Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:41 am  

Richie wrote:

The rest of th world.
You are significantly wealthier and have siginificantly more opportunities and a signficantly higher living standard than the vast majority of the world.

I do indeed. I am however still, as i assume you and everyone else on this board is, far closer to bottom end of that scale than the very top.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:46 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

I do indeed. I am however still, as i assume you and everyone else on this board is, far closer to bottom end of that scale than the very top.

You do indeed what?

Do you really believe, that if we put the world population in a line, ordered richest to poorest, you would be towards the poor end of that line?

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:52 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

The crime he was committing was CARRYING A GUN. The police had information that he was on the way to shoot a rival gangster. They either stop him while he's carrying the gun, which they did, or they have zero chance of making an arrest with any chance of conviction.

Then they should have done it when safe to do so, or at least there was a possibility it was safe to do so. When the police intercepted Duggan he didn’t have a gun, he had apparently tossed it by then. So what was the plan in arresting Duggan safely without that gun?

But Duggan wasn't an innocent person. He was a suspected gangster, believed to be carrying a gun and on his way to murder someone.

By law, what you have described is an innocent person.

IMO the reason Duggan was throwing that gun is because he doesn't want to be caught with the gun. If he's caught with the gun, he's going down for years. SO HE'S NOT BROADCASTING THE FACT HE'S THROWING THE GUN AWAY.

But he doesn’t have a gun. So he isn’t a threat. The fact he doesn’t have a gun because he tossed it, or he doesn’t have a gun because he never had one is irrelevant. He didn’t have one. How were the police planning to arrest Duggan. Not shoot him, arrest him? Remembering the fact that he had no gun when he was shot.

So having stopped the taxi, seeing Duggan do a runner, seen him carrying the sock (which was carrying a gun) DUGGAN WAS ALWAYS A THREAT TO SHOOT.

Even if the cops saw him throw the gun in the sock, that doesn't negate the fact he could still be carrying other weapons. He either follows the police's instructions to surrender or the police have the right to shoot him if they believe he is putting them or others at risk.

When was it safe to apprehend Duggan?

The police escalated the situation? It wasn't Duggan who had escalated the situation by carrying a gun and being on the way to shoot someone?

It was the police's fault that Duggan chose to try and do a runner when stopped by armed officers?

So then why stop him there where he couldn’t have been disabled any other way? If Duggan at the point he was intercepted was always going to be a threat to shoot then why stop him at that point? If we follow what you are saying the decision to kill Mark Duggan wasn’t taken by the officer who felt threatened but by the officer who ordered the taxi to be stopped. If he was always a threat to shoot, he was always going to get shot and as such the decision to stop that taxi was a decision to shoot and kill Mark Duggan.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:55 am  

Richie wrote:

You do indeed what?

have siginificantly more opportunities and a signficantly higher living standard than the vast majority of the world.

Do you really believe, that if we put the world population in a line, ordered richest to poorest, you would be towards the poor end of that line?

My wealth, like I assume you and everyone else on this board, is far closer to those at the bottom end of the scale than the top.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:42 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: If you are saying that the police screwed up with the way they implemented the stop of the taxi then you need to be able to offer alternative suggestions of what they should have done. You can't say why the police screwed up and you can't offer any alternatives. I did answer it somewhere I believe. I have no qualms about how they stopped the taxi. They thought that the best way to proceed and I agree. What would I have done? I'd have had my officers behind their cars with their weapons aimed at Duggan. I wouldn't have approached the taxi. I would have ordered Duggan out with his hands held high using my loudhailer. None of my officers would have been anywhere near him until he got down on the floor as instructed. I'm assuming that someone was in charge. Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: He'sdriving around London in a London taxi. Taking a wait and see approach would be difficult if the taxi takes a turn down a road that only taxis are allowed down. The police take a wait and see approach and Duggan just happens to be dropped off near a school or heavily populated shopping centre. Is this an example of good police work, or is this a police screw up? He's not because we have already stopped him, I've agreed with the stop as performed Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: What does "I'd give him every chance [to give himself up]" actually mean? I meant if he didn't get out of the taxi as ordered. I would wait for him to see sense and come out. Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: According to the evidence given by the cab driver and corroborated by one policeman present at the scene, Duggan got out of the taxi and ran in an attempt to escape.[40] The driver stated, "I saw that Mark Duggan got out and ran. At the same time, I heard firing from the front. I saw shots strike Mark Duggan. He fell to the ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan Now, if he comes out and legs it, I am a bit stuck apart from chasing him in the grand old British fashion. I would have to know what the guidelines are. If it is OK to shoot him I would order that, if it isn't I wouldn't. So if the guidelines say it is OK to shoot someone suspected of being armed if they are attempting to run away, then the police did nothing wrong. But that wasn't the reason why they said they shot him, one of the officers felt threatened as Duggan was running away. Duggan must have been a bit confused then if he was running towards the police. This could go on for days ...... I do have support for the police, but in cases like this when they refuse to give evidence except on their own terms, that trust (for the people concerned, not the rest of the police) is suspended.

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: If you are saying that the police screwed up with the way they implemented the stop of the taxi then you need to be able to offer alternative suggestions of what they should have done. You can't say why the police screwed up and you can't offer any alternatives. I did answer it somewhere I believe. I have no qualms about how they stopped the taxi. They thought that the best way to proceed and I agree. What would I have done? I'd have had my officers behind their cars with their weapons aimed at Duggan. I wouldn't have approached the taxi. I would have ordered Duggan out with his hands held high using my loudhailer. None of my officers would have been anywhere near him until he got down on the floor as instructed. I'm assuming that someone was in charge. Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: He'sdriving around London in a London taxi. Taking a wait and see approach would be difficult if the taxi takes a turn down a road that only taxis are allowed down. The police take a wait and see approach and Duggan just happens to be dropped off near a school or heavily populated shopping centre. Is this an example of good police work, or is this a police screw up? He's not because we have already stopped him, I've agreed with the stop as performed Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: What does "I'd give him every chance [to give himself up]" actually mean? I meant if he didn't get out of the taxi as ordered. I would wait for him to see sense and come out. Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote: According to the evidence given by the cab driver and corroborated by one policeman present at the scene, Duggan got out of the taxi and ran in an attempt to escape.[40] The driver stated, "I saw that Mark Duggan got out and ran. At the same time, I heard firing from the front. I saw shots strike Mark Duggan. He fell to the ground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan Now, if he comes out and legs it, I am a bit stuck apart from chasing him in the grand old British fashion. I would have to know what the guidelines are. If it is OK to shoot him I would order that, if it isn't I wouldn't. So if the guidelines say it is OK to shoot someone suspected of being armed if they are attempting to run away, then the police did nothing wrong. But that wasn't the reason why they said they shot him, one of the officers felt threatened as Duggan was running away. Duggan must have been a bit confused then if he was running towards the police. This could go on for days ...... I do have support for the police, but in cases like this when they refuse to give evidence except on their own terms, that trust (for the people concerned, not the rest of the police) is suspended.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:27 pm  

But how do you get the taxi to stop? If the police just get behind the vehicle and put their blue lights on there's the opportunity for the taxi to accelerate away. The only way to ensure the vehicle is stopped is to block it in with police vehicles, which means putting officers relatively close to the suspect.

I have little problem with the actions of the police during the incident (ie the stop, the shooting) from the information I've seen anyway. My problem is that the officer's statement doesn't tally with where the gun was found and that the police (unlike everyone else involved in an incident) are allowed to confer and prepare a statement.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:40 pm  

Him wrote:

I have little problem with the actions of the police during the incident (ie the stop, the shooting) from the information I've seen anyway. My problem is that the officer's statement doesn't tally with where the gun was found and that the police (unlike everyone else involved in an incident) are allowed to confer and prepare a statement.

On the other hand your statement infers that exactly the opposite outcome should be expected, if you allow officers to confer in their statements then you'd get 20 identical statements - but clearly they didn't, they gave different statements, very different statements.

Seems to me that there is no problem with a system that receives different opinions rather than 20 identical opinions, we all know that its human nature to see things differently.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:47 pm  

I suggest that they exit from the side furthest away from the taxi ... the driver's side mostly and use their cars as shields.
It's gonna slow them down a few seconds and they may not haves full sight.
They have also to ensure that they don't form a circle and shoot one another.
lol

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:50 pm  

Stand-Offish wrote:

They have also to ensure that they don't form a circle and shoot one another.

This actually happened didn't it - wasn't this the case that one PC had reported being hit by a bullet but after investigation it was found to be a police bullet - hit the PC's radio lucky lad ?

or am I thinking of another incident ?

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:57 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

This actually happened didn't it - wasn't this the case that one PC had reported being hit by a bullet but after investigation it was found to be a police bullet - hit the PC's radio lucky lad ?

or am I thinking of another incident ?

It did, a ricochet.
It was the Duggan case.