The Duggan Gun?
Discussion
RedTrident said:
This has as good an account of the time line before and interestingly after his shooting.
The police all sitting together to get their stories straight is just another reason why people including myself think that there is more going on here.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mar...
Seems rather he know he was being followed, and a stop was imminent. The gun he had was a problem, though. Obviously, the break he had was the police holding a meeting to decide how to get the gun off him, so it could be planted on him. Equally obviously, he was framed and shot, an operation approved by one M Thatcher.The police all sitting together to get their stories straight is just another reason why people including myself think that there is more going on here.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mar...
Koofler said:
RedTrident said:
Moments before? Everything so far clearly states he didn't have it when confronted by the police.
So how did the pistol end up over the fence/wall?sugerbear said:
Koofler said:
RedTrident said:
Moments before? Everything so far clearly states he didn't have it when confronted by the police.
So how did the pistol end up over the fence/wall?My feeling is that he either lobbed it as he exited the car, or when he was first hit it was spun out of his hands. But that either way, he was still in possession of the gun.
Koofler said:
My feeling is that he either lobbed it as he exited the car, or when he was first hit it was spun out of his hands. But that either way, he was still in possession of the gun.
Vikram Dodd guardian.com said:
None of the armed officers surrounding Duggan, all trained to keep their eyes on the gun, saw it flying in the air in the sunlight of a summer's evening.
Tests showed no forensic evidence that Duggan had held a gun. His fingerprints and DNA were not on the gun or sock it was in.
From:Tests showed no forensic evidence that Duggan had held a gun. His fingerprints and DNA were not on the gun or sock it was in.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mar...
carinaman said:
From that article"The jury decided Duggan threw the gun before police confronted him, and did not have it in his hand when shot."
Simple. He was armed with a pistol, but threw it away shortly before the police stopped him. Would the average man on the Clapham Omnibus have a reasonable belief that Duggan was armed with a lethal weapon? Jury said yes.
Guardian said:
When the IPCC investigated, the officers refused to answer questions in interview, instead providing written statements. The watchdog's initial findings were that there were no criminal matters arising from their investigation.
The IPCC aren't on a mere "fact finding" mission, they are looking at a criminal investigation. The Guardian make it sound as if they are being defiant or have something to hide by using the word "refused". They done nothing more than take legal advice and take the best course of action for their circumstances, just as any suspect should / would. Guardian said:
The IPCC has new powers to compel officers to attend interview, but Welton said: "The big elephant in the room is there is no legal basis for the commissioner or IPCC to compel them to answer questions.
"Elephant in the room" AKA the fundamental right a suspect has not to answer questions when under a criminal investigation. RedTrident said:
This has as good an account of the time line before and interestingly after his shooting.
The police all sitting together to get their stories straight is just another reason why people including myself think that there is more going on here.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mar...
Except you're unable to define "more going on" or present any evidence. The police all sitting together to get their stories straight is just another reason why people including myself think that there is more going on here.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mar...
eldar said:
Simple. He was armed with a pistol, but threw it away shortly before the police stopped him. Would the average man on the Clapham Omnibus have a reasonable belief that Duggan was armed with a lethal weapon? Jury said yes.
So if the gun is flying through the air, or on the grass in the park on the other side of the fence how can he be a threat?The threat had been neutralised.
What was he going to do throw his Crackberry at them?
He's going to vault over the fence, find the gun and start shooting?
So he was shot as he'd got away with not having been caught with the gun in his possession?
He was shot as the police had been thwarted? They weren't going to get a 'result'?
So the police then had possession of the gun and they haul Duggan in for some serious questioning rather than shoot him?
So he was shot for past form, because he deserved it?
Regarding the 'Duggan was shooting' misinformation, which he could not have been doing if he'd lobbed the gun over the fence and it wasn't in his hand, it's a good job the bullet lodged in the radio of the officer, depending on the size of the officer and the location of their radio that bullet may have been within a foot of the head of that officer.
Whoever shot Duggan could have also taken out one of their colleagues that day, and for what?
