Review of Duggan inquest
Discussion
davidball said:
It took the Met over 26 years to apologize for shooting an unarmed woman during a raid they eventually conceded should never have taken place. I pity you fools who think it is ok to kill unarmed people.
PC Keith Blakelock was unarmed. Any chance of Bernie grant and Dianne Abbott apologising for his death?Didn't the judge reviewing the case say he wasn't happy that blackbox recording information wasn't available from the police vehicles used?
The Met response was 'We'll think about what he said'?
Meanwhile we had all of those theatrics in Parliament yesterday to deal with something they'd known about since April that stores all of our data?
They need all of that information on us to catch Paedos? But how many police had been approached about that front man from the Lost Prophets? A dozen? Nine?
And they've just appointed Baroness Butler-Closed-Shop that Nigel Havers has got every confidence in? Is Nigel Havers paying for the Overarching Politician Paedo ring Inquiry then?
And how are they doing finding the 'lost' 114 Paedo files?
So they want to know everything about us, but pick and mix what information they share with us even it involves a criminal getting shot on the street or alleged prominent, well connected child abusers that are elected to Parliament?
We need MP Recall so we can get the kiddie fiddlers to come back to discuss their little hobbies?
Nevermind, I am sure they can front up a Met Commissioner in a quarter of a century to offer profound apologies and concerned hand wringing.
Values well worth dodging IEDs in Afghanistan for!
The Met response was 'We'll think about what he said'?
Meanwhile we had all of those theatrics in Parliament yesterday to deal with something they'd known about since April that stores all of our data?
They need all of that information on us to catch Paedos? But how many police had been approached about that front man from the Lost Prophets? A dozen? Nine?
And they've just appointed Baroness Butler-Closed-Shop that Nigel Havers has got every confidence in? Is Nigel Havers paying for the Overarching Politician Paedo ring Inquiry then?
And how are they doing finding the 'lost' 114 Paedo files?
So they want to know everything about us, but pick and mix what information they share with us even it involves a criminal getting shot on the street or alleged prominent, well connected child abusers that are elected to Parliament?
We need MP Recall so we can get the kiddie fiddlers to come back to discuss their little hobbies?
Nevermind, I am sure they can front up a Met Commissioner in a quarter of a century to offer profound apologies and concerned hand wringing.
Values well worth dodging IEDs in Afghanistan for!
Edited by carinaman on Friday 11th July 20:29
To La Liga and Terzo123 (not sure of your opinions enough to use your real names I see). I nearly fell off my chair laughing at your responses. The uncovering of wrongdoing happens because serious people question the vested interest of authority and its minions. The fact that you feel threatened by that comforts me immensely.
davidball said:
To La Liga and Terzo123 (not sure of your opinions enough to use your real names I see). I nearly fell off my chair laughing at your responses. The uncovering of wrongdoing happens because serious people question the vested interest of authority and its minions. The fact that you feel threatened by that comforts me immensely.
I have no issue with the uncovering of wrongdoing, and the accused certainly wasn't uncovering wrongdoing with his post.I'm all for the uncovering of wrongdoing and fully support removal and, if justified, the prosecution of wrong-doers in both public and private capacities. I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise. Probably because I disagree with a lot of what you say so it's mentally less taxing for you to put me in a neat pigeonhole.
Also:
1) Why is it convenient for the holidays to delay this review, and who does it ultimately benefit?
2) Why do you have double standards when it comes to accepting inquest decisions? Inquest finds the Duggan shooting lawful = you disagree with it. Inquest finds police fault with Groce = you accept it.
davidball said:
I nearly fell off my chair laughing at your responses.
Which responses? Feel free to point out any inaccuracies or illogical, unsupported statements. Also:
1) Why is it convenient for the holidays to delay this review, and who does it ultimately benefit?
2) Why do you have double standards when it comes to accepting inquest decisions? Inquest finds the Duggan shooting lawful = you disagree with it. Inquest finds police fault with Groce = you accept it.
Andehh said:
I'm sorry, this strikes me as a matter of zero importance? How much longer does this need to be dragged on for?
