Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:08 pm  

10 fatal shootings by the police firearms unit since 1980 doesn't suggest a trigger happy force, albeit each incident should be investigated to understand the lawfulness in each circumstance.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:13 pm  

Maybe one message community leaders could have pushed yesterday (if they did, I didn't see it reported) was that young men, and young black men in particular, should be aware of the potential consequences of involvment in gun culture. Guns are not toys, they are not medals and they are not a status symbol. If you are a criminal known to carry a gun then you are potentially going to be in a position where you are confronted by heavily armed police officers who will kill you if they are feel they are threatened or another member of the public is threatened. Not to mention the possibility that other criminals, knowing you are "packing" will work on the principle that they need to shoot you before you shoot them.
Could have been a different message sent out after this verdict.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:18 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

It is the rule of law, police get charged with offences ( occasionally) and are acquitted by jury's often made up of people like Rover 49, Jerry Chicken, Cronus et al who all think , " dey is black*, dey is criminals*, dey are scum* " ( *delete as appropriate) , police are lovely and cuddly and they would never kill anyone illegaly or unjustly

This is my 12585th post on RL Fans and I invite you to go through anyone of them and point to where I have ever made a racist comment. I am the least racist person you could wish to meet to be honest, I don't care if a scumbag is black, white, brown, yellow or pink with blue stripes, if they take a gun out for criminal activity, they have it coming.

As for your comments about my thinking police are lovely and cuddly, you couldn't be wider off the mark, I have been the victim of a policeman lying to circumstances in something I was involved in (a minor offence admittedly) to which I made a formal complaint. If a police officer breaks the law they certainly don't deserve to keep their jobs and I would not have any quarms about them being sacked and incarcerated. In the case of Mark Duggan I think on balance the jury was right to come up with the findings they did, not because he was black, but because he was an odious little criminal and was in possession of a firearm that had the potential to cause harm or death to the police officers or a member of the public.

If the above makes me a racist in your mind there isn't much I can do about it other than think it is you that is the narrow minded one, not me.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:22 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

So then knowing we dont have all the same level of Fortune or Mis-fortune have we all won the lottery? Are we saying some win a tenner, some win £100m but they should all be thankful for that? I dont know about you but i would be pretty dissappointed if someone were to run up and tell me i had won the Euromillions then hand me a cheque for £2.80

Do you feel your position in world society equates to just £2.80 of Euromillions?

All of us posting here are at the jackpot end of the scale.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:28 pm  

Kosh wrote:

And here we have the nub of the matter. The Stanley case was (IMO) an outrage, and yet nobody was held at fault and AFAIK nothing put in place to at least try and avoid such a thing happening again. When cases like this occur is it any wonder that people are sceptical (to say the least) of the outcome of the Duggan case?

The key point for me in the Duggan shooting was the testimony of the firearms officers who clearly stated that they were sure he was holding a weapon when the opened fire. This has been shown to not be the case. Which should concern pretty much everyone TBH, regardless of whether you think Duggan 'deserved it' or not.

Thank goodness that people like you and Minty and others like FA get the central issue and can articulate it.
To dismiss this event as the death of a scumbag who had it coming is to totally miss the point.
This event will I believe lead to new procedures for the police.
Because if we can't learn from this then God help us.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:28 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

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,

Arrested for what?

If they arrest him before he's got the gun then he hasn't committed any crime.

we know this to be the case because Mark Duggan minus gun got out of a car and was shot dead.

I suspect when he exited the car he was carrying a gun. The gun was quickly thrown by him and he was attempting to leg it. By choosing to take such actions when faced with armed police officers he ended up being shot dead by the officers.

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.

So when do you think they should have stopped him? If they stop him before he has the gun then they face charges of police harassment. If they wait then they could be too late and accused of allowing Duggan to execute his victim.

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:06 pm  

rover49 wrote:

This is my 12585th post on RL Fans and I invite you to go through anyone of them and point to where I have ever made a racist comment. I am the least racist person you could wish to meet to be honest, I don't care if a scumbag is black, white, brown, yellow or pink with blue stripes, if they take a gun out for criminal activity, they have it coming.

