Mark Duggan- Shooting was lawful

[Whitershadeofpale]

here

(And it was done in this case, read the reports.)

I know it is. I'm a police officer and I already discussed this point earlier. It is accepted by courts and in no way makes it unreliable.

Well what on earth do you mean by 'there was no evidence of collusion' then? Collusion is the system!

'It is accepted by the courts' - no. It is the way evidence is presented to the court. The court has no say in it. Judges can't make a new law saying 'um, it might be a good idea if police officers had to write down what they did and what they saw and what they heard on their own like big boys'.

Chosen? I wouldn't have chosen to kill any of those people I've named. That would be murder, wouldn't it?

With Hillsborough I wouldn't have wanted to smear the dead. I can see how young officers under pressure colluded. I like to think I'd have refused but I'm not sure I would have.

At least I hope they hate themselves for what they did. But there but for the grace of God...

I can't forgive the senior officers though, who knew exactly what they were doing. And for what?

Edam, you very obviously don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt. Do you think police officers do not discuss an incident at all after they deal with it? Or do you believe the officers sat side by side and copied their statements?

This jury were not judging the Menezes case.

It is accepted by courts and in no way makes it unreliable.

Yes it is and yes it does.

Don't know what force you work for nicknacky but Asst Commissioner Mark Rowley said this morning that the Met might be rethinking that one.

nicknacky, can you honestly not see what is wrong with police officers being allowed to get together and agree on a story? Seriously?

I don't work for the met.

Edam, where is the suggestion they have created a story?? You have no idea what you are talking about at all.

Or do you believe the officers sat side by side and copied their statements?

Yes. And probably with their tongues poking out the side of their mouths

Hmm, making judgement based on general beliefs about how members of a social group act rather than the specifics of a case - strange sense of déjà vu...

I don't work for the met

I guess you'll be all right then

Generally speaking, police officers will write and submit their own statements. However in this case their statements would be obtained by a member of the enquiry team, and in all likelihood several would be obtained. No other witness will be present during this. Just to clarify that!!

Meaning what, exactly Limited?

didn't they decline to give oral statements and instead wrote the answers? pretty sure that was the case with the officer that shot mark duggan.

Meaning that you'll be free to remind other officers of the day's events following a traumatic occasion and in advance of an inquiry or court case nicknacky.

What did you think I meant?

Again someone else that has no idea. After nearly 12 years as an officers I probably have more of an idea of police procedure than you do. I have posted attempting to explain certain points but that was clearly a waste of time.

Well now my professionalism has been called into question, I will bow out.

Continue with your murder theory if you wish, I think most of the sensible posters are leaving you to it.

It is the way evidence is presented to the court. The court has no say in it. Judges can't make a new law saying 'um, it might be a good idea if police officers had to write down what they did and what they saw and what they heard on their own like big boys'.
Complete nonsense.
Defence counsel can and do question the validity of officers' statements. Judges can caution juries if they have reason to suspect collusion.

Nearly 12 years. That much, eh?

Some interesting comments on this thread. All police officers are men police officers are all the same stereotype much oh the irony The jury are wrong to have spent 7 weeks listening to all the evidence and would have been much better reading the independant and googling older completely unrelated cases rather than the masses of evidence from BOTH sides. The fact a criminal colleague of Duggan has admitted in court giving him a firearm and Duggan was watched picking the weapon up. All that has been ignored forgotten about in order to get stroppy about police failings. Two police women in greater manchester went to a report of a burglary and a lunatic assassinated them where they stood without the benefit of a warning. No winners no losers. One less gun on the streets. No tears will be spilt in my house for Duggan. Not now, not ever.

Limited I think you are undermining your argument by giving the impression that you believe all police officers (even anonymous ones on the Internet) to be incompetent or corrupt.

Itx a stance that is about as valid or relevant as the idea that mark duggan's death didn't because he was a gang member.

And I have 20 years service, that work better for you?

Sallyingforth, finally a sensible voice in the wilderness!

"It's a stance that is about as valid or relevant as the idea that mark duggan's death didn't matter because he was a gang member."

litedperiodonly

I don't know a about the other people but in this case I am pretty sure I would have pulled the trigger, much as I would like to think otherwise, truethfully I doubt very much I would have gambled with me being physically hurt