A nasty bit of work got what he deserves. Open and shut case with society cheering from the stands!
+1.A nasty bit of work got what he deserves. Open and shut case with society cheering from the stands!
davidball said:
Your blindness will let the UK descend into a police state where your every move will be monitored. Oh wait, it already is.
Who would you say is most responsible for that? Remind me why we have armed police in the first place.the accused said:
I don't know if many of you saw Mrs Groce's son on Newsnight the other night, but my heart went out to the poor guy. Big calm dignified guy with tears rolling down his cheeks explaining how he can't erase the memory of his ma being shot in front of him when he was 11.
He's had decades of buttock clenched smug legalisms (like the morally immature ones in this thread) tossed at him. And he isn't even interested in hearing any more scum explaining the difference between Justice, Morality and Law, and how only Law is important in his mum's case. What he knows is that one night, 5 fired up thugs kicked his family home's door in looking for his big brother. His brother wasn't there, just 5 kids and their mum. And one thug shot his harmless, helpless and defenceless mum precipitating 26 years of debilitating illness until her death, whereupon an apology is issued (which many hope he rejects).
Pretending that some legal process can justify these thugs' activities and some other legal process can exonerate them from blame for the consequences isn't acceptable. That isn't how people in the UK think. People in the UK want law which upholds morality and serves justice and is subservient to both. It doesn't really matter if the victim is a 'scrote' or a saint. The consequences impact directly on both these victims' immediate families and indirectly on all of us. Fortunately mature minded people are well aware of this. Which is why there are arrangements for appeal, review, investigation and enquiry, REGARDLESS of the victim's status.
In Duggan's case, that the man may well have been a (dangerous) career criminal is the real irrelevance and red herring. Of primary relevance is the conduct of those involved in his slaying and the underlying ethos behind it. And time after time it's being found questionable at best and seriously flawed at worst.
It is NOT acceptable to have fired-up adrenalin-pumped thug mentalities bearing arms under amateurish and shoddy police authority and supervision. Car chases and gun battles or kicking in doors and shooting anything moving is for USA cop shows. But if that's the way it's going to be then endless enquiry review and investigation will be the result. Because in the final analysis 'the people' demand that law DOES serve morality and justice, and where it's seen as NOT serving them it doesn't do itself any favours.
In Mrs Groce's case, a major riot ensued as a direct consequence of her wholly unnecessary and unjustifiable shooting. Sadly, very sadly, that's because her community had no confidence, never mind certainty, that the perpetrators (AND their bosses) would be brought to account for their evil. Dammit, they were RIGHT! So they did the only thing they COULD do in the circumstances, which was enact serious civil unrest.
It's stupid to imagine that in this country (as in many others) people will obey the rule of law if law itself is not the servant of morality and justice. And if that occasionally requires authorities to be punished for doing wrong to 'scrotes' then tough and too bad.
Mrs Groce wasn't a 'scrote'. And maiming her and ruining her life and traumatising her family requires FAR FAR FAR more redress than a hand-wringing apology from a puppet.
Who is responsible for the need for armed police?He's had decades of buttock clenched smug legalisms (like the morally immature ones in this thread) tossed at him. And he isn't even interested in hearing any more scum explaining the difference between Justice, Morality and Law, and how only Law is important in his mum's case. What he knows is that one night, 5 fired up thugs kicked his family home's door in looking for his big brother. His brother wasn't there, just 5 kids and their mum. And one thug shot his harmless, helpless and defenceless mum precipitating 26 years of debilitating illness until her death, whereupon an apology is issued (which many hope he rejects).
Pretending that some legal process can justify these thugs' activities and some other legal process can exonerate them from blame for the consequences isn't acceptable. That isn't how people in the UK think. People in the UK want law which upholds morality and serves justice and is subservient to both. It doesn't really matter if the victim is a 'scrote' or a saint. The consequences impact directly on both these victims' immediate families and indirectly on all of us. Fortunately mature minded people are well aware of this. Which is why there are arrangements for appeal, review, investigation and enquiry, REGARDLESS of the victim's status.
