramblings as many would characterize them) are pointless and add nothing to a non-existent debate.
Posted 11 Jan 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
clearview_photography
I believe there's a right to appeal this verdict, if that happens and the result is the same will that be the end of it, or do we keep tossing the coin until we get the result which please us
They can't appeal an inquest findings, they can ask for a judicial review. Most likely the judicial review will decide that the inquest was conducted in accordance with the law and that the Jury's decision was not so outlandish as to require further action. I still can't find anyone who is actually saying what they think is a more believable scenario than the one documented by the Jury. Are people saying that the policeman deliberately shot Duggan, knowing that he was unarmed. Why would he do that? Was he paid by a rival mobster? The consequences for the policeman (and his family) will already have been pretty harrowing, if he was found to have done it deliberately they would be pretty catastrophic for his future... As Iain says, armed policemen are not just picked out for their desire to carry a gun (they can always join the army if that's their ambition), they are carefully selected and trained. On all counts it seems very unlikely that the policeman shot Duggan because he was having a bad day.
Posted 11 Jan 2014
Sdeve
Photographer
Sdeve
stolenfaces
So are you saying something or not ? everything is 'interesting' blah blah blah. If you can't understand that the jury's decision hinges on whether they believe the policeman who shot him when he says that he believed that Duggan had a gun in his hand. Therefore your observations (or deranged ramblings as many would characterize them) are pointless and add nothing to a non-existent debate.
A non-existent debate in which you willingly participate for the sole reason of insulting someone from behind your secret identity. Nothing new there then.
Posted 11 Jan 2014
Sdeve

A non-existent debate in which you willingly participate for the sole reason of insulting someone from behind your secret identity. Nothing new there then.


'secret identity' please can you explain the difference between your profile and his 
Posted 11 Jan 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Sdeve
A non-existent debate in which you willingly participate for the sole reason of insulting someone from behind your secret identity. Nothing new there then.
I don't willingly participate, I was just sick of seeing the mindless drivel that some people post. So I take it this is your answer to my question. Either you do understand the question the Jury had to answer or you don't. If you do, then your posts here are trolling, if you don't then my 'insult' was just a correct observation.
Posted 11 Jan 2014
Sdeve
Photographer
Sdeve
[qt][author]stolenfaces[/author] I still can't find anyone who is actually saying what they think is a more believable scenario than the one documented by the Jury. Are people saying that the policeman deliberately shot Duggan, knowing that he was unarmed. Why would he do that? Was he paid by a rival mobster? The consequences for the policeman (and his family) will already have been pretty harrowing, if he was found to have done it deliberately they would be pretty catastrophic for his future... As Iain says, armed policemen are not just picked out for their desire to carry a gun (they can always join the army if that's their ambition), they are carefully selected and trained. On all counts it seems very unlikely that the policeman shot Duggan because he was having a bad day. [/qt] Here's your specially selected and trained firearms officer. The same unit that managed to shoot and kill one of it's own on a training exercise and yet, surprisingly or not, as the case may be, the killer was only dealt with under H&S legislation, instead of being charged with manslaughter as any other shooter would be. And you alternative scenario is completely unlikely. Far more likely is that the shooter lost his bottle and killed Duggan before accurately assessing the situation, for however much he might have believed Duggan was armed, he wasn't, and s his professional, trained, judgement was wrong. Given the circumstances such a reaction is entirely understandable, perhaps even acceptable. But instead of accepting it, the lie factory starts up. Although I have just started into reading the full documentation of the inquest, it is already clear that the IPCC ('I' for independent remember) did a lousy job of the initial investigation and held back relevant documentation from the inquest claiming it was not relevant. Also, one police officer at the scene told an IPCC investigator that the police had thrown the pistol over the fence. Little things like this might make a person start to doubt. There's more, I'm sure.
Posted 11 Jan 2014
photostore
Photographer
photostore
https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/research_stats/complaints_statistics_11-12.pdf for those who like interesting facts !
Posted 11 Jan 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
Sdeve

Here's your specially selected and trained firearms officer. The same unit that managed to shoot and kill one of it's own on a training exercise and yet, surprisingly or not, as the case may be, the killer was only dealt with under H&S legislation, instead of being charged with manslaughter as any other shooter would be.


Had that officer been at my firearms club holding his gun in that manner, he'd have been thrown out good and quick !  If that's the 'professional' level of training of police who handle firearms, then no one is safe!
Posted 11 Jan 2014
Edited by Jacqui 11 Jan 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join