As for your comments about my thinking police are lovely and cuddly, you couldn't be wider off the mark, I have been the victim of a policeman lying to circumstances in something I was involved in (a minor offence admittedly) to which I made a formal complaint. If a police officer breaks the law they certainly don't deserve to keep their jobs and I would not have any quarms about them being sacked and incarcerated. In the case of Mark Duggan I think on balance the jury was right to come up with the findings they did, not because he was black, but because he was an odious little criminal and was in possession of a firearm that had the potential to cause harm or death to the police officers or a member of the public.

If the above makes me a racist in your mind there isn't much I can do about it other than think it is you that is the narrow minded one, not me.

It appears that you and Jerry cannot read i did not accuse either of you of racism which is why the delete as neccessary bit is there
You did however write

So we let them commit the crime and off the copper BEFORE we do anything. I prefer the dead scumbag to the dead copper.

which means that you could be put in the bracket of

dey is criminals*, dey are scum* "

school of justification for the shooting of Duggan. That is the simple point. Just beacuse Duggan was a scumbag does not in any way justify what happened. There are rules and laws in place to protect the guilty and the innocent and once you start using different criteria to justify one groups actions then you are on the slippery slope.

The examples i gave about deaths in police custody etc is to point out that because so many people automatically assume the police are the good guys it becomes harder for them to be caught out when they might be the bad guys.

So they can shoot unarmed people like menezes and get away with it, push awkward types over and kill them Ian Tomlinson and get away with it or, mentally ill people in police stations like Thomas Orchard and get away with it.

Too many people put the police on a moral high ground above those they deal with and that is why when bad individuals or incompetent ones in the Police get away with things for so long and things continue to go wrong. There is little if any criminal accountability for their actions.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:21 pm  

Richie wrote:

Do you feel your position in world society equates to just £2.80 of Euromillions?

All of us posting here are at the jackpot end of the scale.

compared to who? My income and wealth is far closer to those at the bottom end of the scale than the top. I would guess pretty much everyone here is in the same position.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:24 pm  

Mintball wrote:

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'.


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.

The firearms section is indeed a role fulfilled by volunteer PC's who then undergo a lengthy training and selection process and from memory the drop-out and de-selection rate is high, so we can be confident that only the most appropriate candidates are forwarded to the actual pointing of guns on a range bit (I have a very close friend and a friend from some years ago who have both qualified).

When and if (IF) they qualify as a firearms officer they are then subject to ultimate screening, testing and re-testing, constant scrutiny and the sanction of not only losing your job for one mistake but also of being prosecuted for murder - its quite a pressurized environment even though for 52 weeks of the year you probably won't even get a call out, you are checked out and checked back in for each shift by a senior officer and if you lose any equipment or god forbid any ammunition during that shift then you are in deep poo - not surprisingly the drop-out rate among firearms officers after serving for a 12 month term is high and both of my friends went back to other duties simply because of the bureaucracy.

Even after all of that you are still human and not an automaton but in this specific case it does seem that everything was done by the book as the officer in question has not been criticised for his performance despite the fact that ultimately he shot dead an unarmed man.

The fact that he can follow through the procedures perfectly and still be suspended from duty pending an investigation from an outside party and then face a court to explain his actions simply goes to reinforce the safeguards that are in place to protect the public, and criminals, from rogue firearms officers shooting indiscriminately and "executing" people for being black, or bad, or wrong'uns as some buffoons would believe, the fact that there were procedures in place to allow that officer to shoot upon a genuine belief rather than wait to confirm the fact is also correct as we have asked that officer to place himself in front of the target and identify himself as an armed officer thus attracting the full attention of the criminal, if you're going to ask someone to do that on your behalf then you have to support him.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:25 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Arrested for what?

Whatever crime he is supposed to have committed, If he hasnt committed a crime then what on earth was going on.

If they arrest him before he's got the gun then he hasn't committed any crime.

then don't arrest him. Why arrest and innocent person? DOnt shoot him though

I suspect when he exited the car he was carrying a gun. The gun was quickly thrown by him and he was attempting to leg it. By choosing to take such actions when faced with armed police officers he ended up being shot dead by the officers.

Which is wrong, an unarmed man cannot be a threat to shoot. If he has thrown the gun there is no justification for shooting him.

So when do you think they should have stopped him? If they stop him before he has the gun then they face charges of police harassment. If they wait then they could be too late and accused of allowing Duggan to execute his victim.

When it was safe to do so.


What you seem to be describing here is a position where the police are in fact escalating a situation to a point where they have to kill somebody. That doesnt seem a particularly smart move.