In Duggan's case, that the man may well have been a (dangerous) career criminal is the real irrelevance and red herring. Of primary relevance is the conduct of those involved in his slaying and the underlying ethos behind it. And time after time it's being found questionable at best and seriously flawed at worst.
It is NOT acceptable to have fired-up adrenalin-pumped thug mentalities bearing arms under amateurish and shoddy police authority and supervision. Car chases and gun battles or kicking in doors and shooting anything moving is for USA cop shows. But if that's the way it's going to be then endless enquiry review and investigation will be the result. Because in the final analysis 'the people' demand that law DOES serve morality and justice, and where it's seen as NOT serving them it doesn't do itself any favours.
In Mrs Groce's case, a major riot ensued as a direct consequence of her wholly unnecessary and unjustifiable shooting. Sadly, very sadly, that's because her community had no confidence, never mind certainty, that the perpetrators (AND their bosses) would be brought to account for their evil. Dammit, they were RIGHT! So they did the only thing they COULD do in the circumstances, which was enact serious civil unrest.
It's stupid to imagine that in this country (as in many others) people will obey the rule of law if law itself is not the servant of morality and justice. And if that occasionally requires authorities to be punished for doing wrong to 'scrotes' then tough and too bad.
Mrs Groce wasn't a 'scrote'. And maiming her and ruining her life and traumatising her family requires FAR FAR FAR more redress than a hand-wringing apology from a puppet.
the accused said:
Pretending that some legal process can justify these thugs' activities and some other legal process can exonerate them from blame for the consequences isn't acceptable.
Who is trying to justify anything of the sort? The man who shot her was put to a jury was he not? Please quote the post that 'pretends' the above. You're misrepresenting someone else's position because you're unable to attack the actual positions we've put.
This is the same trick Davidball did when he wrote:
davidball said:
The uncovering of wrongdoing happens because serious people question the vested interest of authority and its minions. The fact that you feel threatened by that comforts me immensely.
the accused said:
And time after time it's being found questionable at best and seriously flawed at worst.
The deployment was sound. Duggan tried to discard the gun. This decision opened him up to serious risk as he was going to be in possession, and moving, a firearm either and / or immediately before or at the time the stop was put in. The jury agreed. The jury who heard all the evidence. Are you picking and choosing which inquest verdicts you accept depending on the outcome, too? What you and others are doing is pure slur and opportunism. You're trying to place the mistakes of something that occurred nearly 30 years ago, when the approach, strategies, policies and tactics are unrecognisable from today, and pretend the same approach was taken with Duggan.
the accused said:
It is NOT acceptable to have fired-up adrenalin-pumped thug mentalities bearing arms under amateurish and shoddy police authority and supervision.
We have nothing of the sort. The fact you're trying to suggest we do shows how you actually have no idea how things work / are. For example, there were 12550 firearms authorities in 2011 / 2012. These reach a threshold which conforms to the law including the Human Rights Act, in which the primary consideration is 'the right to life'. This requires considerations for proportionality and necessity. What this means in plain English is they aren't granted easily. There has to be a threat / potential threat that would justify a potential firearms / less lethal discharge. These are the highest risk incidents the police attend, often with the most dangerous people in society. People who behave in a manner 99.9% of the population couldn't even comprehend.
Out of the 12550, there were 5 discharges and 2 fatalities (the latter being smaller because the intention is to stop, not kill).
Really amateurish thugs... What emotive, irrational, base-less b
ks. Don't let a little thing actual data or evidence stop you though. the accused said:
But if that's the way it's going to be then endless enquiry review and investigation will be the result.
Thin end of the wedge fallacy, just in there to complete the post. the accused said:
No I don't. Neither we the public nor the police themselves are at any threat (other than extremely rare accidental risk) from criminals carrying guns. However, there are scenarios where there is a certainty of gun-armed or worse threat. Usually involving people who have a fairly evident mental problem such as Moat/Hungerford/Hamilton or else more modernly, extreme political based issues. The police should have an agency - probably army related - to call on for deployment in those situations which are mercifully rare. And even then every effort should be made to disarm and neutralise rather than kill.