An officer almost took a bullet to the head when Duggan probably didn't even have a gun in his hand.
Edited by carinaman on Sunday 12th January 11:55
carinaman said:
So if the gun is flying through the air, or on the grass in the park on the other side of the fence how can he be a threat?
Because the police on the scene didn't know he'd thrown it away. They knew he had had a gun, and couldn't risk their lives by assuming he might have tossed it in a hedge.Edited by carinaman on Sunday 12th January 11:55
And to repeat, if you don't want to come to harm at the hands of the police due to confusion over a gun, don't carry a gun; don't go armed at all; don't do crime at all, and then you're very, very unlikely to come to harm and you're not going to cause others to come to harm either.
As people have asked, why do we think Duggan was carrying a gun, was it to kill somebody, terrorise someone, or play Santa Claus?
Why on earth is anyone worrying over Duggan?
As people have asked, why do we think Duggan was carrying a gun, was it to kill somebody, terrorise someone, or play Santa Claus?
Why on earth is anyone worrying over Duggan?
I think some of you should apply to join the Police Firearms Unit. You seem to know exactly how you'd react in a very fast moving and potentially life threatening situation.
There was a stat somewhere on the number of times ARVs have been called out and the number of times shots had been fired, let alone anyone had been killed, and it was something like 000's of callouts and 5 shots - they're hardly trigger happy.
I don't want to trivialise it to the extent of "s
t happens" but people make mistakes and it's odd that people seem to be concentrating on those that the Police made that day more than the many that Mr Duggan seems to have made when it came to life choices.
There was a stat somewhere on the number of times ARVs have been called out and the number of times shots had been fired, let alone anyone had been killed, and it was something like 000's of callouts and 5 shots - they're hardly trigger happy.
I don't want to trivialise it to the extent of "s
t happens" but people make mistakes and it's odd that people seem to be concentrating on those that the Police made that day more than the many that Mr Duggan seems to have made when it came to life choices.
heebeegeetee said:
And to repeat, if you don't want to come to harm at the hands of the police due to confusion over a gun, don't carry a gun; don't go armed at all; don't do crime at all, and then you're very, very unlikely to come to harm and you're not going to cause others to come to harm either.
A very practical point. If you engage in criminal activity and a life style which will attract a hard-stop, then you dramatically increase the risk of being subject to possible, natural human error. heebeegeetee said:
carinaman said:
So if the gun is flying through the air, or on the grass in the park on the other side of the fence how can he be a threat?
He can't be, but as none of the bib saw the gun, they believed he still had it and no doubt were still stting themselves.Martin4x4 said:
pork911 said:
they did not accept the officer's evidence that duggan was holding the gun as he claimed!!!
Bullst! They accepted that he had been in possession of a gun, "a Bruni Olympic pistol which the jury decided unanimously was being carried by Mr Duggan" but "thrown moments before being shot". Read the juries verdict not the families lies.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 11th January 22:26
But you would have known that before disputing what I posted, with a description that is entirely consistent.
Martin4x4 said:
pork911 said:
they did not accept the officer's evidence that duggan was holding the gun as he claimed!!!
Bullst! They accepted that he had been in possession of a gun, "a Bruni Olympic pistol which the jury decided unanimously was being carried by Mr Duggan" but "thrown moments before being shot". Read the juries verdict not the families lies.
Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 11th January 22:26
But you would have known that before disputing what I posted, with a description that is entirely consistent.
pork911 said:
His killer still says he saw the gun in his hands before each shot
Sorry yes, none of the bib apart from V53 saw a gun or gun thrown, V53 was sure he was looking at a gun.V53 might have been mistaken, indeed V53's training and/or suitability may not have been entirely up to scratch, but that was the choice that Duggan made.
It comes back to the Duggan family being bitter about a system that they don't want to pay into, be part of, spend their time cheating. It seems they're bitter that the system they short-change or steal from wasn't good enough for them.
It's all about choices, and with choices comes responsibility. None of the Duggan family want to bear their responsibility and I dare say his mother doesn't want to take responsibility for breeding scum either.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff