PDA

View Full Version : Lawfully killed


mrangryofwarlingham
8th Jan 2014, 15:42
some might find the decision incomprehensible
some may say it is common sense

i hope it doesn't spark a violent reaction from north london as his "lawful killing" did back in 2011

racedo
8th Jan 2014, 15:46
Need rain .....................PC Rain or PC Snow always a way to end riots.

vulcanised
8th Jan 2014, 16:33
I am far from being a fan of the police but I would say that verdict is correct.

Torque Tonight
8th Jan 2014, 16:49
The family received justice today. Duggan received justice at the time. I despair that so many people in our capital can come out in support of a violent, armed gangster. The police should tap a few more of these thugs and make the streets a safer place. :ok:

Tankertrashnav
8th Jan 2014, 16:49
Good verdict - what the police do have to answer for is their subsequent ham-fisted handling of the incident, but with a split second decision to make, I'm certainly not going to condemn the man who pulled the trigger.

moosp
8th Jan 2014, 17:10
Probably preaching to the choir here but yes a good verdict. A nasty hood taken off the streets, who the firearms officer believed, correctly, was carrying.

It shows the low state of the dross of the community that so many pond life come out to support him.

Flypro
8th Jan 2014, 17:14
Absolutely correct Tanker.

He was a nasty little ARMED sh.t, but his death was used as an excuse for the subsequent disgraceful riots.

Perhaps the reason police mainly stop and search blacks might be because they is mostly to blame for crime....innit

radeng
8th Jan 2014, 17:21
There are still some questions about the police activity, especially regarding how the gun got to where it did: noticeable that the police officer who was shot was shot by one of his colleagues! However, it is hard to my mind to avoid the conclusion that society as a whole is far better off without Duggan.

Avitor
8th Jan 2014, 17:24
Please, Mr Cameron, no more police cuts! Sooner divert half a dozen £billion from overseas bribes.....sorry Aid.

radeng
8th Jan 2014, 17:27
How much is wasted - sorry, spent - on overseas aid?

Capetonian
8th Jan 2014, 17:29
The bottle of bubbly that was reserved for the announcement the death of the piece of excrement who has caused the suffering and death of millions in Zimbabwe and elsewhere will be drunk tonight to celebrate this victory for common sense.

Good riddance to another piece of excrement, and strength to the forces of law.

angels
8th Jan 2014, 17:40
"No gun in his hand, and yet he was shot."

The silly old bat who just said that (his solicitor) has phrased her words carefully. The cretin was tooled up and chucked the weapon. If you're a cop (pumped up, adrenalin overload) and know your perp is armed, if he makes a move your reaction is instinctive. Bang.

I really have a feeling that all is not right with the police case (which is a shame, but my doubt is due to their previous actions in events such as these) but at the end of the day, the moment a feckwit picks up a shooter he's moved into a different league.

Perhaps his loyal family could have prevented Duggan from picking the gun up in the first place. In that respect they are to blame.

TBirdFrank
8th Jan 2014, 17:44
If I had been standing outside my home I would have heard the shots that killed the two police girls - that cowardly piece of sxxt handed himself in immediately to avoid just this fate - but he and his degenerate family and associates had killed and murdered before as part of their drug selling empire, and we would be well rid of the lot of them.

So, in this case I simply cannot conceive of the idiocy and lack of public decency of the thousands upon thousands who see this murdering violent thug who has visited misery on both those who bought his mind altering merchandise and those who got in his way as some kind of hero.

Got what he deserved - now bring on the lookalikes for the same treatment!

Avitor
8th Jan 2014, 17:58
How much is wasted - sorry, spent - on overseas aid?



"David Cameron’s government, which in spite of cuts to public services at home has boosted Britain’s aid budget to £8.3billion a year and is still committed to increasing it from 0.56 per cent of GDP this year to 0.7 per cent."

Romeo Oscar Golf
8th Jan 2014, 18:02
100% agreement so far. Cue the usual suspects..........enter stage right.(or should that be left!)

Blacksheep
8th Jan 2014, 18:02
I was just watching a 'youth worker' being interviewed in the street in Tottenham. This is a couple of miles from where the gangsters live, on the Broadwater Farm estate, and from where they came to start their riot in South Tottenham, a mile and a half away. At the entry point to Broadwater from the A10 there is a shrine to the drug gangster who was shot dead in a drive-by shooting a couple of years ago. On Xmas Day when I passed by it was festooned in fresh flowers.

Duggan came from a different world. The gangster ghetto where they live is a no-go area to normal folks and we should be pleased that the police stop and search anyone who emerges from this dump to mix with us in the normal world.

angels
8th Jan 2014, 18:17
Yes Blacksheep, you're right. I've been on Broadwater a couple of times and drove past it only two days ago. It's an utterly bleak and depressing place. People have no idea.

I was in Tottenham the day of the drive-by you mention, the A10 traffic was diverted through the Farm, that caused a few prayers not to break down!

And on the geography of the place really it's Haringey. As you say, the High Road (which my wife's aunt lives just off) is some distance away and is dominated by Turks and Kurds.

That's one of the reasons the Farm residents trashed the High Road.

fitliker
8th Jan 2014, 18:39
Have you no pity for the poor drug addicts that could not get their fix due to this death. They must have been without drugs for several hours until they could find another "Dealer"
The Police should set up emergency clinics to help junkies whenever they take down such a big dealer.


As Frank Gallagher would say "CHEAPER DRUGS NOW "

LGW Vulture
8th Jan 2014, 18:46
Whilst Duggan obviously had a past and indeed appears to have carried firearms rather regularly - can anyone see like me, the Police's failings in this case when drawn into context with Lee Rigby's killers?

These two were both spared when clearly a more dangerous threat!

Will anyone else agree that such a comparison should be made?

avoman
8th Jan 2014, 18:47
The family are upset because there will now be no compensation for the death of this waste of space. Bang goes their meal ticket

charliegolf
8th Jan 2014, 18:56
Will anyone else agree that such a comparison should be made?

Yes.

CG

superq7
8th Jan 2014, 18:59
Diane Abbott is stirring things up !

Mark Duggan verdict: Diane Abbott 'baffled' at jury - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10559672/Mark-Duggan-verdict-Diane-Abbott-baffled-at-jury.html)

Capetonian
8th Jan 2014, 19:00
the Police's failings in this case when drawn into context with Lee Rigby's killers?The police in the Lee Rigby case should be condemned for not having killed the 'suspects' as everyone calls them. Murdering cowardly scum is the correct description.

Sallyann1234
8th Jan 2014, 19:19
My compliments to the jury for listening to this difficult case for three months and reaching a fair verdict.
My lifted finger to Dianne Abbott for thinking she knows better.

angels
8th Jan 2014, 19:23
The Rigby killers are just that, not suspects, they have been convicted.

It would have saved an awful lot of time if the cops had been a bit more on the ball though.

I can see how they only winged the first (he was rushing them and they hadn't drawn their weapons) but the second was standing 10 feet away inviting the shots. Poor marksmanship there considering you're meant to aim for the trunk (I think they shot his thumb off).

racedo
8th Jan 2014, 19:23
The police in the Lee Rigby case should be condemned for not having killed the 'suspects' as everyone calls them. Murdering cowardly scum is the correct description.

Kill them they are martyrs, injure them and they in pain plus you pump the :mad: out of them for information.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
8th Jan 2014, 19:36
Agreement across the spectrum of opinion - doesn't happen often, but good when it does

Football Hooligans - YouTube

vulcanised
8th Jan 2014, 19:57
Even if the police saw the piece of filth throw his gun away, how were they to know whether it was the only gun in his possession?

G&T ice n slice
8th Jan 2014, 20:28
Strange, our resident leftwing pinko liberal hand-wringing appologist hasn't shown up yet?

piperboy84
8th Jan 2014, 20:41
Poor mr Duggan must be turning in his grave with the total loss of "street cred" his family and fellow gansta's have brought upon him by bleating to "the man" ( courts + cops) about him getting second prize in a armed face off, I mean really what can they possible be thinking ? They are starting to make him look like a punk that his fellow gangbangers would no doubt disparage for resorting to the authorities for redress when losing a confrontation. I,m starting to get the impression that him and his ilk a mere paper gangsters.

Now suck it up with a stiff upper lip and get back to yor drug dealing and plaguing neighborhoods and remember big gansta's don't cry !!!!

Respect Homey

cargosales
8th Jan 2014, 22:02
The family can bleat all they like but, as I see it, the cops did a good job in difficult circumstances :ok:

How are cops to know if a tooled-up scrote throws his (only?) weapon away just seconds before they try to arrest him? That makes him suddenly innocent? Yes of course it does :yuk:

I'm not a huge fan of the [UK] police but when it comes to having to deal with scum carrying firearms then I have the utmost respect for them.

CS

Captain Sand Dune
8th Jan 2014, 22:12
Ok, I'll say it: it's because he is/was b....b...b...of colour, wasn't it?:hmm:
(Now awaiting the outrage bus to make a stop outside my house)

Whilst Duggan obviously had a past and indeed appears to have carried firearms rather regularly - can anyone see like me, the Police's failings in this case when drawn into context with Lee Rigby's killers?
These two were both spared when clearly a more dangerous threat!
My understanding was that the scum that killed Rigby were shot at by the police because they (said scum) rushed them (said armed police), and that the fact they (scum) survived was by accident, ie the police were shooting to kill. If that was the case, not much difference in my view.

cargosales
8th Jan 2014, 22:23
I have rarely heard such an outburst of counterfeit outrage by bigoted racists as I have just read from you lot! You should all be ashamed of yourselves! How dare you . . .

Sorry, I just can't keep it up :E

Try Viagra...

meadowrun
8th Jan 2014, 22:40
Yups, not violent, that's why he went to his friend to borrow a gun.

Dushan
8th Jan 2014, 23:27
I, I, don't quite understand what happened here. Am I getting this right that a criminal had a handgun? Aren't handguns banned in England? Did the cop shoot said criminal? Aren't cops unarmed in England, shouting "stop, or I shall yell 'stop', again"?

Nah, I must be thinking of Detrioit or Chicago, or Toronto.

piperboy84
8th Jan 2014, 23:33
If I understand the story right he felt he needed a gun as his "work colleague" was recently gunned down, if so are his family and friends (apologist and fellow gangsters ) not jumping the gun demonstrating at Duggans hearing should they not have been demonstrating against the friends killers at that trial first?

rh200
8th Jan 2014, 23:34
Will anyone else agree that such a comparison should be made?

Not really, without a complete picture of the tactical situation, its meaningless. It all depends upon the people on the ground in determining their threat level, and whether they can resolve it without further loss of life.

We are to quick to judge police and their actions, one wrong decision and they or other bystanders are dead. So as a society how far do we try and make them err on the side of caution and to what cost.

Good bye and good riddance to at least one piece of human garbage I say.

carlrsymington
8th Jan 2014, 23:40
Dead armed drug dealer, no compensation.
Thank you law enforcement officers!
Not sarcasm BTW!

Nervous SLF
9th Jan 2014, 00:52
And the extra good news is that it can't breed or vote anymore. :ok::ok:

500N
9th Jan 2014, 01:13
" And the extra good news is that it can't breed or vote anymore. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gifhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif"


+ 1

Romeo Oscar Golf
9th Jan 2014, 02:08
Well, the fluffy, tree hugging, lefty apologists have nailed their thoughts on the subject by saying nothing. They could have, at least, said that the police got it right. However.........

SASless
9th Jan 2014, 02:38
Had it been an American Black....shot by American Police....all those so supportive of the Police (well the usual suspects anyway) would be screaming racism, incompetence, Wild West Cowboyism and the usual crap.

But...since it was as it is....fair dinkum by the Plod eh Lads?

If the guy had no weapon....thus could not be brandishing one....could not be threatening a Police Officer with a weapon.....what was it prompted the Cop to shoot the guy and another Police Officer?

Now understand I tend to side with the Cops in these things but where I worked as a Cop....you had to have just a bit more to go on than it appears to have occurred here.

Granted we are used to dealing with folks with guns on a very frequent basis so it is old hat to us which is a sad commentary on life on the Street in big city USA.

Can someone describe or quote an investigative account that clearly sets forth exactly what the Cop said he saw before he cut loose with the MP5?

Considering the Perp's alleged but unproven background.....the worse he was guilty of was practicing unsafe sex on a rabbit like basis and probably adding to the UK Welfare Roles by doing so.

Bottom line it was probably a net gain for the Home Secretary's account.....as MP5 Rounds are a bunch cheaper than housing the Dude in a Prison for Years.

My main question is why the Cop that hosed down the scene with the MP5 was shifted from Armed Police service to other duties? Was it for snuffing the Perp who did not have a weapon in his physical possession....or whacking one of his own?


If for the former.....shame on the Plod.....if for the latter....absolutely proper decision no matter how late it was.

If you cannot take a clear shot....you do not take the shot.

BDiONU
9th Jan 2014, 03:12
Can someone describe or quote an investigative account that clearly sets forth exactly what the Cop said he saw before he cut loose with the MP5?I think that should be done in a court of law, with an impartial jury making the decision as to whether it was lawful or not as opposed to an internet forum. Oh wait!!!

BDiONU
9th Jan 2014, 03:19
I can see how they only winged the first (he was rushing them and they hadn't drawn their weapons) but the second was standing 10 feet away inviting the shots. Poor marksmanship there considering you're meant to aim for the trunk (I think they shot his thumb off).Have you ever been in the situation of being in an armed response? All looks great on movies (marksmanship with short barrelled weapons is incredible, in the real world not so much) and it's all cool, calm and collected down at the range. In the heat of the moment, adrenaline pumping, fear of doing the wrong thing, fear of not doing the right thing, fear of being shot at yourself, little time to think it's a whole new ballgame.

At least you recognise that the training is to aim for the trunk because you have more chance of hitting the target, as opposed to the movies where it seems possible to 'wing' a target or shoot a weapon out of their hand, oh my, reality checks required.

Burnie5204
9th Jan 2014, 03:21
SASless, there are transcripts of every single day of the inquiry on the HM Coroner Service website. I shall sum up all the relevant bits though.


Officer V53 said that as Duggan exited the vehicle he believes he saw a handgun in Duggans hand, evidence has proven the officer correct on this. Duggan was exiting the vehicle and turning towards him. Fearing for his safety he fired the first shot. The first shot passed through Duggans left arm entering on Duggans left side, exiting the right (I.e. side on), ricocheted off the ground on the otherside, flew off at an angle and struck another officer in the shoulder (hitting and embedding in his radio). At this point Duggan has thrown the pistol however V53 did not see this and, as Duggan continued to turn towards him, V53, still believing him to be armed, has fired again striking him almost directly front on, in the chest. This was the fatal shot.

In the UK it is standard procedure for an Armed Officer to be taken off armed duties after a shooting until Senior Police are satisfied they acted lawfully (but they normally continue to do range training and training exercises). In some cases, where it is obvious such as the Lee Rigby case, this might be immediately and they never actually hand their weapons over but in a case like this where there were serious question marks then there is every possibility that they remained on unarmed duties until todays verdict. Now that the Lawful verdict is in Officer V53 will (if the Met hadnt already satisfied themselves that the shooting was lawful) more than likely be back on the range tomorrow getting requalified for Armed duties.


The difference between this and the Lee Rigby case was that in this case the round struck arteries and Duggan bled out quickly despite the firearms officers attempts to administer first aid. In the Lee Rigby case the bullets did not and the firearms officers were able to administer effective first aid.

After all, you cant face justice if you're dead

BDiONU
9th Jan 2014, 03:24
My main question is why the Cop that hosed down the scene with the MP5 was shifted from Armed Police service to other duties? Was it for snuffing the Perp who did not have a weapon in his physical possession....or whacking one of his own?Quite probably because only a very few police officers in the UK volunteer and are selected to serve in armed response units. If you no longer wish to do so then you can go back to normal duties. I would hazard a guess (and it's pure speculation) that this officer withdrew as a volunteer, having just killed a human being and suffering the trauma of that.
Obviously in the states all officers have huge cojones and armed response and shooting perps is business as usual, no big deal to off the perp budabing!

Krystal n chips
9th Jan 2014, 03:25
G n T....

After any event such as this, it's always best to let the euphoria subside, (although in many cases on here said euphoria could more appropriately be compared to premature ejaculation ) before commenting.

Mark Duggan's family furious at inquest verdict of lawful killing | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/09/mark-duggan-family-furious-lawful-killing-verdict)

Now, to-date, I have not read one article or viewed one interview that has stated the deceased was a pillar of the community and had led a blameless and crime free life, because he patently hadn't.

However, it does seem, given the various contradictory statements made to the jury, a rather strange verdict as he wasn't, allegedly, actually holding the weapon at the time and was thus, unarmed.

This minor technicality, in legal terms, seems to have escaped the notice of those celebrating his death. For the more rational thinking amongst us, it does, however, pose more than a few questions.

The case is not going to go away, even when emotions have started to subside, and frankly, m'learned friends are going to have a field day hereafter....it's their job to do so after all.

Despite the verdict, it's also fair to say the Met. have hardly emerged unscathed either and neither is the case about one simple issue, there are clearly many more complex issues here and those also need to be addressed.

Quite how, and to what extent however, remains to be seen at this point.

I am sure the Party will take relevant steps to amend the Statute Book of course, to save any possible repeat in the future....;)

Burnie5204
9th Jan 2014, 03:49
Except he was armed.

If you actually read the jury conclusions they stated that when he exited the vehicle he was armed, when the first shot was fired he was armed, he then threw the gun away and when the FATAL, second, shot was fired he was unarmed.

The officer saw the gun as Duggan exited the vehicle but did not see it get thrown between his first and second shots.


And the 'eyewitness' who says there was no gun was heavily discredited in the court.

BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he was 150 METRES away with his view of the scene partly obstructed by the angle (he had to lean of the window and crane his neck to the right to see), by the vehicles and by the officers themselves.

Could you tell the difference between a phone and a handgun at 150 metres?

Neither could he apparently. His first account to Journalists was that Duggan definitely had a gun. His first account to Police after his footage of the aftermath surfaced was that Duggan had a gun. When it came to provide his formal statement for the Coroner it had become "definitely a mobile phone". When cross examined as to why he had said "Definitely a gun" to the BBC and again "held a gun" when Police spoke to him but now said "Definitely a phone" he had no answer, just reasserted "definitely a phone". When he was asked how he could possibly tell the difference from 150m with a partly obstructed view and no viewing aids (binoculars etc) his answer was "20/20 vision mate"

I dont know of ANYONE that could possibly tell what is in my hand from 150 METRES away and a partly obstructed view whilst I run out of a cab door....

sitigeltfel
9th Jan 2014, 05:36
My main question is why the Cop that hosed down the scene with the MP5 was shifted from Armed Police service to other duties?

Is this not standard procedure in the UK until the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/)has investigated the incident?

Given all the shit he has had to endure, I would not blame him if he didn't now want to return to armed duty.

Flap 5
9th Jan 2014, 05:58
Duggan is now history. The worry now is the reaction after the court case. The fury of the relatives and friends and what that could generate is now the concern. The London riots started as a direct result of this 2 years ago.

We can all be angry at losing a relative or friend but when you know he was carrying a gun with the intent to use it at some point you have to realise he would be at considerable risk. Instead these relatives were only considering the police reaction of shooting a man who had just thrown a gun away and had not actually got a gun in his hand when the fatal shot hit him.

These people have a strange sense of society where it is normal to them to carry guns and deal in drugs to the extent that the police reaction appeared to them to be disproportionate. You only have to look at the reaction of the older relatives in the crowd to see where the youngsters get their attitudes from.

I am also not sure this is a case of one less breeder or voter. The reaction of the relatives would indicate they have strong influence on many around them.

radeng
9th Jan 2014, 06:16
To my mind, the biggest worry is the assumption that if an officers feels threatened, he can shoot. The problem there is that you then have to get some sort of evidence that he was justified in so feeling. Brazilian electrician? Stephen Waldorf? The Chief Commissioner of the Met has announced that from April, firearms officers will have helmet mounted cameras, which seems a very good idea in that the evidence will then be available. What that will lead to, we will have to wait and see....

Ron Manager
9th Jan 2014, 06:34
I, I, don't quite understand what happened here. Am I getting this right that a criminal had a handgun? Aren't handguns banned in England? Did the cop shoot said criminal? Aren't cops unarmed in England, shouting "stop, or I shall yell 'stop', again"?

Ah, I see what you've tried to do there. :rolleyes:

You're actually right, he had a handgun, which (among other things) made him a criminal. Knowing this, specialist armed police were sent to arrest him, rather than risking unarmed police - pretty simple really.

Having specialist armed police prevents means that they only needed 2 rounds to end the (perceived or actual) threat posed by Duggan. Ie no-one “hosed down the scene with an MP5” as some would believe.

I mean if you want to "hose down a street" in order to subdue one suspect…
2012 Empire State Building shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting)

UniFoxOs
9th Jan 2014, 06:41
officers will have helmet mounted cameras, which seems a very good idea in that the evidence MAY then be available

Fixed that for you.

Capetonian
9th Jan 2014, 06:50
I have placed this entire conversation on my ignore list. I cannot believe how many racist fascist bigots there are on JB, who seem to think that the murder, at the hands of a bunch of racist trigger happy thugs in uniform, of this noble young gentleman, who was only trying to make a better life for himself and his community, is something to be proud of.

Really. I had better go and have my breakfast. Harrumph.

Dis custard of Tunbridge De Wells.

El Grifo
9th Jan 2014, 08:19
Whilst having no sympathy whatsoever for those who carry weapons of any sort in the streets of the UK, I do however, question the logic of the legal findings.

Today's report of the legal finding, is that when he was shot he was unarmed. He did however have a weapon in the taxi.

How come then, that the weapon was found 20ft.away, over a fence.

El G.

meadowrun
9th Jan 2014, 09:00
The police following knew he had a gun. They had intelligence he was going to pick one up and had indeed picked it up from his "friend".
When the taxi was stopped he chucked it rather than dropping it (to avoid criminal possession of a gun).
The police did not see him throw it.
In the heat of the moment the officer thought a gun was in his hand coming up to shoot him.

How I read it anyway.

Family has had any compo chance removed and should concentrate on keeping younger brother with the other last name on the straight and narrow. I won't hold any breath.

sitigeltfel
9th Jan 2014, 09:22
Quote of the day....

I heard his mother saying on the news that the Metropolitan Police had made 6 children fatherless.

Let's be honest, love. They just made it official.

500N
9th Jan 2014, 09:37
"How come then, that the weapon was found 20ft.away, over a fence."

He threw it away, unseen by the Police.

It's not difficult to throw a pistol a fair distance.

Blacksheep
9th Jan 2014, 09:41
Now understand I tend to side with the Cops in these things but where I worked as a Cop....you had to have just a bit more to go on than it appears to have occurred here.The man had form for gangster crime. He was believed to have carried out a night-club shooting and also the murder of another Broadwater gangster in a car park. Gang silence means that police could not proceed due to lack of hard evidence that would stand up in court. Broadwater Farm is the ghetto area where gangsters cornered Police Constable Blakelock and hacked him to death with machetes in 1985. To this day no-one knows who did it. That's the kind of people we are talking about here.

The police received intelligence from an informer that Duggan was going to visit another gangster across town to pick up a gun to use in a crime - that's what the London crack-dealing gangs do apparently: buy in a gun, use it and pass it straight on. [The man from whom he bought the gun pleaded guilty to supplying it and is serving time.]

He was followed by an armed response unit operating as part of an ongoing anti-gun operation, his mobile phone was hacked and after he had the gun in his possession they tracked him on his way back to Broadwater, stopping the taxi on the railway bridge to minimise risk to the public. Instead of staying in the car and surrendering - in which case he'd be caught red-handed in possession - he chose to exit the car with the gun in his hand, apparently (it seems after the event) intending to throw it over the wall where he could deny ever having it. At the same time, the armed officers saw him raising his hand with the gun and fired. The rounds hit him after the gun had already left his hand. In reality, it doesn't happen in such a slow easily described fashion: we are talking about reactions in fractions of a second.

You stop a car that you know for an absolute fact has an armed gangster inside. He opens the door and emerges with a gun in his hand. What do YOU do? As the hand holding the weapon rises from his side?
. . . and what is our reaction time in doing it?

Shytehawk
9th Jan 2014, 09:41
Come on moderators this is supposed to be a professional pilot's forum.

bosnich71
9th Jan 2014, 09:45
Duggan .........
linked to ten shootings and two murders.
A senior member of the Tottenham ManDem gang which traded in violence, intimidation and drugs and has been linked to ten murders and ten shootings.
Repeatedly arrested over a raft of serious crimes including,murder,attempted murder and a range of firearms offences.
Armed criminals have shot dead 50 people in London in the past three and a half years..... (police statement).
Quite honestly had I been the policeman confronted by this bloke I would have shot first and asked questions later.

500N
9th Jan 2014, 09:46
Shytehawk

Er, the rest of the forum maybe, this is Jet Blast, virtually anything goes.

If you want to talk aircraft, go to the aircraft forums, plenty of them :O

bosnich71
9th Jan 2014, 09:49
500N ......... and they don't all talk about Airyplanes all the time either. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/infopop/icons/icon7.gif

500N
9th Jan 2014, 09:52
Exactly.

I must admit I did just go and check what it said about Jet Blast and
where it was to make sure with the last couple of changes of location
they hadn't changed what is allowed in here.

We get kicked off the "Pilot's" forums, seems some want to hinder
free speech in one of the few places we can have anything goes,
within reason !!!

Just my HO.

Tankertrashnav
9th Jan 2014, 09:54
However, it does seem, given the various contradictory statements made to the jury, a rather strange verdict as he wasn't, allegedly, actually holding the weapon at the time and was thus, unarmed.




That is not strange, given that the jury were quite rightly instructed that in order to find a verdict of lawful killing they only had to accept that the policeman who shot Duggan honestly believed that he was armed and that his (the policeman's) life was under threat.

In all the millions of words that have been spoken about this incident, it all comes down to what was in the policeman's mind in the second or two before he pulled the trigger. If you believe him, as the jury did, then no other verdict is possible.

500N
9th Jan 2014, 10:33
Racism was the last thing on my mind when reading most of the posts on here.

Crim, had gun, cops know he was armed, solution put into effect,
good outcome. Wouldn't have worried me if he was white, black,
yellow or any colour in between.

Gertrude the Wombat
9th Jan 2014, 12:03
Strange, our resident leftwing pinko liberal hand-wringing appologist hasn't shown up yet?
Which of us did you have in mind?


In my view a criminal who goes about the streets with a gun can't really complain if he gets shot by the police.

cornish-stormrider
9th Jan 2014, 12:35
While any death is regrettable as I believe we as a society do not need death penalty, a real life sentence should be ok

Mr Duggan left a vehicle armed, he had prior intent, he had to go and acquire it.

Officer had to make a split second decision about public safety, his safety and decided shots were needed

Officer has been cleared by enquiry of jurours

End of

If criminals do not want to face justice then give up crime

If you do not want the risk of being shot then do not carry a handgun

It is hardly rocket science

charliegolf
9th Jan 2014, 12:44
Duggan .........
linked to ten shootings and two murders.

Quite honestly had I been the policeman confronted by this bloke I would have shot first and asked questions later.

I've been linked with the 10 most beautiful women on earth, but there's not a shred of evidence to prove it. We need better than that, and so we should.

Shoot first and ask questions later? Why not just 'off' him in an alley then? Because we are better than that.

Now as for Duggan- he went about armed, so deserved to be met with armed officers. Blood is thicker than water, so not everyone is going to chuck out and disown their child. I would like to think that had it been my child, I'd be on telly telling the world that this was bound to happen one day; that I warned him ad nauseum that I would shop him if I had any evidence; and that it would be his fault and no-one else's if he got shot.

Clearly, not everyone's like me!

CG

SASless
9th Jan 2014, 13:14
Burnie.....thanks for the information.

Solidly with the Officer now after you confirmed Duggan had a Pistol in his hand as he exited the Taxi.....and presented himself in a manner that would lead the Officer to consider Duggan a Threat.

Everything after that is understandable.

The use of Military Ball ammo is dangerous as it will travel completely through a Human in most cases...and thus putting other people at risk.

That is why we have gone to design built Hollow Point Expanding Bullets for Police work.....with the goal of limiting the risk to anyone other than the targeted individual.

As it is "Deadly Force" and by definition is expected to result in the death of the person being shot....as there is no way to prevent that with any certainty....making the round more lethal in that regard is not unreasonable.

Changing to Hollow Point bullets would be a suggestion and but not a criticism of the Police as I understand the pressures they are under in the UK when it comes to using fire arms. Logic and reason does not necessarily come into the discussion when the anti-Police.....anti-Gun Mob get on their soap box.

In the USA....Police Officers who are involved in a Shooting are placed on Administrative Leave, surrender the weapon used but are issued a replacement, offered Psychological Counseling, and assigned to Administrative duties until the Investigation of the Shooting is completed by an Independent Investigation. Upon being confirmed as having performed in a proper and legal manner....they are then returned to full duty.

SASless
9th Jan 2014, 13:33
I would hazard a guess (and it's pure speculation) that this officer withdrew as a volunteer, having just killed a human being and suffering the trauma of that.

Far less "Trauma" than you seem to think when it is a matter of self defense. My experience is the real trauma is coping with the realization of how close one is to Death while doing your job....one's own Death....not the violent armed offender's who you killed while he was trying to kill you.

When you pin on that Badge and take the Oath to enforce the law....you accept certain risks come with that but when that day comes and you actually have to deal with it....and survive....it is relief and gratitude that you walk away.

At some point you may question if you did everything possible to avoid the outcome....but the in the end....the taking of another Human's Life while they are in the process of trying to take yours....is not that traumatic to most.

Dealing with the stress of the event is the problem most face....particularly if the event is prolonged, violent, and at close quarters, and results in being wounded by the Suspect(s). Post Traumatic Stress is why Police Officers receive Counseling.

PTT
9th Jan 2014, 13:38
confirmed Duggan had a Pistol in his hand as he exited the TaxiI'd like to see where that was said. The Jury's Determination and Conclusion (http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf) says the following:

Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the
stop?
Yes - 10
No - 0

How did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found?
8:2

The Jury, in a majority of 9:1, concluded that Mark Duggan threw the firearm onto the grass.
Of the 9, 8 have concluded that it is more likely than not, that Mark Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement.
1 concluded that Mark Duggan threw the firearm whilst on the pavement and in the process of evading the police.
1 juror was not convinced of any supposition that Mark Duggan threw the firearm from the vehicle or from the pavement because no witnesses gave evidence to this effect.

When Mr Duggan received the fatal shot did he have the gun in his hand?
We are sure that he did not have a gun in his hand - 8
We believe that it is more likely than not that he did have a gun in his hand - 1
We believe that it is more likely than not that he did not have a gun in his hand - 1

Conclusion of the jury as to the death:
Unlawful killing - 0
Open conclusion - 2
Lawful killing - 8

Is there anywhere which specifically states that he had a gun in his hand as he exited the taxi? The jury seemed to believe otherwise: that he threw the gun as soon as the taxi stopped and before any police were on the pavement.

That's not to argue with the verdict, which is based on whether the officer involved believed he was acting in lawful self defence (or to prevent crime) and using reasonable force.

angels
9th Jan 2014, 17:55
What have I done wrong? I regard myself as left wing and pinkoish!!

Again, Blacksheep and Tankertrashnav have nailed it. I agree that the policeman genuinely thought his life was in danger, although as I've said before the Met does have (poor) form when it comes to evidence of this type.

Re the ammo, one of the bullets passed through Duggan (I think his arm) and hit another policeman's radio. And re Woolwich, surely something is amiss with the training if three armed police can't hit the trunk of a suspect standing 10 feet away. (I have come under random fire three times, but never as a combatant, I do know about adrenalin rush!!).

Oh, and one other thing, there are still articles on the web from UK newspapers stating that Duggan shot the cop!! How can this be? Surely there should be (at the very least) caveats to the stories??

Lonewolf_50
9th Jan 2014, 20:35
In my view a criminal who goes about the streets with a gun can't really complain if he gets shot by the police.
A curious PoV, at first blush. I then consider for a moment which side of the pond it comes from, and it makes far more sense.

I score the match:
Burnie 1 Krystal 0.

I read the name "Duggan" and had no photographs to hand, so I presumed that the dead crook in question was an Irishman or of Irish extraction.
I suppose I'd be better off checking a few links with pictures so that assumptions like that don't cloud my understanding.

Glad to learn that the police in the UK have armed officers, and that they treat them as specialists. Interesing approach, and it appears to work well enough to suit. :ok:

Gertrude the Wombat
9th Jan 2014, 20:43
it appears to work well enough to suit
It works most of the time, but not quite all. Once every few years there's a cock-up, as in any walk of life.

skua
9th Jan 2014, 20:55
There is another sub-text here - a subject that politicians don't dare talk about.


Duggan was into drugs, gangs and crime. The 'family' appearing on TV seem mainly to be his (white) mother and aunt. Where is his Dad?


The theme therefore is that many young blacks enter the world of gangs because they have no father figure. It is commonplace for feckless men in the black community to take no further interest once they have fathered a child - who then grows up with no adult male role model. This leaves his fetid brain open to manipulation by older gang members.


It would be good to see some senior members of Britain's black communities suggesting that their younger compatriots take some responsibility for their wild oats.....

cornish-stormrider
9th Jan 2014, 21:21
Skua, ye canna say that.
What about their human rights to be feckless parents....?

Burnie5204
9th Jan 2014, 21:29
PTT,

Having read some of the transcripts when they came out I can clear that up. The logistics of where the gun ended up based on where the taxi stopped, that the cab window was closed and the way the door opens mean Duggan had to be in the doorway hunched over or in the process of getting out of the cab in order to throw it in the direction where it was found. Thus whilst yes, it has been described as 'from the taxi' (rather than the other options of 'whilst evading police' this must have been from the doorway as he exited the taxi, even the taxi driver said Duggan had already opened the door before he had stopped. This is also backed up by multiple officers stating they saw a gun in his hand as he came out of the taxi door.

Now V53s first shot was not from the pavement, and the Jury were not asked to consider ANYTHING about this shot so there is nothing about it in the conclusions/verdict.

What the jury were asked to consider was the legality of the SECOND shot, which was the fatal shot and is the shot that the Coroner is interested in. This is why all the media have been reporting on Duggan not having a gun in his hand when he was shot, because the gun was no longer in his hand for the fatal, second shot. The media have failed to pass any comment about the inquest evidence that the gun was seen in his hand (even if it was just as he was in the process of throwing it) by multiple officers at the point at which the first shot was taken.

By the time the second shot was taken the officers has moved onto the pavement (as officers dont just fire multiple rounds in one go - its Assess, Determine, Fire, Re-Assess, Re-Determine etc.), this was enough time for Duggan to have turned through 90 degrees to the left against the force of the first shot that would have tried to pivot him to the right.

So yes, when Duggan stopped he had a gun,
Yes, Duggan threw the gun 'from the taxi'
Yes, this was before officers were on the pavement
No, he didnt have it when he was fatally shot.

And SASless,

UK Police do use JHP to prevent overpenetration, particularly in urban areas but in this case it only went through the flesh of Duggan's arm, not enough to stop it fully and it came out the otherside and ended up embedded in another officers radio.

PTT
9th Jan 2014, 22:11
Thank you, Burnie. Not that I disbelieve you, but do you have links to the relevant transcripts? I prefer to read these things myself as nuance can be lost in summaries.

SASless
9th Jan 2014, 23:30
The 'family' appearing on TV seem mainly to be his (white) mother and aunt. Where is his Dad?

Quite a common question these days ain't it?

Welfare States do not encourage Men to be responsible Fathers do they?:mad:

rh200
10th Jan 2014, 00:00
as a society do not need death penalty, a real life sentence should be ok

Your view and your entitled to it. Though If they are 100% guilty, no chance what soever of being innocent, and they are in jail for life with no chance of being released, on the most disgusting of crimes, I can't see why we should be paying for them.

After spotting that bit the other day about that cop in America who was killed, and the guilty finding of the assailant, and how that turned out with the crim having streets namend after them in places in Europe, there is something very sick in our society's.

As for the gun, easy to flick it away the distance it went whilst standing, bit more effort from within a car and obvious.

LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK
10th Jan 2014, 01:09
The thing that puzzles me about this whole case is why DNA was not found on the sock containing the gun 20ft from where he was shot and yet it was on the shoe box containing the gun. I have very deep reservations about the police and their ability to cover things up.

Was Duggan a nasty piece of work ? YES.

Should he have had a gun in his possession ? NO.

Did he risk being shot being in possession of a gun in the taxi ? YES.

Are the police capable of covering things up and protecting their own ? YOU BETCHA.

Are the IPCC impartial ? NO (they are riddled with ex policemen with mates in the force still).

I doubt the truth will ever come out.

Lantern10
10th Jan 2014, 03:31
I doubt the truth will ever come out.

I'm with you, Lima, on this.

rh200
10th Jan 2014, 03:58
I doubt the truth will ever come out.

Yep now we know where things like the Mumia Abu-Jamal issue started.

Maybe Duggan will have some streets named after him in due course, a bit of a statue.

Burnie5204
10th Jan 2014, 04:17
PTT

Transcripts are available here

Hearing transcripts - Inquest into the death of Mark Duggan (http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/hearing-transcripts.htm)

The evidences are available on the links on the left.

V53s evidence and cross examination is on 15th October. Make sure you read the cross examinations as they include the scientific evidence which clarify and slightly ammend V53s recollection

bosnich71
10th Jan 2014, 04:19
I think that those of us in Australia should hesitate before criticising the British police actions in this case. After all Australian police have been known to shoot, dead, unarmed persons suffering from mental problems on more than one occasion and no disciplinary action has been taken.

BDiONU
10th Jan 2014, 05:08
If the guy had no weapon....thus could not be brandishing one....could not be threatening a Police Officer with a weapon.....what was it prompted the Cop to shoot the guy and another Police Officer?Here is a clip of American law enforcement showing how it should have been done huh? The offence "A motorist who refused to yield for a traffic stop"

LiveLeak.com - Police open fire on stopped suspect after 1-hour long pursuit.

porch monkey
10th Jan 2014, 05:41
Criticise, Bos? Nope, one less piece of filth on the street is a good thing. God forbid there should be a few more to follow. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif You carry a firearm to do bad with, you can expect to be treated as such. F#ck him and his horse.

SASless
10th Jan 2014, 05:54
BD.....what are you trying to say by posting that video?

Care to give us the facts behind the situation?

What did the Shooting Investigation reveal?

What were the circumstances?




How long should a Police Officer delay in shooting? How many rounds do they fire?

Put yourself in the Cops shoes.....and think about it?

The Female Officer in the first Video gets a Hand Salute for being cool under fire! Listen to her coordinate her attack with the other Officer. All the time the Suspect is firing an Assault Rifle at the Officers wounding the Female Officer with one Round to a hand which severed a finger.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4esQhaHzTd0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2972gTMPdXQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60a2xIz600A

bosnich71
10th Jan 2014, 07:58
SAS .... I think he was trying to say that more than 2 shots were fired.

Blacksheep
10th Jan 2014, 08:52
I can't see why we should be paying for them.Fifty years ago prisoners were obliged to work and prison governors received the income directly into their budget. During my time there, RAF Halton sent all its laundry and footwear repairs to Aylesbury prison. In addition to sewing mail bags and breaking rocks, the prisoners did our laundry and repaired our drill boots to pay for their keep.

This has since been determined to violate prisoners' human rights. The recent TV documentary shot in Aylesbury prison showed the prisoners relaxing in single occupant cells, similar to a room in an RAF Sergeants Mess, playing snooker on tables permanently installed in the communal area outside their rooms and generally having a nice time.

If we went back to making them work to pay for their keep, keeping criminals in prison would not be such an onerous charge on the taxpayer. Surely the whole point of incarceration in a prison is to violate the prisoners' human rights by punishing them and to teach them a lesson?

charliegolf
10th Jan 2014, 09:17
Surely the whole point of incarceration in a prison is to violate the prisoners' human rights by punishing them and to teach them a lesson?

Yes and no. Sadly, the punishment is the removal of liberty. Nothing else- no retribution, revenge or lesson teaching. Hence the BS about the right to vote recently.

Removal from 'open' society is the punishment, not from society itself, and the norms associated with it, it seems.

CG

BDiONU
10th Jan 2014, 09:37
SAS .... I think he was trying to say that more than 2 shots were fired.I was thinking more shoot out at the OK corral, as opposed to single aimed shots as per UK Police in the case we're talking about. And it was directed (as per the quote) at the 'cop' who was criticising the UK police officer.

Lon More
10th Jan 2014, 09:41
It would be good to see some senior members of Britain's black communities suggesting that their younger compatriots take some responsibility for their wild oats.....

equally applicable to sections of the white community.

He got instant justice, either for past offences or something he would have done in the future. His colour is irrelevant.

From a tree hugging pinko

cockney steve
10th Jan 2014, 11:29
Presumably they Duggan 'ole and buried the toe-rag's remains somewhere unmarked? :}


Yesterday's post appears to have been lost/censored/redacted

I posed the question.... Everybody's banging on (so to speak!) about the poor, traumatised cop , who got to remove a scumbag from the gene-pool....What about the poor bloody taxi-driver?

An innocent civilian, going about his work and suddenly confronted with an armed hold-up and shootout :eek:

sitigeltfel
10th Jan 2014, 11:42
What about the poor bloody taxi-driver? An innocent civilian, going about his work and suddenly confronted with an armed hold-up and shootout :eek:

The minicab drivers story (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/27/mark-duggan-shooting-taxi-driver-evidence)

The cab driver, who spoke Punjabi translated into English by an interpreter :hmm:Apologies for Guardian content ;)

fitliker
10th Jan 2014, 15:24
A non-English speaker from a part of the world that exports drugs in a vehicle with a known drug dealer. I wonder how much money he sends back to his village in the Punjab. Did the police follow up on this witness ?
No wonder he used an interpreter, it is hard to be tripped up on cross examination when you speak through an interpreter.
Col. Gaddafi used to speak through an interpreter, a family friend who had dinner with Gaddafi told me Gadaffi spoke better English than most of you Scotch fellas. In later years he would speak slowly in English to give him the opportunity to choose his words and appear wiser, cunning old fox.

bosnich71
11th Jan 2014, 07:15
BDiONU ...... I'm on your side.


I've just watched a report and the video on the Aussie news this evening. Given the concern about the British police officer's actions from some members of the community it was interesting to hear, on the report, an American police officer stating that they were trained to keep on firing .... I suppose when they run out of bullets .... and they certainly did that in this case.
P.S. in spite of all the ammo expended the driver was reportedly still alive when taken to hospital. It would seem that, in these two cases anyway, one British police officer's two shots was more effective than half a dozen of San Diego P.D.'s finest.

LIMA OR ALPHA JUNK
11th Jan 2014, 07:56
SASless used to be obsessed with "olive green gun doors," said "welcome to my world" when Jean Charles de Menezes was innocently shot dead, likes varmint hunting in Afghanistan on home videos, likes playing with guns himself and is an adopted American now. He sounds mighty confused to me....

He is, however, allowed his opinion on pprune like everyone else bless him....

bosnich71
11th Jan 2014, 10:11
LIMA ...... of course SAS is entitled to his opinion. Let's face it we are all a bit sad else we wouldn't on here waffling about everything and nothing.

radeng
11th Jan 2014, 22:32
Why is it allowed that "mistakes" like the shootings of Menezes and Waldorf go unpunished, but a "mistake" of dangerous driving by a policeman isn't?

Dual standards?

Or the Met don't give a sh*t who they shoot?

Station_Calling
11th Jan 2014, 22:45
So you can release white doves and at the same time chant "no justice, no peace"...

G-CPTN
11th Jan 2014, 23:29
Not having seen or heard any of the evidence other than what has been reported in the media, I can see two points of view:-

On the one hand, the marksman was determined to take out an armed villain.

On the other hand, knowing that the suspect had collected a weapon (or more probably that an 'intelligence report' strongly suggested - remember the confusion that lead to the shooting of de Menezes?) the marksman genuinely expected the suspect to 'come out shooting' and when the taxi stopped and the door was thrown open and a body emerged apparently brandishing something (that he subsequently discarded) the first shot was fired. The ricochet probably suggested that a shot had been fired by the suspect and the suspect, having been hit spun around (away from the marksman - who was not prone but on his feet and moving towards the suspect) and, believing that the suspect was still armed (and had apparently fired back) I am fully prepared to believe that the marksman acted in accordance with his training and responded to the threat by firing a second time.

That the second shot was subsequently fatal was no more than chance as the first shot had not been disabling - using a weapon in 'scrambled' surroundings (ie not calmly on a range) is at best 'random'.

So, on the balance of probability I am prepared to believe that the marksman acted professionally and, therefore, legally (believing that he was under threat by an armed suspect).

It wasn't as if the suspect had laid face down with his arms outstretched or emerged slowly and calmly with his hands raised above his head in obvious submission.

Not being the marksman I cannot be certain beyond all possible doubt, and I doubt whether the marksman himself could in all honesty state whether his actions were correct and that he would do the same again - unless, of course, he had made up his mind that the villain was going to die, regardless.

Does that make sense?

Finally, what are the ROE when an armed (?) fugitive makes a break for freedom from an ambush? Are the Police allowed to shoot to 'disable' to prevent a situation with an armed assailant 'on the run'? With what degree of accuracy can such shots be fired? I suspect that it's more random than certainty.

Burnie5204
12th Jan 2014, 00:50
G-CPTN, there is absolutely, 100%, categorically no chance that V53 shot him because he wanted to.

Not ONE single armed officer EVER wants to shoot anyone. Not ONE single armed officer EVER wants to pull the trigger in a live scenario.

V53 had been on armed duties since 2003 (with an initial 2 week pistol course). He had been on the Specialist Firearms Unit, SCO19, since 2005 (with an initial 7 week armed response training course and 2 week Firearms First Aid course) and had been a Covert Qualified Officer from 2009 (with an additional 7 week training course)

As well as that, for the 8 years he was armed, he had to spend 1 week in every 6 training. That works out as 70 weeks training over the 8 years, more than a year and a quarter worth of training in 8 years.

And I can tell you that the firearms training (2 weeks + 7 weeks + 7 weeks + 70 weeks, a total of 86 weeks or 1.5 YEARS worth of training out of 8 years) is focussed on how to AVOID shooting anyone. Yes they do scenarios in which they end up shooting the suspect and are rigourously trained in the laws around Use of Force but that is to check that the officer will pull the trigger if they have to but they do FAR more training in how to conduct themselves and plan and carry out operations/incidents so that the subject does not get shot unless ABSOLUTELY neccesary.

Yes, there have been some VERY high profile mistakes such as Jean-Charles de Menezes who was the unfortunate victim of mis-identification by the Observation team in a bush outside the block of flats both JCDM and the failed bomber from the previous day but that doesnt change the fact that Police Firearms Officers NEVER, EVER want to shoot ANYONE and NEVER, EVER want to take someones life. Operations are meticulously planned to avoid having to shoot and tactics are rigourously designed and practiced to avoid having to shoot often by forcing the subject into submission by totally overwhelming them with armed officers who strike VERY fast with lots of verbal aggression so that the subject doesnt have time to think about fighting. This is why they stopped the cab very suddenly, without warning and very quickly tried to surround the cab aggressively shouting "ARMED POLICE" "STAY WHERE YOU ARE" "DONT MOVE".

There is absolutely NO chance that V53 pulled the trigger once, let alone twice, unless he believed 100% that Duggan was armed and that he was about to put him or other officers at serious risk of harm (I.e. he believed Duggan was about to shoot) and the JURY has agreed with him that he had an honestly held belief in the circumstances that his or his colleagues lives were in danger and that shooting him was a reasonable use of force in those circumstances. Even though it turns out Duggan had tossed the gun the firearms officerS present believed they had seen a gun in his hand (presumably as he came out the door and before he tossed it) and V53 still believed he had it at the time he shot him.

And he did it using the same laws of self defence that are open to everybody. That you may defend yourself or others from unlawful assault and that you do not need to wait for your assailant to assault you first before defending yourself I.e. if someone comes up to you and you believe they are about to punch you then you can punch first.


EDIT: And actually the Intel briefings, as described by V53 himself, stated that Tottenham Man Dem Crew (whom Duggan was KNOWN to be a leader of) were very 'Police aware' and when stopped would throw the gun and come out running.

So V53 KNEW that Duggan was likely to toss the gun and present to Police unarmed rather than shoot but he STILL, due to Duggans actions, had reason to believe Duggan was armed and about to shoot. THAT alone should speak volumes because officers wouldnt need OR want to plant the gun 6m from him as, given the intelligence, this would put the Police in a WORSE position in proving their innocence as it would prove the Intel right and lead to saying he was unarmed when shot which wouldnt work in the Police's favour for a cover up. Who plans a cover up to prove that the armed suspect was shot legitimately that says that they person they just shot was unarmed.... Especially, if it had been a cover up, when they could more easially planted the gun on him in the confusion of the First Aid measures or just inside the cab. And why would they shoot another officer?!?

The truth is that the officer knew him to be armed and saw him armed but that he had tossed the gun unseen but the officer still believed him to be armed and believed that life was at risk. V53 even did SUCCESSFUL CPR and first aid on Duggan for christs sake. Who plans to kill someone then SAVES THEIR LIFE for crying out loud!! For those not aware, after Duggan was shot he was still concious and V53 and 2 other officers commenced first aid but Duggan continued to bleed from an unseen wound and became unconcious. V53 himself found and plugged the wound with a seal and commenced CPR. Duggan regained a pulse and showed signs of returning to conciousness when Paramedics arrived and care was handed over to the Paramedic as V53 had to be segregated from the other officers ASAP to ensure he couldnt confer and communicate with anyone else prior to he and them writing their statements. It was then, under the care of the Paramedics that he died. Or is someone going to suggest that London Ambulance Service were in on it too?

EDIT 2: RoE is that NO, you cant shoot a fleeing suspect, even if armed. Not unless you have reasonable cause to believe that there is an IMMEDIATE risk to life (I.e. you believe they are about to shoot someone down the road/around the corner or shoot at you/your colleagues)

stagger
12th Jan 2014, 10:47
... he did it using the same laws of self defence that are open to everybody. That you may defend yourself or others from unlawful assault and that you do not need to wait for your assailant to assault you first before defending yourself I.e. if someone comes up to you and you believe they are about to punch you then you can punch first.

I was once present, and very close, when armed officers arrested a suspect. This was not in the UK - so procedures are likely very different. In this instance the officer who approached the suspect (near me) was in plain clothes and I don't recall seeing any police markings or hear him announce that he was a police officer as he approached.

Consequently I was faced with a man coming towards me, with a gun, and I genuinely at the moment it happened did not realise this was a police officer.

I genuinely, albeit briefly, felt my life was in danger. However, hypothetically, if I had acted on this genuine belief and fear and tried to defend myself - I doubt very much I would have had much luck with a self-defence plea (of course I wouldn't have had much luck defending myself either - but hypothetically!).

Fox3WheresMyBanana
12th Jan 2014, 10:48
I have known 3 people (two already police officers) whom I privately felt wanted to have the chance to shoot a bad guy. All three had their applications for Firearms duties rejected. I know 1 guy who was accepted, and I have every confidence he would pull the trigger if he had to, but would avoid doing so if at all possible.

radeng
12th Jan 2014, 13:01
Burnie

>but that doesnt change the fact that Police Firearms Officers NEVER, EVER want to shoot ANYONE and NEVER, EVER want to take someones life.<

What about Stephen Waldorf, where it was ADMITTED in court that they were trying to kill him, but they were out of ammunition? Waldorf was already wounded and had slumped from the passenger seat into the driver's seat. DC Peter Finch leant into the car, aimed between Waldorf's eyes and said "OK cocksucker" before pulling the trigger. No bullets, so he beat Waldorf unconscious.

I don't know if the NHS billed the Metropolitan Police for the medical costs involved: they certainly should have done - he was hit five times and severely wounded in his head, abdomen, and liver.

That means that 'NEVER, EVER' is not correct. 'Extremely rarely' would be more accurate.

Burnie5204
12th Jan 2014, 13:08
Armed Policing in 2014 is a FAR, FAR cry from armed Policing in 1983, 30 years ago. Comparing the two is like comparing Apples and Crab apples. Both are fruit, both are called apples and grow from a tree but thats about where the similarity ends.

As a poster above said. Those that want to carry guns to shoot someone are weeded out, those that want to carry guns to not use them unless absolutely necessary get in (obviously its not as simple as that but you get the idea)

In 1983 we didnt even have Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) and the Police were basically a law unto themselves.

SASless
12th Jan 2014, 13:22
Every Police Interview Board I have attended....on both sides of the table....have asked the Candidate about their willingness to use Deadly Force should it be required. Of those Candidates with either Military or Law Enforcement experience during which they had used Deadly Force....all said they were prepared to do so again and all without prompting went on to say they would only do so if absolutely required.

Those that hand no exposure to such events....either quickly and firmly said they had not objection or hesitation to do so....or were quite open about being very unsure if they could.

It took an analysis of the inexperienced folk's background and other responses before a decision could be made to pass them along for selection.

Those that had been involved in shootings....were being interviewed as all of their records and other documentation substantiated they had been able to perform within the legal guidelines and ROE's. At least we knew they were capable of performing the duty if required.

The inexperienced folks.....no matter how well they were evaluated were always an unknown up to the point they were confronted and reacted to those kinds of situations.

On the Federal Level....no one I knew personally ever had to fire a weapon for real.....and only fired their weapons during training.

On the local level, I know several Officers who had to shoot people....and were shot themselves. But that number is still quite small compared to the numbers of Officers I have known.

Most Officers go Years without removing their Pistol from the Holster.....some never do. It usually depends upon the area you work in....some neighborhoods are safe as houses and others are akin to Dodge City.

The Neighborhoods I worked as a City Cop....were tough....tough areas.....but I never shot anyone....although I did have a couple of very close calls. On only one occasion did I make the decision to shoot someone. He was a young man who was holding a large knife under a Child's Chin and was threatening to kill the Child. I had asked him twice to drop the knife......I was going to ask him a third time and if he did not.....I would have shot him square in the head from about ten feet away. Fortunately, he dropped the Knife.....but had he not...I would have shot him dead.

No Police Officer goes to work each day looking to shoot someone.....much the reverse. Officers like going home unhurt at the end of their Shift. They understand that the risk of being involved in some sort of encounter that results in violence exists but they do not seek those things out.

When you have to deal with violent and dangerous people....there is always the possibility they will escalate a peaceful encounter to a violent level. A Police Officer has to be capable and willing to counter that violence and protect himself and others.....including using deadly force if required.



RADENG,

That commentary rings very true somehow.....you ever been in a gunfight or really violent fight? Can you imagine the effects of Adrenaline on your system? One of the hardest things for a Police Officer to do is control those reactions during a real fight, or at the end of a foot Chase or Car Chase, or in a gunfight.

Humans are wired to react one way....and the Law requires you to act another. Trust me...when you system is pumped and in "GO!" gear....it is hard to not give the Perp some more.....when he absolutely deserves it.

Cops are not immune from emotion and normal human reactions so don't think they will ever be perfect.

Krystal n chips
12th Jan 2014, 15:53
" Trust me...when you system is pumped and in "GO!" gear....it is hard to not give the Perp some more.....when he absolutely deserves it."

And in sentence, you have, with consummate ease, contradicted all the previous comments as to how police, in any capacity, are always so restrained and disciplined in their actions.

SASless
12th Jan 2014, 16:22
Not at all KC.....very much the opposite to what you suggest.....as usual I might add.

I explained why that training is so important.....and as usual you attempt to twist it around.

I cannot account for your constant inability to grasp the obvious but your posts remind us of that over and over.

I must suppose your exposure to the reality of life on the street is limited to the Telly and internet as you certainly lack an appreciation of what Life on the Street is all about.

But then.....if you did have real experience with the ugly side of life you would not be thinking the way you do.

That is core failure of those on the Left.....thinking Life can be made all warm and fuzzy by a wave of the hand or the scribbling of a pen.

Life doesn't work that way.

radeng
12th Jan 2014, 20:35
SAS, Burnie,

It seems to me that what you are both saying is that under the stress of a confrontation, if a policeman screws up and kills or injures an innocent person, it's sad but it's OK and he shouldn't have to bear any responsibility.

But it is accepted that if a policeman kills someone by dangerous or careless driving when he (she) may not have other than a split second decision to make, that they can receive the full penalty of the law......Doesn't make sense to me.

I was told by a retired VERY senior policeman (an Assistant Chief Constable) that the Met police armed officers threatened to resign their fire arms operations en masse if the officers in the Waldorf case were convicted. How true? I don't know, and I doubt anyone will ever know.

To argue that policing in 2014 is different to policing in the 1980's and then say

>but that doesnt change the fact that Police Firearms Officers NEVER, EVER want to shoot ANYONE and NEVER, EVER want to take someones life.<

is more than special pleading! It is a statement that at least should be qualified as to time frame.....