The police should take enormous pride in the fact that they are not gun-armed, nor require to be.
The apprehension of UK gangsters like the Krays or lesser ones like Duggan doesn't need guns. None of them has ever had the 'you'll never take me alive, copper' attitude. They all go along nice and quietly when they get The Knock. The idea of jail sentences involving 30+ years for gunning down cops is sufficient deterrent for any gangster (except of course any with a mental problem), which is why cop shootouts just don't happen.
Duggan shouldn't have been shot because Duggan wouldn't have dared to shoot a cop, and the cop who shot him should have known that very well. No need for 'hard stop' car activity either. He wasn't leaving the country for some non-jurisdictional location. Just an average scumbag with access to a bravado gun off about his nasty little day. Nothing that, with a bit of intel and surveillance couldn't have been scooped up perfectly discreetly and calmly whenever convenient to the cops to do it. Shoe st on a trainer. Needs a bit of Domestos. Not a flame thrower.
According to this page on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_U...The police should take enormous pride in the fact that they are not gun-armed, nor require to be.
The apprehension of UK gangsters like the Krays or lesser ones like Duggan doesn't need guns. None of them has ever had the 'you'll never take me alive, copper' attitude. They all go along nice and quietly when they get The Knock. The idea of jail sentences involving 30+ years for gunning down cops is sufficient deterrent for any gangster (except of course any with a mental problem), which is why cop shootouts just don't happen.
Duggan shouldn't have been shot because Duggan wouldn't have dared to shoot a cop, and the cop who shot him should have known that very well. No need for 'hard stop' car activity either. He wasn't leaving the country for some non-jurisdictional location. Just an average scumbag with access to a bravado gun off about his nasty little day. Nothing that, with a bit of intel and surveillance couldn't have been scooped up perfectly discreetly and calmly whenever convenient to the cops to do it. Shoe s
t on a trainer. Needs a bit of Domestos. Not a flame thrower.In the year Apr 2012 to Mar 2013 there were 11,227 recorded offences involving firearms, broken down as follows.
By weapon type:
Long-barrelled shotgun = 288
Sawn-off shotgun = 165
Handgun = 2,256
Rifle = 43
Imitation firearm = 1,225
Unidentified firearm = 725
Other firearm = 456
Air weapons = 2,977
Only those items proven to be "imitations" (which includes BB/soft air types) or air weapons are classed as such, otherwise they are placed by default in the main "live" categories, e.g. an imitation pistol not proven to be such would be counted as a live "handgun." "Other firearm" includes CS gas (135 crimes), pepper spray (90), and stun guns (117).
By crime type:
Violence against the person:
Homicide = 30
Attempted murder/GBH with intent = 503
Other = 1,484
Robbery = 2,206
Burglary = 102
Criminal damage = 2426 (2,091 of which involved air weapons)
Other = 1384[94]
Reading that, would I be right in thinking that some 4,000 people had been terrorised by gun crime in that year, with 30 deaths and 503 attempted killings?
La Liga said:
rolleyes: The nativity is astounding.
I'll say. Amazing how the numerous examples of Officers being shot at and threatened with guns doesn't even make more than a few lines in the local rag. It's so common now, it's not newsworthy. It's demented keyboard warriors like these, that never face anything more dangerous than spilling hot coffee, that made me give up carrying firearms in the job. The thought that somebody like that, with such perverse views, may be on a jury fills me with horror.
Just utterly mind boggling
Elroy Blue said:
It's demented keyboard warriors like these, that never face anything more dangerous than spilling hot coffee, that made me give up carrying firearms in the job. The thought that somebody like that, with such perverse views, may be on a jury fills me with horror.
Just utterly mind boggling.
I'd love for them to be the first to attend firearms incidents which don't meet AFO authority criteria and rely on "tactical withdrawals" or "cover and contain" if the threat is actually there. Just utterly mind boggling.
It's OK though, now I know they won't actually ever fire and just knocking works because they'll come quietly.
I'm believe I'm right in thinking there are more Constabularies than not which have never killed anyone with a firearm throughout the relatively modern era (1970s onwards). Trigger-happy thugs, indeed!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff