Mark Duggan- Shooting was lawful

[Whitershadeofpale]

here

I think it is odd that no-one, not one person saw that gun get thrown over the fence. Why was that? There were witnesses to the incident.

As far as I'm concerned the fact that officers involved were allowed in a room together and not separated immediately contaminates the evidence irrevocably .

As far as I can gather nearly all the witnesses have proved unreliable/not credible.

I agree donnie.

Any shooting by police in the US is investigated and covered in media. Not sure where you've gotten the idea it wasn't. It very much is.

Hi Alice didn't mean that such cases weren't investigated or covered in America. Apols if it read that way.

I am glad I live in country that does investigate and cover such events.

Donnie, so the officer have to be treated as suspects from the outset? Not realistic to expect the officers to be treated like that.

I don't know the procedures for an incident like this , but I would imagine the officer concerned is relieved of his weapon immediately and his first account taken as soon as is practicable.

I find it interested that, from this and many other incidents, armed officers will now wear cameras. In other places that have done this (though in the ones I know, it is all police officers wearing cameras, which would be preferable in my opinion than just armed officers), complaints against the police went sharply down as did incidents of police brutality and aggression. This may go a way to helping public trust and re-training some members of the police forces.

And the bonus for cameras are that there will be fewer malicious complaints against officers and absolutely no ambiguity in incidents like this.

Although I'm not in favour for all officers to wear cameras!

You don't need a gun to be accused or to abuse people. Cameras won't make it perfect (there are multiple filmed incidents of police and judicial brutality globally), but in the current state of things where trust is at an all time low and powers that the police have are perceived to be at an all time high, more stringent accountability is required if things are going to get better. I see no reason why cameras shouldn't be expanded past armed officers for a force that is meant to be mainly unarmed (and so in the main without one) if we want to prevent malicious accusation and prevent lack of accountability during incidents of brutality.

The reason I am primarily opposed to it is this....would you like to have a camera strapped to you at work? Probably not. Esp when the incidents we are discussing are relatively uncommon.

It would cause issues on a day to day basis dealing with victims under stress who would feel uncomfortable being recorded.

But I appreciate that people who want to see that introduced are not necessarily going to consider the issues that may arise.

The cameras suggestion relates to armed police only I think. Whether they would wear them when on patrol routinely (e.g. Heathrow, Old Bailey) or only when on special operations like this or on response in an ARV is not clear.

I think it is a reasonable and proportionate way to address the trust and accountability issues there are.

The issues have considered by many who want these in the many areas where this has been put in place and I find it quite odd that you would think people who want to improve trust and accountability in the police would not consider these issues

Thspork had brought up it being implemented more routinely across the board, I was addressing that point.

To be clear I was referring to the general public who may not have considered it, not those who would be involved in the implementation.

And many members of the general public around the world have worked on the reports and studied the evidence where cameras on officers have been put into place and those issues have been dealt with, complaints are steeply down - not just malicious ones but in general - as are incidents of police brutality and severity thereof (and has been shown to work better than CCTV). Trust keeps coming up in this and by extension accountability, which is why it is being put on armed officers in the first place.

I don't disagree with that, I'm purely talking from the viewpoint of an officer and with my knowledge of day to day policing.

I have no issue at all with firearms officers wearing it, I would imagine most would welcome it in circumstances like this. Which are obviously rare.

Hang on, I take issue with the statistic of police brutality being reduced. It's very possible that COMPLAINTS of brutality are reduced as the complainant knows it is recorded so therefore no complaint is made.

Is it not also possible that actual brutality is also reduced because those likely to do it know they are being recorded?

Yes, obviously that is possible. In all likelihood it's a combination of both!

Why killing was deemed lawful

I've just read this very interesting article.

One question I have to you all is. How much credibility can be given to witness B who somehow managed to see Mark Duggan clearly pull out a mobile phone....from a flat nine stories up across the road?

Secondly, put yourself in Mark Duggan's shoes for a minute. You are stopped by a bunch of armed police. It's chaos, there's screaming, there's shouting, there's guns pointing at you. I'm assuming at that point you are running on instinct. In short, fight or flight as psychologists call it. Yet for some reason you quickly reach for your mobile phone!?!?! Who do you want to call?

Wich is pretty much what Sporks said.

Which not wich!

There's a radical thought, amberleaf

niceguy

mark duggan was already on a call. that's why he had his phone.