[DaveO]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:37 pm  

SaintsFan wrote: Here is a clear reading of the jury's decision in favour of 'lawful killing' in this case. I can fully understand why the jury came to its conclusion given the situation as described and shown on TV, which is all most of us know about this incident anyway. If the jury believed the police officer to have genuinely considered himself and/or his colleagues under imminent threat of death then I can't see how they could have concluded that the shooting was anything other than lawful given the presence of a gun and knowing as he or she did that Duggan was a highly placed member of the most violent gang in London. Having read the document in the link I'd tend to go for an open verdict. Even if the police felt in danger there is the question of reasonable force being used to prevent it and with the gun on the ground it doesn't seem that reasonable to me. So in theory that would mean unlawful killing but though this is coming from a position of ignorance on the actual evidence presented I am not sure how the jury could conclude one way or the other if there was reason to think the force exercised was reasonable or not. It's no surprise that Duggan's family are up in arms but perhaps they should consider the lifestyle their son lived and how that lifestyle had its potential consequences. I agree and perhaps the world is a better place minus Mr Duggan but I am rather surprised at the verdict.

SaintsFan wrote: Here is a clear reading of the jury's decision in favour of 'lawful killing' in this case. I can fully understand why the jury came to its conclusion given the situation as described and shown on TV, which is all most of us know about this incident anyway. If the jury believed the police officer to have genuinely considered himself and/or his colleagues under imminent threat of death then I can't see how they could have concluded that the shooting was anything other than lawful given the presence of a gun and knowing as he or she did that Duggan was a highly placed member of the most violent gang in London. Having read the document in the link I'd tend to go for an open verdict. Even if the police felt in danger there is the question of reasonable force being used to prevent it and with the gun on the ground it doesn't seem that reasonable to me. So in theory that would mean unlawful killing but though this is coming from a position of ignorance on the actual evidence presented I am not sure how the jury could conclude one way or the other if there was reason to think the force exercised was reasonable or not. It's no surprise that Duggan's family are up in arms but perhaps they should consider the lifestyle their son lived and how that lifestyle had its potential consequences. I agree and perhaps the world is a better place minus Mr Duggan but I am rather surprised at the verdict.

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:51 pm  

Dally wrote: How do you define / judge a "large" number? Can you link to statistics to support your assertion? At least 333 from 1999 to 2009 86 of which were RESTRAINT related The IPCC’s research found that 333 people died in police custody between 1999 and 2009, including 86 who died after being restrained. That figure included 16 of the most controversial cases which were classed as restraint-related. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... r-inquiry/ But as you rely on police information there are more. Roger Sylvester Roger Sylvester (c. 1969–11 January 1999) was a mentally ill man who died in north London after being detained outside his home in Tottenham by eight Metropolitan police officers. It was reported that his neighbours had complained to police of a disturbance after Sylvester had started banging on his own front door, naked.[1] Police detained Sylvester under the Mental Health Act, then took him to St Anne's Hospital, Haringey, where he fell into a coma while being restrained on the floor of a padded room by six officers, as they waited for medical help. He died a week later.[1] In 2003, an inquest heard that Sylvester, who suffered from bipolar disorder, had died of brain damage and cardiac arrest, caused by difficulty breathing because of the position he was held in, and because of cannabis-induced delirium. A jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing in October 2003.[1] The eight officers who had taken Sylvester into custody appealed to the High Court against what they called an "irrational" ruling, and the verdict was overturned in November 2004.[2 Black, mentally ill, jury said unlawful killing overuled by the courts 15 in 2011 and 2012 ( half of whom were mentally ill) http://www.inquest.org.uk/media/pr/mps- ... tody-death . another one here Police innappropriately restrain a mentally ill man who dies http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -them.html Sean Rigg Black , mentally ill and killed by police who lied in their evidence Four police officers eventually gave chase to Rigg, who was handcuffed and restrained in a prone, face down position as officers leant on him for eight minutes. Arrested for assaulting a police officer, public disorder and theft of a passport—which was actually his own—he was then placed face-down with his legs bent behind him in the caged rear section of a police van and transported to Brixton police station. During the journey "his mental and physical health deteriorated" and he was "extremely unwell and not fully conscious" when eventually taken out of the van. This followed a delay of ten minutes during which he was left handcuffed in a 'rear stack' position, unattended and unmonitored while the van sat outside the station in the car parking area.[10] One of the arresting officers was captured on the station's CCTV claiming that Rigg was "faking it".[11] Two officers then carried Rigg to the caged area at the entrance to the station's custody suite where he was left placed on the floor "handcuffed and unresponsive." After a further delay of 25 minutes Dr Nandasena Amarasekera, the Force Medical Examiner, was called to examine Rigg, although CCTV later showed that custody sergeant PS Paul White misled the doctor by telling him that Rigg was "feigning unconsciousness." When the FME examined him again ten minutes later he found that his heart had stopped and he was not breathing. Although CPR was attempted, Rigg was officially pronounced dead after arriving at King's College Hospital, Southwark . You and the others who dont beleive the assertion could always look for evidence or statistics yourself. It also does not include, shootings, Police assaults ie Ian Tomlinson, taserings that lead to death by natural causes, suicides in custody like Colin Roach who managed to impossibly commit suicide in the front office of a police station with a shotgun. Also some coroners have used faux science to explains deaths as accidental. This includes at least 10 poeple who have died as a result of excited delerium after being arrested and held in police custody. The problem with any of these stats is that none of them tell the true story as their are so many people with vested interests who use all sorts of ways of minimising them. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... e-custody/

