Mark Duggan- Shooting was lawful

[Whitershadeofpale]

here

Perhaps so Edam, but the officer who caused the death of Ian Tomlinson by pushing him over was found guilty of unlawful killing, so don't make it sound as though police officers always get off, just because they are police officers.

The policeman whose lies contributed to 'Plebgate' didn't get off, did he? The Duggan case wasn't some internal police inquiry with vested interests it was tried in court by a jury. That's justice, even if it's not the outcome some people were hoping for.

"why didn't the police kill Raoul moat?"

Because, at the point when he was cornered, he was isolated & had the gun trained on himself. Not the same scenario.

What's quite ironic about threads like this is that I bet many of the people on it who are defending Mark Duggan and castigating the police were probably completely on the the side of the police over the Plebgate incident, when it was the good old salt of the earth, honest as the day is long copper v. the Posh Entitled Tory Twat.

It's like political Rock, Paper, Scissors isn't it?

Don't know about anyone else mad but not me.

I found myself in the very odd position of defending someone you call a Posh Tory Twat.

Though I'd never vote for him, Andrew Mitchell was quite clearly being stitched up by people who think that no one will ever question them so don't even bother to make up convincing lies.

One officer pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office yesterday and there were quite a few debates on the back of it about trust in the police, which also referenced Duggan.

The rest of those Downing Street officers should be dealt with too. This is taking a disgracefully long time, though that's not unusual in cases involving alleged police wrong-doing.

Two out of the three Police Federation reps who ineptly lied about their meeting with Mitchell have been exonerated by their chief constables.

And they wonder why I wouldn't trust some officers to tell me the correct time.

Or the very fashionable inverted snobbery. :)

And though I'm busy polishing my halo, the Mitchell case shows that not only do some police lie, but that they expect to be believed and they usually are.

I'm not the only person saying that if you can lie about a Government minister and nearly get away with it, what chance has anyone else got?

I've got no sympathy for Mitchell. When he couldn't get his own way at the gate he sounded off at the police doing their job. He admits he used the word fucking twice but denied saying plebs. Was that all right then?
The officer was wrong of course but it's interesting to note that once he was found to be lying his senior officers had him pulled out and sent for trial.

sallyingforth Yes, he did use the word fucking. He didn't say 'you fucking whatever' he said something like 'I thought you guys were supposed to be on our fucking side'.

I'm paraphrasing, but it's not the same, is it? And certainly not something someone should be vilified over and lose his job for.

This happened in late 2012. It's taken quite a long time for this single officer to be sent for trial, and plead guilty immediately.

His most senior officer, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe almost immediately backed them until it became obvious to everyone that they were lying.

And just what is the problem with opening a gate? That is what they're there for, so they weren't doing their jobs, were they?

That's what Mitchell says he said, anyway. He'd quite like to go to a criminal court and swear to it on oath. But apparently that's not going to happen.

And just what is the problem with opening a gate? That is what they're there for, so they weren't doing their jobs, were they?

No. There is a side gate for pedestrians and cyclists. He wanted to have the main gate opened for him. That is a reinforced security gate and the officers have orders to only open it for expected vehicles, to prevent a terrorist vehicle crashing through. They were doing their job of protecting him and his colleagues.

mad, like limited, I think the police treatment of Mitchell is appalling and makes it even less likely I'd trust the police. Despite knowing a few officers IRL who are decent people.

and Ian Tomlinson's killer was only revealed because a member of the public filmed it. Without that evidence they would have got away with their lies about 'we helped him, demonstrators obstructed us, and our tame incompetent pathologist says he died of a heart attack so there'.

On the filming issue, isn't one of the outcomes of this and other cases, that armed Met Officers are going to be equipped with personal cameras - trial run starting April? It's clear that some police officers done the force's reputation no favours recently by lying but I'd have thought that represented progress.

sallyingforth

That old security reasons excuse covers a lot of abuses in a lot of places.

These officers allow crowds of tourists to cluster round the gates of Downing Street. They chat and pose for photos if asked nicely.

It's very decent of them, but not the action of people who live in constant fear of a suicide bomber.

They were being difficult in order to get a rise from Mitchell. They got one, though it apparently wasn't enough for them so they went to The Sun about to lose the man his job.

btw I think if not a criminal offence, it is a disciplinary one to open your notebook to the media. But they felt they could do this with impunity. I wonder why that was?

I've hesitated before posting again because I'm aware I've come over as some mad police hater.

I'm not. I've met many decent and competent police officers in my personal dealings and also in my work.

And I am aware that many of them are women, because that seemed to bother another poster.

Some things have changed from the times of some of the examples of deaths at the hands of the police that I mentioned and that a poster said were irrelevant.

But I don't think it's changed enough.

Some police officers still do expect their word to be taken without question and resent it when people outside The Job (and I use the capitals as they do) comment.

Some of them also consider themselves to be a special case within the public sector and to be hard-done-by, which is what I believe led to the Mitchell business.

I have sympathy for that view. But I also have sympathy for other public sector workers. And btw I am self-employed, so who's looking after me?

And some people outside the police give automatic credence to lazy, lying police officers citing daft stuff like: 'live by the sword, die by the sword.'

This a thread principally about Mark Duggan.

So I apologise for being diverted; but I thought it was relevant.

Even if other people think other cases aren't.

limited perhaps I didn't explain sufficiently about the gates.
The main gate is a bulwark designed to stop someone crashing through in a vehicle loaded with explosives. It is only opened for known vehicles because every time it's opened there is a security risk. Everyone working there knows that's the rule for very good reasons. There is a smaller gate intended for cyclists, which is not wide enough for vehicles.
It was wrong of Mitchell to try and badger the guards into breaking the rules just for him. If something had gone wrong, they would have been the ones in trouble.
As for tourists outside the gates, they don't present a significant security risk because they are at a safe distance. I suspect they are even welcomed because they make the place look less like a fortress.

Sallyingforth do you work the gate?

No. Do you?

I don't.

But I know the lay out. Do you?

why didn't the police kill Raoul moat?"

Because, at the point when he was cornered, he was isolated & had the gun trained on himself. Not the same scenario.

no, the moat scenario was worse. he had already killed one person and maimed another, he was more of a danger than duggan who was cornered and isolated and had no gun.

I do, very well.
Since you know it, you can vouch for what I have said :)

Really? So do I

So we'll have to agree to disagree

OK, I'll agree to disagree then.

The gate thing is correct, hence why a certain MP should not have been such an idiot in the first place. There are rules for a reason. Side gate for foot people at Downing Street only, no guns etc.

Obey the law. Why do people think they are better than the law? I support the police totally and I think this government are destroying the force. They are a few who should be sacked but that applies to every industry.

If police have people being aggressive to them what the hell are they supposed to do? They certainly aren't paid enough to take the shit they get.