Getting back to what started all this...(44 Posts)
Mark Duggan did not shoot at police officer's
To deviate back to the source story behind all this, thought I would share latest IPCC findings.
although didn't forensics say they could not say for certain that his gun had not been fired?
I don't know what to think about it.
I think if someone is pointing a weapon at police and threatening them then it would be reasonable of them to shoot first? so the fact that police were not actually fired at may not be entirely relevant?
but we'll probably never know what actually happened will we <Sigh>
Have the riots been going on all day, or has it been dying down during the day time and picking up again at night?
Tests are continuing but they so far have no evidence that the gun had been fired.
They are still checking CCTV footage but it seems shots were fired by an individual officer who's bullet then passed through Mr Duggan's body and lodged in the police radio.
The officer has been taken of duty for the time being.
I think the riots die down during the day but there is general disruption.
TBH it has not affected me because I don't live on a main road. The only problem I have faced is minor travel disruption and my local shopping centre closing at 5pm instead of 9pm. Although my BIL almost got caught in it the other day on his way home, but thankfully was OK.
My cousin who lives in Clapham Junction has not seen anything of it either. It seems concentrated in small pockets as I hear the sirens all night but have not seen anything yet. Saying that I have not been through Tottenham since last week.
I feel very sorry for those who have actually been seriously affected by it. The owners of small business's have lost out the most and for them I am truly saddened.
It's a shame - because it seems as though the police may have opened fire with no justification but that's going to get totally brushed aside because the rioting and looting is a much bigger news story.
but we don't know that they had no justification do we?
even if he didn't shoot at them that doesn't mean they weren't justified. if it comes to someone pointing a gun at your head you shoot first surely?
i am of course just projecting here, but we do not know how Duggan was behaving towards police so i don't think anyone can say whether or not the police were justified
Nancy66 - that's a pretty broad statement to make not knowing any of the facts. I can think of many reasons where it is totally justifiable to open fire on an armed person before he opens fire on you:
Where the gun has been drawn and is being used to threaten the police. Where the gun fails to fire and an officer takes advantage of that and fires quickly in return. Where an armed man is pointing a gun at a hostage or passerby but hasn't actually shot them yet.
The presence of an illegal and fully functional firearm at the scene only tells us that there is a lot more to the story than has come out yet. It does NOT mean the police acted improperly at all! At what stage exactly would you condone police opening fire? Only when theyre actively fired upon and when one of them is wounded perhaps or when a couple of innocent passersby are dead on the pavement?
From what I have heard, the gun was not a fully functional weapon, but that is local talk so not at all confirmed.
Of course we should wait to hear more before making any assumptions. I just think far too many people jumped to the assumption that Duggan did shoot first and It is important to highlight that that is not actually the case.
Hopefully more will be said soon.
"Where the gun fails to fire and an officer takes advantage of that and fires quickly in return."
This example here is not at all a situation in which the police should have the right to fire. If the gun does not function then why would it be ok for them to fire on the other person?
...hence the use of the word 'may'
The story has changed drastically in the past 48 hours. Two days ago everyone was assuming Duggan had fired the shot at the police officer we now know this wasn't the case which, I think, changes things.
The report today said that it was capable of firing and therefore would be treated as a gun under the definitions of the firearms acts. It was a fake gun converted to fire live ammo. That makes it a gun.
And in the example I gave - if you know anything about guns you will know that sometimes they fail to fire. If it is being pointed at you at the time this is just pure luck. It doesn't prove the gun is not "real". Even "real" guns fail to fire sometimes
And as it happens police would be justified in shooting a person threatening people with a "fake" gun anyway. That is why replica or decommissioned firearms are legislated against - because they cause alarm, look real even to people who are experts and if you carry one you'll end up getting yourself shot
As I said though in my post all this speculating about what he might have been doing with a gun, if the gun was his, how "real" it was and how capable of firing it was and if so how effective it would be is all just hot air. There was a weapon and the police shot him. That's all we know. So far that doesn't mean either he or the police are to blame. We just don't know yet. The fact it was unfired proves nothing either way.
The man had a gun. We don't know what happened. Why jump to the conclusion that there was no justification Nancy66? Because the police are all thugs who are always in the wrong perhaps...?
That sort of attitude is EXACTLY why rioters can run amok and police were unable to get a hold of it over the weekend. What are the police supposed to do? It's apparently acceptable to criticise and chastise without knowing what happened, or what it's like to do the job. I mean these poor officers are more than aware that it's a strong possibility they're opening themselves open to be charged for hitting the rioters, corralling them, kettling them, touching them...(?!) and the rioters... they know it. So you Nancy66 and all of your ilk, are a large part of this problem in my humble opinion.
I've had enough of hearing about people's 'human rights' for heavens sake. I want to hear more about human responsibilities.
And what about innocent until proven guilty and all that huh?
IS there CCTV or did they 'lose' it again?
It was obvious from the start that there was something wrong. The original release was so carefully worded to make it sound like they gunned down someone who was shooting at them without actually saying so.
It may well turn out that the guy pulled the gun out before they shot him, but we know from experience don't we that sometimes being foreign is reason enough.
I cannot bring myself to feel any sympathy for a person that owned an illegal firearm. This is not America, no-one in the UK has the constitutional right to bear arms. Mr Duggan should not have had a gun, fact. Owning a gun has got him killed. Why did he own a gun? What did he do or intend to do with that gun.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. As horrible as it is he bought it on himself and has no-one to blame but himself.
I will save my sympathy for his children who now grow up fatherless because he thought it was more important to own a handgun - what fucking gangster movie did he think he was starring in.
BrownB - I think the rioters are lowlife scum and I think the police, by and large, do an excellent job.
But that's a different issue. The police are meant to follow strict guidelines when it comes to opening fire and it's important that those are followed. We don't know if they were in the case of Mark Duggan but we do now know that he did not fire shots at anybody - which is very important and pertinent information
Onagar - the testiment of the minicab driver will be the key evidence here I think.
If you remove the room for an officer to make a mistake, then you remove his/he ability to act. The man had a gun that looked like a gun and may well have been modified to propel bullets out of it's barrel towards members of the public. Or not. This will come out in due course.
I challenge you to have someone point a gun at you and for you to spend time considering the niceties of whether it can fire bullets or not.
So Nancy66 - tell all. What are those strict guidelines? Let's let the investigation run it's course before we indulge in being judge and jury huh? Honestly. Just ridiculous.
I'm not a policeman though - I'm not charged with upholding the law of the land and protecting the public while having pledged to follow a certain code.
If somebody pointed a gun at me I would brick it, yes, but I would rather hope that an armed response unit might be better trained for such things.
They are human too. As I said. Let's not indulge in being judge and jury without the full facts huh?
The guidelines permit an officer to shoot a person if they fear life is in immediate danger. There is nothing in the guidelines to say that they have to wait for a man they believe to be armed to demonstrate that his weapon is loaded, capable of firing and in fact let him shoot 2 or 3 people first just to totally certain that it really is real and loaded! Being perceived as armed and an immediate danger is enough to get you shot and for it to be legally and morally justified. And quite right too else how the bloody hell would you deal with firearms offences otherwise?
Nancy66 - I think you are very naive.
What would you do if someone pointed a gun at you, trained or untrained, would you rather let someone kill you or would you kill them first?
Join the discussion
Please login first.