The Duggan Gun?
Discussion
pork911 said:
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 s
tting themselves.I am prepared to think it is what he truly believes.
heebeegeetee said:
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.
This often seems to be the case. Those that contribute nothing to the system want to milk it the most.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.
Duggan appears to have been a habitual criminal from a family of dangerous criminals. He was previously arrested for murder and attempted murder although only convicted of a drug offence and handling stolen goods. He was armed with an illegal handgun on the day he was killed.
If I was asked to go and arrest him I think I would be nervous, and inclined to err on the side of caution regarding my personal safety.
If I was asked to go and arrest him I think I would be nervous, and inclined to err on the side of caution regarding my personal safety.
Ozzie Osmond said:
Duggan appears to have been a habitual criminal from a family of dangerous criminals. He was previously arrested for murder and attempted murder although only convicted of a drug offence and handling stolen goods. He was armed with an illegal handgun on the day he was killed.
If I was asked to go and arrest him I think I would be nervous, and inclined to err on the side of caution regarding my personal safety.
He was only a 'geezer', a bit of a 'Jack the Lad', he got into a few harmless scrapes, but not an ounce of harm in him, it was the Rozzers wot fitted 'im up Guv.If I was asked to go and arrest him I think I would be nervous, and inclined to err on the side of caution regarding my personal safety.
The family are now gong to have a say on Police Firearm Procedure.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mark-duggans...
Talk about letting the lunatics run the asylum.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mark-duggans...
Talk about letting the lunatics run the asylum.
Drclarke said:
The family are now gong to have a say on Police Firearm Procedure.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mark-duggans...
Talk about letting the lunatics run the asylum.
In fairness, there was quite a bit of firearms experience in the family.http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mark-duggans...
Talk about letting the lunatics run the asylum.
andy_s said:
Drclarke said:
The family are now gong to have a say on Police Firearm Procedure.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mark-duggans...
Talk about letting the lunatics run the asylum.
In fairness, there was quite a bit of firearms experience in the family.http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mark-duggans...
Talk about letting the lunatics run the asylum.
I'm sure any suggestions from such rational thinkers will be put to good use...
Rather than the effect, they could try to help the cause. Rather than pointless and unjustified anger towards the police, perhaps they should be angry at the causes and the people who cause young black men to carry firearms. That's not as easy, though.
Drclarke said:
The family are now gong to have a say on Police Firearm Procedure.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mark-duggans...
Talk about letting the lunatics run the asylum.
Except that everything they say will be ignored and it's just a pr stunt :-)http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mark-duggans...
Talk about letting the lunatics run the asylum.
It seems that unarmed policemen tackling an armed man will never get as much coverage as a piece of scum getting shot.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/armed-man-is-...
It's also good to see imo that judging by comments in the ES, Londoners appear to have the same opinions as people elsewhere.
Seems to be a very small 'community' that thinks otherwise.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/armed-man-is-...
It's also good to see imo that judging by comments in the ES, Londoners appear to have the same opinions as people elsewhere.
Seems to be a very small 'community' that thinks otherwise.
Drclarke said:
The family are now gong to have a say on Police Firearm Procedure.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mark-duggans...
Talk about letting the lunatics run the asylum.
I like this one Carole its small and you can hide it easy in your pocket but its really good to point at a geezer if they piss you off and it will easy put a slug in the wall when you shoot the brothers windowshttp://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mark-duggans...
Talk about letting the lunatics run the asylum.
La Liga said:
andy_s said:
Drclarke said:
The family are now gong to have a say on Police Firearm Procedure.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mark-duggans...
Talk about letting the lunatics run the asylum.
In fairness, there was quite a bit of firearms experience in the family.http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/mark-duggans...
Talk about letting the lunatics run the asylum.
I'm sure any suggestions from such rational thinkers will be put to good use...
Or
2. Police officers threw the gun there so it was out of harms way? You said an officer tucking the gun into his waistband would be in for a big telling off. But it's OK for an officer to throw the gun into a park where anybody could pick it up and walk off with it or start shooting at the police?
So laughing at the Duggan family when a police officer may have lobbed the gun into the park so it's out of harm's way is slightly contradictory.
Also the officer that took the round to the radio? Was he the one stood in front of the Toyota Estima from the police car in front?
So if officers are stood either side of Duggan and one of them fires, it may be obvious that one of those officers would be vulnerable to being hit by a bullet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTT4Kw-wohA
What colour is the boathouse at Herford?
La Liga said:
Rather than the effect, they could try to help the cause. Rather than pointless and unjustified anger towards the police, perhaps they should be angry at the causes and the people who cause young black men to carry firearms. That's not as easy, though.
Take the drugs out of the hands of organised criminals would be a start. Perhaps the Duggan family will tell them that?There's no need to carry a gun in the UK. None at all.
Self proclaimed drug masters and wannabe gangsters carry them - they are a threat to society in multiple instances.
Its a simple as that.
There are so many questions that can be asked and what if scenarios... You need to ask why he had the gun in the first place? The answer is fairly obvious, they have one designed use. Termination of life.
The officers acted perfectly fine IMO. You take out the person toting a weapon or someone becomes a victim.
