Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

News

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Getting back to what started all this...

43 replies

LDNmummy · 09/08/2011 20:24

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.

OP posts:

mayorquimby · 09/08/2011 22:39

"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?"

For me it is. If a person pulls a gun on a policeman and pulls the trigger but a shot doesn't come out the officer may not know that it is not functional. He may see the man pull the gun and start reaching for his then. Or he may hear a click and simply think that there was not a bullet in the chamber rather than the gun has jammed, in which case he shouldn't have to wait around for the man to pull the trigger again to find out.
If he knows for a fact the gun is not operational or not capable of firing then yes, he does not have the right to use fatal force. However if all he knows is that a man has pointed a gun at him and the first time he tried to shoot him the gun didn't go off I'd support his use of fatal force.

*This point is not in anyway a statement of what I think happened in the real life situation of the man who was shot dead. I have no way of knowing what happened there, it was simply addressing the theoretical arguments made.

CustardCake · 09/08/2011 22:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

goodkate · 09/08/2011 22:46

You still haven't answered the question Nancy66?

What would you have done if faced with a dangerous man who you suspected of been armed? Kill or be killed?

Nancy66 · 09/08/2011 22:47

I disagree - the fact that the suspect did not open fire but was shot dead is very important.

CustardCake · 09/08/2011 22:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Nancy66 · 09/08/2011 22:55

Goodkate - that totally irrelevant - I'm not a law enforcer. But as I don't carry a gun I guess I'd be shot wouldn't I? Not sure what point that makes in relation to this argument though.

mayorquimby · 09/08/2011 22:57

It may be vitally important if they are trying to justify it that they heard shots fired etc. and then responded.
But if someone points a gun at a police officer then the police officer is justified to use lethal force in self-defence if they believe their life is in danger. So in such a situation (someone pointing a gun/replica at a officer who believes it to be capable of firing) then the fact that the person did not open fire can be irrelevant rather than very important.

maypole1 · 09/08/2011 23:12

: Parent's have given up authority, police are afraid to use it and political authorities are on holiday

Twoequalstired · 09/08/2011 23:22

Nancy - As CustardCake pointed out "The guidelines permit an officer to shoot a person if they fear life is in immediate danger". So if the deceased's gun was fired is not the most important point here, the details which have not been published are. Probably best to wait for them before making judgement.

onagar · 10/08/2011 02:01

Okay, here's a question. They keep saying the gun was found at the scene, but whereabouts at the scene?. If it was found on the floor of the cab with his fingerprints on it then we might well accept that he pointed it at officers who then correctly shot him.

If however the gun was found in his pocket that is something else entirely.

Even if it turns out that he was killed for good reason our doubts now are not groundless. The police themselves have so damaged their own reputation with the Menezes and Tomlinson cases that we can no longer reasonably assume that they are in the right when they kill someone else.

CogitoErgoSometimes · 10/08/2011 06:44

I don't think there is enough information yet to draw any useful conclusion. However, what I would say is that when faced with a suspect that is believed to be armed, if any weapon appears or if the suspect looks like they are reaching for a weapon, it would be a mistake to give them the benefit of the doubt. I would not like to be the policeman making that decision in real time. Easy to judge things differently from comfortable armchairs long after the fact.

cookcleanerchaufferetc · 10/08/2011 09:09

Anyone who pulls out a gun, at a police officer or civilian, is risking being shot. Nice people don't pull guns out on people.

Except in self defence and this was not the case.

Commit the crime, do the time.

onagar · 10/08/2011 09:29

absolutely! so... did they announce that he pulled out a gun yet? They appeared to be avoiding saying so whereas you'd think that would be the first thing they would say

rainbowtoenails · 10/08/2011 10:24

But 'the time' isnt summary execution. Where is the rule of law?

CustardCake · 10/08/2011 10:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Ephiny · 10/08/2011 13:21

I think we need to wait for more information to come out before anyone can really judge whether the police were justified in what they did. That will take time though.

If they felt he was a threat though, I don't think I'd blame them for not standing there and waiting to be shot at! I'm sure they believed at the time that it was necessary to do what they did - if it turns out they made a mistake then obviously there needs to be some thought about how to prevent a similar mistake happening again.

Agree with CC that it's unlikely they did this on a whim or for no reason or because he was black or because he might have been armed or because they just didn't like the look of him. If the police shot people for reasons like that, there would be a hell of a lot more police shootings going on every day!

onagar · 10/08/2011 14:03

However it is perfectly possible for an armed man (or even an unarmed man in some cases) to be legitimately shot by the police if the police have serious cause to believe he has a gun and intends to use it to put lives in danger.

I agree with this - I really do. I believe that if you make laws you should be prepared to enforce them and elsewhere on MN I am arguing in favour of capital punishment. I want criminals executed. I just insist that we make sure they are criminals first and not allow people to be shot for being foreign or for not showing the proper respect.

The omissions in the information released are I think significant. They did find time to mention that he had a gun. They didn't mind telling us that he was in a cab. They were okay with saying that shots were fired. They just missed out the bit about where the gun was found.

It would make them look so much better if they could say the gun was in his hand at the time. Therefore while I am waiting to see, I strongly suspect that they shot him first and found the gun in his pocket afterwards.

While that still could be okay in the right circumstances any reluctance to tell us the whole truth makes it more likely that they don't think it was justified either.

onagar · 10/08/2011 14:06

If the police shot people for reasons like that,

Have you forgotten the Menezes case so soon. It's not a question of if they do. It's simply did they this time.

We can hope they didn't this time. Not all police officers are like that I'm sure.

Flip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread