The Duggan Gun?
Discussion
I stumbled across the programme earlier. Found it interesting viewing with the company I happened to be with.
One felt he got what he deserved regardless of if there was a police cover up.
Another felt the police wouldn't lie.
And then myself that reflected, why would the police attempt to do anything other than a cover up?
The lack of informing his family though was inexcusable. Or did I misunderstand that bit?
One felt he got what he deserved regardless of if there was a police cover up.
Another felt the police wouldn't lie.
And then myself that reflected, why would the police attempt to do anything other than a cover up?
The lack of informing his family though was inexcusable. Or did I misunderstand that bit?
Wacky Racer said:
With respect, Not true.
There are thousands of law abiding gun owners up and down the country who enjoy target shooting with handguns at licenced clubs, in addition farmers with shotguns etc.
Shooting is an Olympic sport.
You cannot tar everybody with the same brush.
It's like saying every motorcyclist is a troublemaking Hells Angel.
This thread is about the criminal use of firearms. I doubt Duggan was on his way to the gun club for a spot of target shooting.There are thousands of law abiding gun owners up and down the country who enjoy target shooting with handguns at licenced clubs, in addition farmers with shotguns etc.
Shooting is an Olympic sport.
You cannot tar everybody with the same brush.
It's like saying every motorcyclist is a troublemaking Hells Angel.
There is a huge difference between the criminal use of firearms and the legitmate use - There is a line that any recreational shooter around the world knows about but which the authorities & media (in which ever westernised country you imagine) wish to blu repeatedly for their own ends. To that end in the Uk I predict that recreational shooting will be more or less prohibited within the next 20 years totally - the criminal use of firearms will just carry on and in fact become much more routine as pretty much all of the legislation passed in the UK has failed dismally in stopping the supply & use b the crimal element.
Bigends said:
So we dont know if he was holding a gun or not then?
He was at some point in order to discard it. At what point that was done relative to being stopped and being challenged isn't clear. B'stard Child said:
It's far more fun when the flawed witnesses are police officers
Since police officers are selected from the general pool of humans they, surprisingly, have the same flaws. TonyToniTone said:
Why didn't the police arrest Kevin Hutchinson-Foster rather than let him distribute firearms to Duggan and whoever else?
The intelligence was that Duggan intended to collect a firearm from KHF. The address the firearm was being held at was unknown. It's nothing to do with him being a potential source as others have suggested. Due to this, surveillance resources were focused on Duggan as he was most probable to be in possession of the firearm at some point.
To give you a bit more for your question. There are competing demands for the police with their functions. Risk vs evidence. The earlier you stop something happening the less likely you are to gather evidence. The longer you let something go on for the more evidence you're likely to obtain but the more risk you allow. It's a hard balance to strike.
Arresting KHF based on intelligence would have been lawful, but it wouldn't have done much other than disrupt the transfer of the firearm at that time. Once he was released because there was no evidence then him and Duggan would be free to carry on, and probably be more cautious and evasive.
The alternative was to let the matter develop. This resulted in KHF being convicted, the firearm being recovered and Duggan being killed. Risk vs evidence in a very vivid example.
johnxjsc1985 said:
gooner1 said:
Could he possibly be the source of quite a lot of police info.
I think this may well be the case and you have to wonder what sort of credibility he has.Would any need for a pre-determined outcome be why a police officer shot another police officer with the bullet being stopped by a police radio handset?
carinaman said:
Was it a fait accompli and Duggan was going to get shot whatever?
Would any need for a pre-determined outcome be why a police officer shot another police officer with the bullet being stopped by a police radio handset?
Sorry if I have misunderstood. Are you saying that a policeman shot a colleague in the radio intentionally?Would any need for a pre-determined outcome be why a police officer shot another police officer with the bullet being stopped by a police radio handset?
MTech535 said:
carinaman said:
Was it a fait accompli and Duggan was going to get shot whatever?
Would any need for a pre-determined outcome be why a police officer shot another police officer with the bullet being stopped by a police radio handset?
Sorry if I have misunderstood. Are you saying that a policeman shot a colleague in the radio intentionally?Would any need for a pre-determined outcome be why a police officer shot another police officer with the bullet being stopped by a police radio handset?
MTech535 said:
carinaman said:
Was it a fait accompli and Duggan was going to get shot whatever?
Would any need for a pre-determined outcome be why a police officer shot another police officer with the bullet being stopped by a police radio handset?
Sorry if I have misunderstood. Are you saying that a policeman shot a colleague in the radio intentionally?Would any need for a pre-determined outcome be why a police officer shot another police officer with the bullet being stopped by a police radio handset?
Was the source of the information that Duggan had a gun a police informer?
If the source of the information that Duggan had a gun was a police informant what was their motive in telling the police Duggan had a gun? What was in it for them? Were they an impartial source or did they have an axe to grind?
So if you're a highly trained police marksman why would you shoot at a suspect that wasn't holding gun if in taking that shot you risked shooting a police colleague?
For examples of police officers and informants setting people up consider:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/30/pc-trie...
And Untouchables by Michael Gillard and Laurie Flynn. One of the scams in that book was planting drugs on the girlfriend of a friend of the police to help the chap in a custody battle.
La Liga said:
You aren't expected to understand. He wibbles on about rubbish, devaluing every thread with incoherent nonsense.
La Liga, play the ball. It's getting obvious now.Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 6th December 08:30
carinaman said:
La Liga, play the ball. It's getting obvious now.
