Is it relevant that he did not fire the gun(64 Posts)
In all this riot situation I fail to see why this duggan man not firing at police is relevant, Surely it the fact he has an illegal fire arm that is relevant. My dh was a police firearms officer - should someone like him wait till somone is firing on him b4 he shoots? In imo - duggan should not have had a gun - it is irrelvant he did not shoot he SHOULD NOT have had a gun. Who was his intended suspect?
Assuming that he was the possessor of the gun or knew of its existance then YANBU. I guess that the argument will be that he was innocent of both.
I hope that the truth is discovered and as quickly and with as little distress to the innocent - family, possibly Duggan, the Police, everyone - as possible.
depends on if the police are
a. claiming he did
b. justifying their actions by saying he did.
Personally I think it matters. Would hate to think that policemen would be going about shooting people when they are no threat.
Remember that no one actually knows what happened yet, making judgements based on pure speculation is just stupid.
not sure what you mean by 'who was his intended suspect'?
Oh ok - yes i agree if the gunwas someleses ok - but i got the impression it was his. Otherwise is assume it must have been the taxi drivers- realisticaly it was his as only 2 of them (as i understand it) in the mini cab.
We don't know enough to make a fair judgement either way IMO.
That said IF he was waving a gun and posed an immediate threat then they were probably right to make the call to shoot.
Didn't the police say at first that Duggan shot at them? if they did then that would something that would relevant for me.
The police (understandably) have said very little about what happened.
I mean if he had a loaded gun as ipcc woman said he did - or someone in his taxi did- surely there was a victim in mind. IMO not that iam any expert but if he had a loaded gun he was a threat whether he shot or not.
I don't know all the details (I don't think many people do) but the police can't wait until they have been shot themselves to fire in defence.
It is really down to how threatening the person with the gun (if it was Duggan) was being IMHO. If the police feared he was likely to fire his gun then they had to shoot too.
It's a horrible situation whatever happened and I feel dreadfully sorry for the police officer and the Duggan family.
I thought it was him in a cab with a gun. Presumably a visible gun.
I have been thinking about this. Had he fired the gun, I do not think for one moment that shooting him was wrong. As it now seems the bullet lodged in the radio was not from his gun, I don't know. I don't think we can decide that on the evidence we have TBH.
Having said that, he had no nice, legal reason for carrying a gun in public.
Is someone carrying a gun in public "no threat"?
If he was carrying a gun and waving it in the general direction of the police, then I think they were within their rights to shoot. What should the police do - wait to be shot before they shoot? Wait until an innocent bystander is shot before they shoot?
Have the police claimed that he shot at them first?
The law says that police can shoot if they feel there is a threat to life, either theirs or the public. If the police saw a gun in his pocket/hand then they have a split second decision to make as to whether to shoot or not. If an innocent bystander had been shot everyone would be demanding to know why the police didn't shoot first.
They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.
I'm not really sure, I didn't think it was relevant, because if you have a gun, then surely you know there is a chance you might get shot, but then I read a post which said that Roal Moat had a gun and the police talked to him for hours before taking action, and to be honest that did make me wonder why such differences in the way it was dealt with, so it seems to me there needs to be a clear policy, eg if you have a gun the police will take aim?
I guess the important question is did they know he had a gun before they shot him, and what reason were they armed.
I also think that a bit of faith has been lost in the police since the paper seller that was hit over the head for no reason (can remember his name) and the hacking scandal. which is a sad because they do a fab job
I thought that the police followed and stopped him because he was a suspect in a gun crime, and it was part of an operation cracking down on gun crime.
But now I can't remember when/where I heard or read that. Have watched far too many hours of news since the weekend.
The officers were working under Operation Trident which deals predominantly with "black on black" violent crime.
I dont know much about the events that happened. I am of the opinion that once you put a gun in your hand it doesn't matter if its loaded or not of if you fire it, you take the chance of not coming out of it well
If he did have a gun, which the IPCC said he did, then he took that risk knowing the consequences that may follow.
The fact that the story came out almost immediately that he had opened fire first makes it very relevant IMO.
Obviously sometimes it will be necessary to fire upon someone who poses a threat, but to my mind the police have lost a lot of credibility recently, as was mentioned above by griphook . There was the de Menezes shooting where they put out a lot of lies about the circumstances of his death, and the Ian Tomlinson death at the student riots.
How can we trust the police? They may usually do a great job but putting out misinformation seems to be the first resort!
Details of what happened are sketchy. All early accounts have contained errors. The police haven't put forward their version of events.
It's useless to speculate ahead of facts. We simply do not know why he was under surveillance by Operation Trident, why the decision to arrest him that day was made, or what happened around the stop - any or all of which might be relevant to deciding if the police were reasonable in thinking he presented an immediate threat (if the weapon was in the glove compartment, clearly not - if in his hand, maybe - if levelled at another person, then yes: but I stress - we do not know). It is for the Coroner to decide on this.
We know there was one eye witness (the cabbie) - we don't know if there were others. This testimony will be vital in due course.
From what I know, the gun wasn't capable of firing.
He started carrying it after his cousin, who he was very close to, was stabbed a few months ago. He just wanted other gangs to think he was armed so that they'd leave him alone.
That plan backfired.
Grip nock - oh yes def agree it is vv relevant if the knew he had a gun, I am assumising they did as it siad they were trident officers an i think that is to do with gun crime.
But do thin kafter this weeks events it is time to stop beig soft. If someone has a gun withour reason, or is in a home or shop without reason they needf to know there is tough concequernces of their actions.
Iam no tory but camroon is right (and i hate him) but too many people theink they have rights rathe than responsibilities.
As far as I am concerned, if he had a loaded, illegal firearm in his possession, that demonstrates that he had, at best, a patchy regard for human life and for the law. I would have prefered that he was caught and brought to justice, but I doubt that the officer/s who fired did so on a whim - I don't know any firearms officers, but I assume that they see plenty of the results of shootings, and are all too aware of the harm that guns can do, and that would mean they'd be unlikely to fire unless they truly thought it was the only option.
The police can't tell if it's a loaded gun or not.
The problem with carrying a weapon for protection is to often it is what causes you to get into trouble/injured/killed. That's the risk you take.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.