Of course, we are getting away from the original concept that whether or not Duggan was taken out lawfully, society is very arguably better off without him......the danger is that is the action of taking these people gets, as a percentage of those killed, too many who are innocent.

Which is why I would like to see a minimum compensation of about £50 million (adjusted for RPI) every time a police force screw up and shoot an innocent unarmed person with no criminal record - out of their force's pension fund!

And the last time the Wiltshire police had an armed standoff, no one was shot and the suspect wasn't armed anyway......They have no record of ever actually having shot anyone, although a lot of them have shot pheasants and rabbits......

However, a retired Wilts PC I know said that when he saw the armed response team come out, they frightened him more than any criminal could with their lack of basic skill in handling firearms - but that was a country boy taught firearms safety by a game keeper......

I heard the same from an ex-SBS man who had seen the Northumberland force...

Romeo Oscar Golf
12th Jan 2014, 20:46
Thats why I've used the ignore list SAS:ok:

Burnie5204
12th Jan 2014, 23:21
"You are not in a position to make any of those assertions as facts."

How do you know that? How do you know whether or not I am involved with the Police? How do you know whether or not I work with Firearms Officers? How do you know whether or not I have been involved in firearms trainings? How do you know whether or not I know about the selection and ongoing fitness to work assessment processes for Firearms officers?

parabellum
12th Jan 2014, 23:31
The pistol Duggan collected was for a specific job, but there is nothing to say that Duggan, a criminal with form and a gang boss to boot did not also carry a similar weapon for his own protection, given the world he moved in.


All the discussion so far has been around the fact that Duggan only had one gun, which we now know to be the case, but instead of throwing it he just as easily could have changed hands with it and reached for a second weapon or he could have thrown it as a decoy and then reached for a second gun, he was a criminal known to handle guns and all of this could have gone through V53's mind in the split second he had to make a decision.


Lawful killing, good decision.

SASless
12th Jan 2014, 23:50
Heliport.....I would assume logically there is at least one Cop that harbors such desires....statistically I guess it is possible.....and thus Burnie cannot with absolute certainty state there is not at least one Cop who would gleefully gun down a Perp and do so with malice aforethought.

Burnie can, with absolute accuracy, tell us of his first hand knowledge, assuming he has that kind of involvement with the Armed Police.

As this is an anonymous Forum we cannot demand he provide his Bonafides for fear of "Outing" himself and thus we shall have to accept he is qualified to speak to the Topic.



I stand with Burnie and second what he has said about the Police Service doing its dead level best to ensure Armed Officers conduct themselves in as professional manner as possible.

I wish you would be as demanding upon those who take the opposing view about all this as you have with Burnie. We should be fair and impartial in our evaluating posters comments shouldn't we? What say you apply the same standards to both sides.





Now RADENG......in a few words.......stop trying to speak for me because when you do....you spout horse shit.

I suggest you read my posts and show me where I excused anyone for wrongfully shooting someone.....no matter the circumstances.

Taking away everything from a Human Being by killing them is a heavy responsibility.....even when it is done in full compliance and obedience to Law and Regulation.

Ask any Armed Police Officer about that concept sometime and see what response you get?

I have been there.....and done that.....made the decision....but did not have to carry it out fortunately.....as I described earlier here.

747 jock
12th Jan 2014, 23:55
How do you know that? How do you know whether or not I am involved with the Police? How do you know whether or not I work with Firearms Officers? How do you know whether or not I have been involved in firearms trainings? How do you know whether or not I know about the selection and ongoing fitness to work assessment processes for Firearms officers?

Burnie,
Even if all of the things you mention above apply to you, unless you were inside of the head of officer V53 at the time he pulled the trigger, I totally agree that there is no possible way for you to know for certain that:

there is absolutely, 100%, categorically no chance that V53 shot him because he wanted to

parabellum
13th Jan 2014, 00:00
there is absolutely, 100%, categorically no chance that V53 shot him because he wanted to


there is no possible way for you to know for certain that:

Unless Burnie is a.k.a. V53?

bosnich71
13th Jan 2014, 00:07
Everyone on this thread who lives in Britain and is worried about the,relatively few, police officers who carry guns should try living in "peaceful" Australia. Here police officers get given a gun when they qualify from the academy and they all wear one from that day onwards.
Oh, and they do shoot people dead here on quite a few occasions as well.

SASless
13th Jan 2014, 00:17
BDiONU......you never responded to my questions about the San Diego Shooting Video you posted.

As you took it from LiveLeak....you could have provided us the information that was posted there about the video.

The rest of the story is the shooting started upon the Suspect brandishing a firearm....after an hour long car chase....after he was identified as being the suspect in a drive by shooting that wounded two people.

Perhaps Heliport might counsel you about being accurate in your posting as what you did grossly misrepresented the facts surrounding the encounter.....and you by omitting all this purposely gave a false impression of events.

Police open fire on stopped suspect after 1-hour long pursuit.
SAN DIEGO (CNS) - A motorist who refused to yield for a traffic stop Thursday led officers on a meandering hour-long pursuit that ended with him wounded in a fusillade of police gunfire on a Mount Hope street.

The unidentified driver, who had a female passenger with him, sped off about 8:30 a.m. when a San Diego police sergeant tried to pull him over on Grape Street in Oak Park for using a cell phone behind the wheel, SDPD public affairs Lt. Kevin Mayer said.

While chasing the 2002 Saturn sedan, police determined that it matched the description of one linked to a shooting that wounded two men in a Mountain View-area neighborhood Monday night.

The fleeing man ran stoplights while passing through parts of Paradise Hills, Bonita and National City, Mayer said. At one point, he pulled over long enough to let his companion out, then sped off again.

The suspect ran over several tire-flattening spike strips laid out in his path before finally slowing to a halt on 41st Street at Hilltop Drive.

San Diego 6 captured video images of the car stopping in the roadway with squad cars directly behind it, their sirens screaming. A moment later, a man shouted, and at least two officers opened fire, discharging about two dozen rounds in quick succession at the front and passenger side of the red sedan.

Witness Frankie Martinez described watching as the barrage of police gunfire began, then jumping onto the ground to protect himself.

"(The driver) just stopped, and they started shooting at him," Martinez told a television reporter. "Everybody started unloading on him. He got smoked. He probably did something bad for that to
happen. They didn't even give him a chance."

Medics loaded the wounded man onto a stretcher and took him to a trauma center. His identity and condition remained unavailable in the mid-afternoon, Mayer said.

Police closed lanes around the site of the shooting to accommodate the investigation.


Read more at LiveLeak.com - Police open fire on stopped suspect after 1-hour long pursuit. (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=29a_1389314663#5kXQ7xd0BC3mMGTt.99)


More details of the incident.

The Suspect only stopped after having all four tires on the car deflated by driving over Police 'Stop Strips". Police allowed his passenger to exit the vehicle before the Suspect drove off only to be stopped further down the street.



Man Shot by Police in Pursuit ID'd | NBC 7 San Diego (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Family-IDs-Man-Shot-by-Police-in-Pursuit-239777241.html)

bosnich71
13th Jan 2014, 00:20
Given that Duggan was a career criminal and had carried weapons in the past surely,if he was not armed on this occasion, and having seen a bunch of armed policemen surround his taxi then his best plan of action would have been to stay in his seat with the door shut? But, no, he jumped out and advanced toward the police officer ! Bad move, mate.

SASless
13th Jan 2014, 00:35
He should have showed the Cops his Arm Pits! Raised both arms and hands where they could see they were quite empty.

BDiONU
13th Jan 2014, 02:31
BDiONU......you never responded to my questions about the San Diego Shooting Video you posted.I did in post 97, gunfight at the OK corral.

SASless
13th Jan 2014, 02:33
Whoooooosh! Gone! Peanut Gallery!

Burnie5204
13th Jan 2014, 10:58
Actually I can say that V53 categorically did not want to shoot him but did so because he had to - because he has stood up in court, said so, the court then analysed his account in minute, forensic detail using multiple evidence sources, witness and forensic evidence and agreed with him that he shot Duggan because he felt he had to. Hence the lawful killing verdict. If he had shot him because he wanted to then it would not have been deemed lawful.

And there are robust, enforced, procedures nationwide in every firearms unit for ongoing psychological evaluations and part of that includes attitude to pulling the trigger. I know officers who have been removed from firearms duties as a result of failing these tests so I know that the system works and those with the wrong attitude for potentially taking someones life are removed from firearms duties.

I also have a contact in SCO19 who confirms it is definitely the same in the Met - those with the wrong attitude are weeded out and shown the door.


Anyway, back on track

V53 clear to return to armed duties

Officer known as V53, who fired the shots that killed Mark Duggan, will return to armed duty if he requests reinstatement.

The police marksman who killed*Mark Duggan*will be allowed to have his gun back and return to armed duties. The officer was found to have lawfully killed Duggan by an inquest jury last week though the jury decided his account of the shooting, in which he said Duggan had had a gun in his hand, was wrong.

The officer, granted anonymity and known as V53, was taken off armed duties following the incident in August 2011.

But Commander Neil Basu, head of armed policing in*London, told the Guardian the officer could return to duty. "He is extremely professional and courageous. If he volunteered to carry a firearm again I would want him to do that."

Police*have written to the Duggan family lawyers informing them that preparations are underway to reinstate V53 as an armed officer. Supporters of the Duggan family branded the police decision as an "insult".

Basu said V53 would need to go through a post-shooting support programme to refresh his skills as a marksman given that he had been off operational firearms duties for more than two years.

The programme would also assess his psychological state and willingness to carry a gun again. It is not clear yet if V53 wants to return to armed operational duties on London's streets. He has more than 14 years' experience as a police marksman, he told the inquest.

Basu said: "If he chooses he can resume his duties. If he passes the programme and wishes to come back he'd be welcome."

On 4 August 2011, police correctly suspected Duggan had picked up a gun, and they forced a minicab he was riding in to stop as it drove along Ferry Lane in*Tottenham, north London. Duggan came out of the cab and was shot twice by V53, who described the alleged gun in detail.

V53 told the inquest jury the weapon was in a sock, but he could make out the gun's barrel, handle and trigger guard. He said Duggan was holding it in his right arm across his stomach.

The inquest jury said Duggan had thrown the gun away, to a spot 10 to 20 feet from where he was shot. He did so, the jury decided, while in the cab, seconds before armed officers confronted him.

At the inquest V53 said it was "rubbish" to suggest that he had shot Duggan while the suspect was unarmed and said: "I'm 100% sure he was in possession of a gun on shot one and shot two.

"Basu said the inquest jury's verdict exonerated the armed officer of any wrongdoing."V53 has done nothing wrong in the eyes of 10 members of the public. V53 is entitled to come back as a firearms officer." He is subject to no criminal investigation or disciplinary action.

Armed police officers are all volunteers, who can decide to stop carrying a weapon if they so choose. Basu said the effects of the shooting, investigation and subsequent inquiry, would stay with V53. "He will think about and be living with those actions for the rest of his life because he is a human being."

V53 described to the inquest jury the effects of the incident on him: "I've been off operational duties for that length of time and, as you can imagine, when you're involved in a police shooting it doesn't only affect the deceased but it affects me and my family."

He said "having been involved in a fatal shooting has had a detrimental effect on my home life".

Stafford Scott, a supporter of the Duggan family, said: "The family will see this as an insult. The jury did not believe this police officer that Mark Duggan had a weapon in his hand, and now Scotland Yard are going to put a gun back in his hand. Good luck London. I hope he shoots and kills a white person next time, hopefully someone who is related to someone in government. Who feels it, knows it."

The officers involved in the operation to stop Duggan were treated as witnesses by an investigation conducted by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is still to be finalised.

The shooting in August 2011 led to riots after a protest outside Tottenham police station across London and then in many towns and cities across England.

Some felt the Duggan family had been poorly treated by police and the authorities, who failed to properly inform them that the 29-year-old was dead.

A vigil held on Saturday outside Tottenham police station, London, and attended by hundreds of people, ended peacefully.

Keith Cutler, the judge who presided over the inquest, has invited all parties, including the Duggan family, to make suggestions about whether future police operations might be improved.

Mark Duggan marksman cleared to return to armed police duties | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/12/mark-duggan-marksman-return-armed-police-duties)

Burnie5204
13th Jan 2014, 11:40
Edit: the post to which I was replying has gone but I shall leave this info here for anyone else interested.


In order to get to be a firearms officer you have to get through Police general selection process including psychological assessment, you then have to complete a 6 month training course, then 12 weeks of 1-to-1 training with a dedicated tutor, then you complete the first 2 years of your career under close scrutiny looking at absolutely every aspect of you and your attitude to the job. Then you can think about applying to a specialist department.

Then the fun begins. Rounds and rounds of interviews, fitness testing, psychological assessments, trawling through your case history, going through previous use of force with a fine tooth comb, discipline record, scenarios, practical handling of firearms, range tests, more scenarios, then more interviews and psychological assessments and then all of your results are collated and all of the instructors sit down and discuss each candidate in detail and decide whether you are a suitable candidate factoring in everything from whether you are a team player to whether you are too quick to pull the trigger.

Pass all those and then you can start training. In my force this is a 10 week course. The first 2 weeks are 1-to-1 supervision and covers safe handling and use of the full range of lethal and less-lethal weaponry and marksmanship to ensure you are an accurate and safe shooter and know the exact point at which it becomes legal and neccesary to shoot. Then comes 8 weeks of tactics and scenarios. The course is described as "2 weeks learning to shoot, 8 weeks learning NOT to shoot" so you can clearly see where the priority lies - in making sure firearms officers dont shoot unless they absolutely have to.

Then if the officer passes all of this they enter the AFO pool, pre-planned work only with the occasional opportunity to work on the armed response cars (ARVs). Once they are deemed a fully competent AFO then they can cross over to the ARVs. All the while they are spending 5 weeks operational during which their team leader monitors their skills, tactics, attitude and psyche, then 1 week training and where all of that is monitored by qualified instructors.

Thus you would have to pretty much be a psychopath with multiple personalities to get through all of that without being found out and as I say, those whose attitudes change whilst on the unit, even highly experienced officers of many years, get shown the door.

I am confidant in the procedures to root out those not psychologically fit to carry as much as it weeds out those not physically fit to carry.

SASless
13th Jan 2014, 12:09
Stafford Scott, a supporter of the Duggan family, said: "The family will see this as an insult. The jury did not believe this police officer that Mark Duggan had a weapon in his hand, and now Scotland Yard are going to put a gun back in his hand. Good luck London. I hope he shoots and kills a white person next time, hopefully someone who is related to someone in government. Who feels it, knows it."


I think that boils the argument down to the Bone.

Drugs and Gang involvement....possession of a Pistol....trumped by Skin Color is it?

Never mind the facts.....focus on "Skin Color".

Now who is being the Racist?

Flying Lawyer
13th Jan 2014, 20:01
B5204Edit: the post to which I was replying has gone but I shall leave this info here for anyone else interested.
I deleted my post because, on reflection, I thought there was a risk of it being misinterpreted as a comment upon this jury's verdict. I wasn't at the inquest, didn't hear the evidence and have no view. I respect and accept the jury's verdict but that is a different matter.

I was concerned about your continuing inability to distinguish between an opinion and a fact, initially in your post 108 and then, even after the difference had been explained to you a few times, again in post 131.

Perhaps the penny is beginning to drop because in your most recent post, you have toned it down to "I am confidant ….." Fair enough. That's an opinion.
In my opinion, no evaluation procedure which involves human beings, whether in policing, aviation or any other activity, is infallible.


FL

SASless
13th Jan 2014, 20:54
As you are evaluating Burnie's evaluation of the situation....where does that leave us?;)


Here is the Venezuelan cure to Car Jacking by Armed Thugs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjrfzFy5vrU&feature=player_embedded#at=51




This turned out a bit different from my experience. It is where we were headed had the Hostage Taker not dropped his knife.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKOxoGbWYk8

cockney steve
13th Jan 2014, 22:43
I am confidant in the procedures to root out those not psychologically fit to carry as much as it weeds out those not physically fit to carry.

Pedant mode on:- did you mean "confidant" in that you are privy to something confidential, you have been confided in,...... or did you perhaps mene "confident" tha is you are self-assured in your correctness of judgement.

Pedant mode off

Devil's advocate mode on....
At what point do all these procedures and training weed out those who are deemed "not fit to carry"...according to your own statements, this can occur whilst the armed officer is on active duty.....therefore, it's self-evident his change in suitability may only become apparent when he decides to use his weapon at a time his " assessors" consider inappropriate.. I.E horse/stable door.

Devils advocate mode off.

Your argument is fatally flawed, sir. However, I am convinced justice was done Anyone who disagrees is, i'm sure, quite welcome to leave the UK and go to some other jurisdiction to live.

bosnich71
14th Jan 2014, 04:02
There is an inquest going on at the moment into the shooting death of a bloke in U.K. It seems he fired off 34 rounds before finally being popped by a police marksman. Before that he had wounded a police officer.
For some reason there doesn't seem to be quite the outcry from the bogans/chavs in this case as there was/is in the Duggan episode. I realise that he did fire 34 shots at police and so there is a good case to answer that he had a gun, of some sort, but could it be anything to do with the fact that this dead bloke was white.

rh200
14th Jan 2014, 04:40
but could it be anything to do with the fact that this dead bloke was white.

Nope, to much of an open and shut case even for all the dogooders.

G-CPTN
14th Jan 2014, 08:53
The Police marksman fired three shots from a 'carbine' - one of which hit the guy in the head (presumably fatal), one in the shoulder, one (presumably) missed.

charliegolf
14th Jan 2014, 10:12
140 posts on, and I believe Duggan is still lawfully dead. We did well!:D

CG

SASless
14th Jan 2014, 12:08
Well Done the Police!

Raw Video: Man takes hostage outside 7-Eleven | KDVR.com (http://kdvr.com/2014/01/13/raw-video-man-takes-hostage-outside-7-eleven/)

charliegolf
14th Jan 2014, 12:59
SAS, when I watched it, I had no sound on my PC. Can I add:

"He's alive, quick get the dogs!"

Please, can I?

CG

SASless
14th Jan 2014, 13:28
Somehow....the Hoodie and Baggy Pants showing his underwear...is a sign of severe Darwin Candidacy in action.

You got a Police SWAT Team outside the store.....a Police K-9 Dog in attendance.....and the Perp thinks he is going to be allowed to walk off into the Sunset whistling "I Fought The Law".....whatever was he thinking?

Certainly not in this day and time of Para-Military Police Tactics anyway. Used to be there were two schools of thought on such matters.....the NYPD and the LAPD methods.

New York prided itself upon successful negotiation of Hostage Takings.....and LA negotiated to Gunfire....talk the Perps into a position they could be shot dead. Even NYPD is moving towards the LAPD method these days.

The Hostage was not helping matters by waving her arms around.....she should have been making herself as small as possible....perhaps even feigning a "fainting spell" and falling to the ground.


Basil......when it comes from a 7.62 Rifle.....Yeppers! Or like in the Grocery store thing....Pistol to the head....BANG!

500N
27th Jan 2014, 09:13
Got to love that 7 Eleven video :ok:

how to handle perps like that.


Where was he hit / did he survive ?