Criticising what you write and what it amounts to is the ball. People ask genuine questions, and you come in and suggest it was a pre-determined outcome and rant on with conspiracy-level accuracy about things you don't really have any idea about (UK Column isn't a valid source, BTW). It's only going to deter those who have valid questions and actually want an answer that has at least some link to reality. carinaman said:
If the source of the information that Duggan had a gun was a police informant what was their motive in telling the police Duggan had a gun? What was in it for them? Were they an impartial source or did they have an axe to grind?
They didn't say he had a gun. How can you seemingly have so much interest in these subjects yet be so ignorant as to the publicly available facts?
RedTrident said:
I stumbled across the programme earlier. Found it interesting viewing with the company I happened to be with.
One felt he got what he deserved regardless of if there was a police cover up.
Another felt the police wouldn't lie.
From first hand experience I can say SOME DO. But I am not tarring them all with the same brush, bad apple in a barrel etc.One felt he got what he deserved regardless of if there was a police cover up.
Another felt the police wouldn't lie.
XCP said:
This thread is about the criminal use of firearms. I doubt Duggan was on his way to the gun club for a spot of target shooting.
Very true, but I was simply responding to a poster who said:-Guns are only used to terrorise people or to shoot people or both.
A sweeping statement that is clearly not true.
They do have a legitimate fully legal leisure use.
But yes, I accept this thread is about their criminal use.
La Liga said:
They didn't say he had a gun.
How can you seemingly have so much interest in these subjects yet be so ignorant as to the publicly available facts?
Who tipped off Trident that Kevin Hutchinson-Foster was going to pass the gun to Duggan?How can you seemingly have so much interest in these subjects yet be so ignorant as to the publicly available facts?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3555097/De...
carinaman said:
Who tipped off Trident that Kevin Hutchinson-Foster was going to pass the gun to Duggan?
Intelligence sources. Very accurate ones as it turns out. Here's a light read if you want to learn about the matter: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Docume...
La Liga said:
arely does any witness evidence accurately capture the event as it occurred. Memory is very flawed and especially so under stress.
But would you agree that there should be little doubt in one's memory as to whether someone was holding a gun or not, at the moment a trained officer (not MOP) opened fire? I can understand said officer's memory being clouded regarding other minor matters, but if it is clouded over such an important decision moment, one should question whether he should be doing what he is doing. La Liga said:
ntelligence sources. Very accurate ones as it turns out.
Here's a light read if you want to learn about the matter: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Docume...
Here's a light read if you want to learn about the matter: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Docume...
Many thank's for providing the above.
s3fella said:
But would you agree that there should be little doubt in one's memory as to whether someone was holding a gun or not, at the moment a trained officer (not MOP) opened fire? I can understand said officer's memory being clouded regarding other minor matters, but if it is clouded over such an important decision moment, one should question whether he should be doing what he is doing.
I don't agree. So long as he's correct or the intelligence is correct and there is a gun present, blast away. Of course there has to be a degree of certainty about things, but there we are.And no, you're quite right, the officer shouldn't be doing the job. Nobody should be doing it, nobody should be finding themselves in a life-or-death situation, but while we have bone-idle scum, too thick and stupid to make a decent living, too lazy to work, but vile enough to just take other peoples stuff or sell drugs or generally make people's life a misery, then we have to hope that somebody does put themselves forward for this horrible and dangerous task - and f
k the bad guys.And the rioting after this tosser was shot was for trainers.
heebeegeetee said:
I don't agree. So long as he's correct or the intelligence is correct and there is a gun present, blast away. Of course there has to be a degree of certainty about things, but there we are.
And no, you're quite right, the officer shouldn't be doing the job. Nobody should be doing it, nobody should be finding themselves in a life-or-death situation, but while we have bone-idle scum, too thick and stupid to make a decent living, too lazy to work, but vile enough to just take other peoples stuff or sell drugs or generally make people's life a misery, then we have to hope that somebody does put themselves forward for this horrible and dangerous task - and fk the bad guys.
And the rioting after this tosser was shot was for trainers.
But that isn't what I was asking. Officer said he was holding the gun, hence he fired. If there is any confusion in his mind on the first bit, should be doing the second bit? Bearing in mind that's why the officer fired. And no, you're quite right, the officer shouldn't be doing the job. Nobody should be doing it, nobody should be finding themselves in a life-or-death situation, but while we have bone-idle scum, too thick and stupid to make a decent living, too lazy to work, but vile enough to just take other peoples stuff or sell drugs or generally make people's life a misery, then we have to hope that somebody does put themselves forward for this horrible and dangerous task - and f
k the bad guys.And the rioting after this tosser was shot was for trainers.
Had the officer said, we knew he had a gun on him, so I got a shot in first, then your point and opinion would tie into that. And i'd not say I necessarily disagree with you!
But if he HAD said that, what would have happened? Is that cause enough to shoot him? (I don't know but suspect not).
The fact the gun ended up where it did suggests it was not where the officer said it was when he shot. La Liga says that is because his memory may be wrong. But it is fairly fundamental, isn't it?
Oakey said:
The guy was allegedly number two in the Tottenham Mandem, second to known hitman 'The Dread' who works as an enforcer for one of Londons top crime families. Honestly, who cares.
AFAIC live by the gun, die by the gun.We are too tolerant of knife and gun crime. It's a blight on a great many lives in this country.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff