Is it relevant that he did not fire the gun

[audreyroberts]

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?

Apparently the gun had been converted from a blank-firing pistol to one that shoots live rounds.

Leaving this case aside because we don't know the details, i think it is rellevant.

If the gun was in someones hand, I think the police have the right to shoot to kill, even if they havent been shot at, or aimed at first.

But if there is a gun on the backseat of a car, belonging to someone in the driver seat, I don't think the police should be shooting to kill. Disable maybe. The punishment for owning a gun is not death, and the police should only shoot if they think they or the public are at risk.

I do think the police should be well protected when making that split second descision in hig pressure circumstances though. They are human, and can't be expected to behave with super human powers. So if there is a gun belonging to a criminal in the vicinity, police should not be punished if they decide to shoot. If a member of the public wants to own an illegal gun, they they can choose to do so knowing there is a risk they will be shot to death by a police officer.

This has made me really . The Duggan bloke was aiming a weapon and police shouldn't react......... they should always act if there is a potential danger to themselves or the general public! If you don't want to be shot then don't go out with a fire arm during a bloody riot! . Wouldn't mind but all this pussy footing around by the police because of the restrictions following the G8 issue has led to this mess getting completely out of hand. I say at the slightest sign of trouble bring in tear gas, plastic bullets and water cannons and see how many come back for another go the next night!

Well the naive and irritating liberal criminals' rights are the most important thing....which is endemic in the UK and any potential criminals know it, would seem to suggest it is outrageous hence the 'justification' for the riots.

Clearly the police took a decision to protect their lives and possibly others.If the guy was carrying a gun and this was evident to officers, whether he fired it or not, their actions based on their predictions of what he might do, were justified.I back the police 100% if it turns out he had a gun.
Who would be an officer in the UK.Now in the States I see the way people do not mess with the police here-why because they carry guns and they have more powers it seems to me than the UK cops.I see hardly any of the UK yobbish contingent here.There is a decay of values and conscience going on in the UK and I really think it is very specific to the UK.

Poor teachers having to deal with those yobs and their parents that have caused all this damage-they think they are untouchable and perhaps people who have not developed a conscience and sense of individual responsibility actually are somehow.

If it turns out Duggan was a drug dealer then frankly I am glad he was removed from this life-one less criminal on the streets causing harm to other people.

Lots of assumptions being made here. Who says he was pointing the weapon at the police? Who says he even had it in his hands? All we know is 'an illegal firearm was recovered'.

What I find bizarre is the idea that armed officers are instructed to go out and risk armed conflict on the street, in broad daylight. If they wanted to arrest Mr Duggan, why did they wait until he was in a minicab on the main road? Why not do the traditional early morning call to his house? Even if they believed he had a loaded weapon, surely it's not terribly sensible to try to confront him on the street with loads of innocent passers by?

The IPCC have confirmed that the weapon was capable of firing live ammunition.

The earliest IPCC statements (4 and 5 August, as reported by The Guardian) do not say anything about shots fired, other than two rounds had been discharged by the police. I couldn't find where the version of his having shot first originated - does anyone remember seeing an official statement which says this? Or a "police sources say" account in a mainstream outlet?

" If you don't want to be shot then don't go out with a fire arm during a bloody riot"

he wasn't out in a riot was he? this is what kicked it off.

The fact that Mr Duggan, allegedly, was in possession of an illegal firearm is relevant only insofar as he should have been arrested for the approriate offence.

Instead he was shot dead and, until such time as all of the facts are made known, it is a futile exercise to speculate on what took place that caused a Met Police officer to shoot to kill.

With no disrespect to your dh, and given the Met Police's history of shooting entirely innocent members of of the public, I have no confidence in the ability of the force's armed officers or their superiors to make accurate judgement calls whether under pressure or at any other time.

Edithto the best of my recollection, there were initial reports that a police officer had been fired at and had narrowly avoided serious injury/death because the bullet had lodged in his police radio.

The implication was that the suspect had fired this bullet and had subsequently been shot dead by another officer. It would now appear that the bullet lodged in the police radio was police issue ammunition.

It is not yet known whether the illegal weapong that was allegedly in Mr Duggan's possession was loaded or whether it had been fired.

@Bubbles. You can shoot to "disable". It's not like the movies. They claim they shoot to "stop" but in reality we all know that chances are they will kill you because you aim at the centre mass of the body where your lungs and heart are. You don't aim for arms and legs like in the movies because you usually can still shoot after being shot in the leg which is the last thing you want.

And yes in theory Duggan could have had the gun on the backseat in which case it would seem a bit OTT to shoot him. But then I can't imagine a criminal with a gun, getting into a car and leaving his gun on the backseat for the world to see. More likely he had it on him.

@Edam. Obviously noone is 100% sure what happened right now, not even the IPCC. But one explanation of why they stopped him there could be because they don't know where he would go or be? Or they knew he had a gun on him but can't be sure he'd have it another day?

In my mind there are two possible explanations for the shooting:

a) Duggan was just sat there in his car like any other law abiding citizen. And he was just desperately unlucky to be surrounded by a phlanx of armed police, one of whom accidentally shot him before planting a gun on the scene to be recovered. (Unlikely)

b) The officer thought (in his split second opinion) that someones life was in danger and shot him. It doesn't matter if this then later turns out to be a banana being pointed at the police. As long as in that moment the police genuinely thought their life was in danger then fair do's.

At the moment we simply can't tell what happened.

IMO, if the police see a gun pointed at them, or something that they have reason to believe is a gun, they have a right to fire first. If the suspect doesn't have both hands in plain sight and they believe he/she is reaching for a gun, in order to fire at them, they have the right to fire first.

So- gun or fake gun being waved around- police probably justified. Suspect sitting still, hands in sight with loaded gun somewhere else in the car- police probably not justified.

Niceguy, good point, fair enough!

If a police officer needs to shoot then wherever the criminal ends up being shot is fine by me.

izzy I remember the press running stories along those lines too - but what I've been looking for is how they originated. Because if there was an official statement which was factually wrong (more shots fired, shields fired from non-police weapon), then it is rather more serious for the police than the press drawing a wrong inference from partial information. I can't find anything official on the bullet in the radio either (but am still looking).

Niceguy2 I agree with this: "b) The officer thought (in his split second opinion) that someones life was in danger and shot him. It doesn't matter if this then later turns out to be a banana being pointed at the police. As long as in that moment the police genuinely thought their life was in danger then fair do's."

Except that I would add that an armed policeman should have a pretty strong reason for believing that their life, or someone else's is in danger, i.e combination of info that the suspect is armed AND threatening behaviour/ refusal to cooperate.

I dont really care that he got shot, waving it about or not.

If he didnt have a gun in his possession, then I do.

Has it occurred to you, MJHASLEFT, that it is a tad too late to care that an innocent member of the public has been shot dead for no reason after the event?

Please read the story of Harry Stanley and try to imagine how you would feel about your insensitive statement if Mr Stanley's fate befell a member of your family.

I think the police did completely the right thing if they believe he had a gun in his possession, or even a fake gun, anyone remember the man that was shot after he was caught waving a table leg about in a carrier bag telling people it was a shot gun, of course the police should shot first, and good for them for protecting us. But also agree with edam that maybe they should have picked him up at a different time. As innocent people could have shot in the cross fire.

Also I don't think that the police have gone soft, I think the courts have gone soft, there is too many second chances, or people having their charges reduced and time already spent in prison means they offen only spend a further few weeks/months in prison. Prison doesn't seem to be a punishment anymore. the only punishment seems to be boredom. Young people inside seem to be kept in there cells all day either watching tv or playing the x box. I know having your freedom taken away is punishment it doesn't feel like enough of a punishment to stop you acting outside the law

Couldn't agree more crocfamily, the police are too frightened to do anything because of the threat of allegations. That's why the riots lasted so long. Warnings and curfews should have been issued and if any body decided they wanted to "spectate" what was going on then they take the risk of any actions the police might take.

As for the Dugan case there is just not enough information but as the saying goes "if you play with fire ...."

I have heard that the police thought he was on his way to attack somebody that had killed his cousin - which is possibly why he was stopped in the car - it was an urgent situation.

Afaik the armed response unit are told they can shoot if a person does not do something they are ordered to do and they feel that they/the public are in danger.

Harry Stanley was a convicted armed robber, and the police had been called to say a man was walking around with a shot gun, so of course they thought he had a gun.

The fact that there were armed police there in the first place means they must have had very good reason for thinking Duggan could be a threat to the public.

Police in this country don't routinely carry guns.

It doesn't matter if this then later turns out to be a banana being pointed at the police

I beg to differ niceguy. If an armed police officer shoots at a member of the public believing that a banana aimed at themself or others is a deadly weapon, it would be reasonable to suppose that their firearms training left much to be desired.

Unfortunately, the Met Police's armed office do not have an outstanding record of good judgement.

Edith As far as I recall those stories were still running throughout the weekend. In the absence of an official statement having been issued, I doubt we'll ever know for sure where they originated but, IME, the majority of information about police activity doesn't filter down to journalists without having gone through Scotland Yard's spin press office.

Except that I would add that an armed policeman should have a pretty strong reason for believing that their life, or someone else's is in danger, i.e combination of info that the suspect is armed AND threatening behaviour/ refusal to cooperate.

Totally agree. But just bear in mind that the police units involved here were reportedly from Operation Trident. This is the met unit created to target black gun crime and the drugs trade related to that. The fact Duggan was on their radar suggests that he was thought to be involved in guns & drugs.

Yes he could have been totally innocent and a HUGE mistake. But let's be honest for a moment and admit that the chances are slim. Yes we should still investigate the facts but if we are to assume he's innocent until proven guilty then the same rule should apply to the police.

We should assume they fired in good faith until proven otherwise.