Dally wrote: How do you define / judge a "large" number? Can you link to statistics to support your assertion? At least 333 from 1999 to 2009 86 of which were RESTRAINT related The IPCC’s research found that 333 people died in police custody between 1999 and 2009, including 86 who died after being restrained. That figure included 16 of the most controversial cases which were classed as restraint-related. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... r-inquiry/ But as you rely on police information there are more. Roger Sylvester Roger Sylvester (c. 1969–11 January 1999) was a mentally ill man who died in north London after being detained outside his home in Tottenham by eight Metropolitan police officers. It was reported that his neighbours had complained to police of a disturbance after Sylvester had started banging on his own front door, naked.[1] Police detained Sylvester under the Mental Health Act, then took him to St Anne's Hospital, Haringey, where he fell into a coma while being restrained on the floor of a padded room by six officers, as they waited for medical help. He died a week later.[1] In 2003, an inquest heard that Sylvester, who suffered from bipolar disorder, had died of brain damage and cardiac arrest, caused by difficulty breathing because of the position he was held in, and because of cannabis-induced delirium. A jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing in October 2003.[1] The eight officers who had taken Sylvester into custody appealed to the High Court against what they called an "irrational" ruling, and the verdict was overturned in November 2004.[2 Black, mentally ill, jury said unlawful killing overuled by the courts 15 in 2011 and 2012 ( half of whom were mentally ill) http://www.inquest.org.uk/media/pr/mps- ... tody-death . another one here Police innappropriately restrain a mentally ill man who dies http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -them.html Sean Rigg Black , mentally ill and killed by police who lied in their evidence Four police officers eventually gave chase to Rigg, who was handcuffed and restrained in a prone, face down position as officers leant on him for eight minutes. Arrested for assaulting a police officer, public disorder and theft of a passport—which was actually his own—he was then placed face-down with his legs bent behind him in the caged rear section of a police van and transported to Brixton police station. During the journey "his mental and physical health deteriorated" and he was "extremely unwell and not fully conscious" when eventually taken out of the van. This followed a delay of ten minutes during which he was left handcuffed in a 'rear stack' position, unattended and unmonitored while the van sat outside the station in the car parking area.[10] One of the arresting officers was captured on the station's CCTV claiming that Rigg was "faking it".[11] Two officers then carried Rigg to the caged area at the entrance to the station's custody suite where he was left placed on the floor "handcuffed and unresponsive." After a further delay of 25 minutes Dr Nandasena Amarasekera, the Force Medical Examiner, was called to examine Rigg, although CCTV later showed that custody sergeant PS Paul White misled the doctor by telling him that Rigg was "feigning unconsciousness." When the FME examined him again ten minutes later he found that his heart had stopped and he was not breathing. Although CPR was attempted, Rigg was officially pronounced dead after arriving at King's College Hospital, Southwark . You and the others who dont beleive the assertion could always look for evidence or statistics yourself. It also does not include, shootings, Police assaults ie Ian Tomlinson, taserings that lead to death by natural causes, suicides in custody like Colin Roach who managed to impossibly commit suicide in the front office of a police station with a shotgun. Also some coroners have used faux science to explains deaths as accidental. This includes at least 10 poeple who have died as a result of excited delerium after being arrested and held in police custody. The problem with any of these stats is that none of them tell the true story as their are so many people with vested interests who use all sorts of ways of minimising them. http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... e-custody/

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:53 pm  

How mant Police Officers have been killed in line of duty?

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:56 pm  

Wire Yed wrote:

How mant Police Officers have been killed in line of duty?

Why does that matter? I doubt that an on-duty police officer has ever been shot by a member of the public and seen a verdict of Lawful killing.

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:57 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Why does that matter? I doubt that an on-duty police officer has ever been shot by a member of the public and seen a verdict of Lawful killing.

Or suicide or post duty excited delerium

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:58 pm  

It goes someway to the reaction (some deeming over reaction) of the Police to shoot when feeling threatened.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 3:03 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

It is a key point and as I mentioned earlier we put our trust in the armed police officers to make the correct decisions whilst also acknowledging that they have to have a fair bit of leeway in their decision to shoot, ie they have to believe that his and/or other peoples safety was compromised by the offender - whether this turns out to be the case afterwards if for others to decide and in the majority of cases we apply this leeway, he believed it to be so and therefore we sanctioned him to take the action.

The alternative is of course chaos and carnage, we could choose not to arm any police officers and either let the armed criminals do what they hell they liked or send unarmed police to apprehend them (as actually happens, nearly all police murdered by criminals with guns are themselves unarmed).

As I pointed out previously, the occasions when a police weapon are discharged are miniscule compared to the number of times they are deployed and that is testament to the procedures for there use and the discipline of the officers, but its also the case that when they are discharged they tend to be fatal shots because they've reached that point where the criminal is now representing a serious threat - its another reason why an armed officer who is pointing his weapon at a criminal will choose to control that person with a series of commands , they don't want any sudden or unexpected movements - to reach that point in a confrontation is something totally alien to you or I or 99.9% of the population, we would have stood still and acquiesced a long time ago, to get to that point and still think that somehow you can ignore what is going on is probably the height of stupidity, but there are stupid people around I suppose.

The bottom line is that we (all of us) don't understand what its like to be in those situations and we (all of us) are happy to sanction someone else to deal with this sort of stuff and in doing so we need to offer some leeway in the decision making because the important point to make is that every bullet that is discharged by a police officer means suspension for him/her and a detailed enquiry into why and how, as a citizen I am happy that they have the checks and balances correct.

The fate of the gun is indeed the key point. From the evidence I've read, the shooter says he saw a weapon in his hand (in a sock?), and another testified he also saw the gun in his hand. Another office who arrived later says he was told one of the armed response team tossed the gun away from Duggan for safety, something not reported by the armed officers. One girl says she saw an officer enter the cab and exit with a gun. Some bloke (the one who filmed the aftermath) with presumably astounding eyesight reckons he saw a Blackberry in Duggan's hand from the 9th floor of a building over the road. Another witness also says Duggan was holding a mobile phone.

It seems no-one saw a gun being thrown but the fact is it ended up 20 feet (no particularly far) away. On balance, it's either been thrown from the cab as it stopped, or as he exited the cab, and he was also holding a mobile phone. Or it's been planted. If you choose to believe it was planted you need to wonder why the police would deliberately target a fairly low level criminal in this way, or if they were carrying a gun to plant just in case someone shot a suspect. Further, if they're covering up for Duggan being unarmed when shot, whether the gun is in the grass or in the cab is irrelevant and surely it would make more sense to plant the gun on or much closer to him - in fact, planting it where it was found would (and did) raise suspicions. The facts are that Duggan had a gun, it was in the cab with him, the cab was stopped and in the following few moments it ended up a small distance away.

As you state, and I mentioned on page 2, the number of discharges per armed response call-out is miniscule by anyone's standards, hardly indicative of a trigger-happy police force going round shooting people without due cause. The number of deaths is fewer still. It's quite right and correct that deaths are investigated, whilst remembering that when asking our police officers to make these split-second decisions questionable incidences will occur which may not sit pretty in people's minds, whilst being entirely legitimate and legal. In this case, the jury were satisfied that Duggan threw the gun and that the shooter did "honestly believe or may he honestly have believed, even if that belief is mistaken, that at the time he fired the fatal shot, that he needed to use force to defend himself or another". And given the evidence, I agree - given that no-one saw the gun thrown, there was every reason to believe he was still armed.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 3:31 pm  

Wire Yed wrote:

It goes someway to the reaction (some deeming over reaction) of the Police to shoot when feeling threatened.

No. It does not.

They train for a job that they choose to do, knowing that it may involve personal danger.

Those who are authorised to carry and use firearms volunteer for that and are trained further for that. That training should help to avoid any 'over reaction'.

If a civilian shot someone because they said that they felt threatened – and there was no threat (see the Harry Stanley case mentioned above) then it seems fairly likely that they would lose their liberty.

The problem with 'feeling threatened' is that it is about perception. The police felt threatened in the case of Harry Stanley. The facts, however, revealed that there was no threat whatsoever.

And just to reiterate: I do not think the police have an enviable job and I am not offering solutions.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 3:45 pm  

No amount of training, no amount of professionalism takes away the human factor.

I as a Firearms officer point my gun at someone, then he lifts what I think is a gun, the instant fear factor is driving the thought I need to shoot him.

It could be a chair leg, it could be a mobile phone, it could be a remote control BUT it could be a gun and that moments hesitation could mean your own death, now as a Policeman they are more acutely aware of the dangers, the danger signs and the unsavoury side of human nature.
If they are aware of a Policeman getting killed because he took a moment to think then yes I think it does go someway as to the reaction.

I am an avid supporter of the police even though they have inconvenienced me and been on the receiving end financially of a policeman in the line of work.
They do a thankless job and I will never let one or two bad apples taint my opinion of them as a whole.

I know a few people in the police both friends and family and I certainly don't envy them.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 3:51 pm  

Wire Yed wrote:

No amount of training, no amount of professionalism takes away the human factor.

I as a Firearms officer point my gun at someone, then he lifts what I think is a gun, the instant fear factor is driving the thought I need to shoot him.

You are forgetting the umpteen decisions taken to get to the stage where you have this Mexican stand-off. In the Duggan Case, it seems clear that whilst the decision of the police officer themselves has been backed up (and I agree with how difficult it must be to make that split second decision) there were many decisions taken to get to that point and there doesn’t to me, seem to have been a plan where Mark Duggan minus gun could be safely arrested, we know this to be the case because Mark Duggan minus gun got out of a car and was shot dead. The questions being asked should be about the decisions to stop the car when, where and how they did when the potential for such an incident was so high, and so obvious.