Mark Duggan- Shooting was lawful

[Whitershadeofpale]

here

I care about the outcome because the mistake probably impacted badly on the whole operation, damaged (ruined?) community relations, made it more difficult for the police to fight crime and probably arguably caused the death of an innocent person, somewhere. (Not including riots as I think they were more linked to later police communications and opportunism).

However the question in this case still comes down to did the officers act reasonably in the circumstances, and having reviewed all the evidence for longer than anybody on this thread, the jury's decision was they did.

The police are accountable. That's why there was this inquest which has a lower standard of proof than a criminal trial (so its easier for the jury to decide unlawful killing and trigger further actions) with a jury of lay men/women. How else should they be judged?

I know you did Nicknacky. I have been reading about the case too, including the court transcripts. I am able to form my own opinion.

I didn't say you couldn't? But you are implying that intelligence being described as "something you hear down the pub" is a negative thing. But thats the way I read it.,

I'm not sure whether those officers considered they fucked up. And neither do some posters.

But your opinion seems to be that because, of all the information gathered, some of it was described as of the standard of a an overheard pub conversation that none of the information was correct or relevant. That is not logical, particularly as the police were correct to believe that the gun had changed hands and was in the taxi.

I'm not really concerned by what some posters think, however I would be surprised if any officers believe the operation was a success - is there any evidence of this?

See if it was me in the po?ices shoes would I shoot and kill and then have my job on the line for two years or would it be easier to not shoot and him shoot me And possably get killed if he was a decent shot. Any officer is going to know that either course of action is going yo be traumatic for him and put his life into turmoil either his work or physically, that's persuming he lives.

No my opinion is the Police have painted Mark Duggan as a major criminal, a long standing senior member of a gang. They said he has been involved in shootings before, they have put it out there that he kept a gun at his girlfirend's house. Yet, they have never had enough evidence to charge him.

They believed he was a danger, obtained search warrants and planned a similar operation before then didn't do it. Why?

What is the truth?

In the case of Harry Stanley
there was quite disgraceful behaviour from the police, who apparently don't have a union - which would be illegal - just a mouthy and in the light of Plebgate, a wholly inept Federation.

But an inquest jury eventually did rule it was unlawful killing by police officers.

They were over-ruled, but at least to an open verdict not lawful killing.

I greatly respect Lord Justice Leveson so I bow to his superior judgement. However he called for an overhaul of the inquest system. I'm not sure what that meant or whether it ever happened.

It appears to most people who know the case that someone with a grudge against Stanley called the police who were only too willing to do their bidding.

I have no idea. There is many reasons that warrants don't get executed or operations get aborted.

And the point remains that intelligence is just that. Not evidence. Therefore it may be documented that he was involved in these things but that's no where near enough evidence to charge usually.

You do realise that the intelligence system is electronic? And the massive enquiry that began after the shooting would have involved retrieving all intelligence held on him, looking at when it was submitted, by who, what grading etc.

The police don't just say "oh we have intelligence". It's all there to be seen.

ivykaty44 AFAIK no police officer from any British force has ever been convicted of causing a death in custody or in an incident outside custody but which they were on duty for.

That involves not only individual deaths such as Stephen Gately, Blair Peach, Daniel Morgan, Ian Tomlinson, Azelle Rodney, Smiley Culture, Harry Stanley, Daniel Morgan, Jean Charles De Menezes (I regret if I've missed any) but mass deaths such as Hillsborough.

Their period of extreme turmoil generally culminates with them retiring early on a full pension.

You can't libel the dead IamInvisible.

Sorry, Kevin Gately. I was getting a bit starstruck there

Ah, police 'intelligence'. The sort of thing that means you can conveniently smear a dead man who can't answer back, even though the only criminal record he had was for a public order offence where he was cautioned and possessing a small amount of cannabis worthy of a £30 fine.

I wasn't aware we had reintroduced the death penalty, let alone replaced cautions and £30 fines with death sentences to be carried out without accusation, charge, trial, and conviction. Silly me.

The sort of thing that got poor Jean Charles de Menenzes killed. 'Ooh, that block of flats, you know, the place where there are, by definition, lots of different people living... one of the addresses in that building was written down on a scrap of paper. Therefore this one guy leaving who looks a bit Muslim to me, guv, must be a terrorist. I know, we'll trail him to the bus, on the bus, off the bus and into the tube station because he's such a dangerous terrorist, goodness me, after a bunch of terrorists blew up a bus and some tube trains you wouldn't want one of them on a bus, or going into a tube station, or reaching the platform, would you... Oh.'

And let's not forget the jury has to rely on statements from police officers who get together in a huddle and decide jointly what the story is. They are allowed to do this, and they do. What kind of 'evidence' is that, exactly? How the hell can the jury decide if this one or that one or the other one is telling the truth, or lying?

The legal system tries individual cases based on the evidence available which must be strong enough to make a case beyond reasonable doubt and admissible in court. This is not the same thing as the information police use when trying to maintain order and combat crime.

Whether you are a police officer or a gang member you can't be convicted based on how people like you are thought to behave generally or evidence that is not strong enough to make a case.

This case hasn't seen the last of the judicial system so I am sure we will all have more information in due course, albeit not perhaps as much as the people whose job it is to actually review the information and reach a conclusion.

So limitedperiod only which would you have chosen?

Edam, you are just being ridiculous.

edam the police officer supposed to be keeping the flats under surveillance said he made a mistake because he had run off to the loo for a wee.

It was accepted without a word. Menezes was smeared and the other police blunders were lied about in several pages in the News of the World three days after he was killed.

Where I'm from, paparazzi live up a tree for as long as it takes and piss in a bottle.

I imagine Andy Coulson would scream the same when he was at the NoW.

By coincidence a friend was in an adjoining carriage when Menezes was killed.

She gave evidence to the IPCC about not hearing any warnings and the number of gunshots, which directly contradicted what the police said. She wasn't the only one.

She was vilified by someone in our office who wanted to believe the police don't lie and only baddies get killed or if not, well, they have a difficult job to do.

Nope, I'm being factual and honest. Unlike the coppers concerned who got together to decide what story to tell.

(that was to nicknacky)

Are you referring to this case? There is no suggestion of collusion that I'm aware of.

I remember her evidence, Limited. It was striking. Brave woman. Appalling that she was bullied at work as a result of telling the truth.

nicknacky, the police officers compare notes before writing their statements. They are allowed to do this. It's routine. Hence, their evidence is about as unreliable as you can get.