He obviously knew he was in for it, hence tossing the weapon. In the high intensity situation - the officers acted under the intelligence they had and in accordance with the inherent right to self-defence and protection of others/rules of engagement;
Using suitable force to prevent loss of life, issuing a warning if time and situation allows - unless there is a direct threat to human life to do so (paraphrased from the Card A i carry - but understanding that it's similar for Police)
As to the statement about the duggans running the asylum... The mother and father have their heads screwed on, the aunt on the other hand seems intent on disobeying the mother and fathers wishes for a peaceful resolution and instead attempting to incite riots.
I know its rather lop sided in the norm, but most of the newspapers and media articles - regardless of their political standpoint have described the aunt incredibly badly (as she has shown herself to the public as being) and attempted to reinforce what should matter.
The Jury decided, under conditions that were disgusting (heckling, abuse - the aunt leading the way - surprised that no one was held in contempt) - and as that is the result, from a court of law, nothing will change that?
Yes it's very unfortunate that lethal force had to be used. But the facts remain that he had a weapon, was known to have a weapon previously and had a string of offences stand. All contravene Civil law that the majority of people abide by and are protected under.
All IMO, of course...
Self proclaimed drug masters and wannabe gangsters carry them - they are a threat to society in multiple instances.
Its a simple as that.
There are so many questions that can be asked and what if scenarios... You need to ask why he had the gun in the first place? The answer is fairly obvious, they have one designed use. Termination of life.
The officers acted perfectly fine IMO. You take out the person toting a weapon or someone becomes a victim.
He obviously knew he was in for it, hence tossing the weapon. In the high intensity situation - the officers acted under the intelligence they had and in accordance with the inherent right to self-defence and protection of others/rules of engagement;
Using suitable force to prevent loss of life, issuing a warning if time and situation allows - unless there is a direct threat to human life to do so (paraphrased from the Card A i carry - but understanding that it's similar for Police)
As to the statement about the duggans running the asylum... The mother and father have their heads screwed on, the aunt on the other hand seems intent on disobeying the mother and fathers wishes for a peaceful resolution and instead attempting to incite riots.
I know its rather lop sided in the norm, but most of the newspapers and media articles - regardless of their political standpoint have described the aunt incredibly badly (as she has shown herself to the public as being) and attempted to reinforce what should matter.
The Jury decided, under conditions that were disgusting (heckling, abuse - the aunt leading the way - surprised that no one was held in contempt) - and as that is the result, from a court of law, nothing will change that?
Yes it's very unfortunate that lethal force had to be used. But the facts remain that he had a weapon, was known to have a weapon previously and had a string of offences stand. All contravene Civil law that the majority of people abide by and are protected under.
All IMO, of course...
Edited by HedgehogFromHell on Sunday 12th January 19:02
carinaman said:
1. Duggan threw the gun (as Nadine Dorries MP said on QT)
Or, as the Jury concluded that he did, 9 to 1. The 1 did not give an opinion. carinaman said:
2. Police officers threw the gun there so it was out of harms way? You said an officer tucking the gun into his waistband would be in for a big telling off. But it's OK for an officer to throw the gun into a park where anybody could pick it up and walk off with it or start shooting at the police?
No evidence that's the case. I'm not sure who you've had a discussion around tucking a gun into a waist but it's not me.carinaman said:
So laughing at the Duggan family when a police officer may have lobbed the gun into the park so it's out of harm's way is slightly contradictory.
No evidence that's the case. Evidence convinced the jury the police didn't and he did, though. carinaman said:
Take the drugs out of the hands of organised criminals would be a start. Perhaps the Duggan family will tell them that?
We agree on that. BBC News Website on 20 January 2014 said:
A private recommendation which was left out of the official IPCC report to the Met following the fatal shooting of suspected drug dealer Azelle Rodney, described 'hard stops' as a "high risk option" especially for suspects.
The recommendation said: "If their compliance and surrender is not virtually instantaneous… the risks to the suspect are considerable".
from:The recommendation said: "If their compliance and surrender is not virtually instantaneous… the risks to the suspect are considerable".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25767234
It's to be discussed on Panorama this evening.
So it seems a 'tactic' deemed 'high risk' in 2005 was used along with watching this gun move around and waiting for it to get to Duggan.
When an officer took a bullet to their radio, rather than their chest or head, it's a bit worrying if those police officers are saying they would do exactly the same again.
When Sean Bean and Robert De Niro pointed out in Ronin in 1998 that having shooters either side of a target risked the shooters shooting each other you'd think the police would consider that when discharging guns on the streets of London.
Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley on the BBC News Website on 20 January 2014 said:
"People say review, people don't come forward with better ideas."
Watch Ronin?1. The IPCC said that hard stops were a high risk tactic in 2005.
2. The police watched the gun move around until it got to Duggan.
3. Police officers were stood either side of Duggan when the gun was fired.
Are the police managing risks or making them?
Edited by carinaman on Monday 20th January 03:44
carinaman said:
Are the police managing risks or making them?
"Mr. V": That was nice work. You took a big chance doing that.Frank Drebin: Well, you take a big chance getting up in the morning, crossing the street, or sticking your face in a fan.
The risks being managed weren't created by the Bill, they were created by Duggan.
Rovinghawk said:
andy_s said:
The risks being managed weren't created by the Bill, they were created by Duggan.
Carinaman's point 3 was not created by Duggan. Standing behind the target when someone is shooting isn't an entirely smart move.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff