Review of Duggan inquest
Discussion
Corpulent Tosser - They are ill informed and meaningless questions but hey oh here goes....
Whose fault? His, the officer's, everybody's or nobody's, it all depends how you look at it. Regardless, what measure of fault justifies execution? And is that justification to be merely suspected beforehand or proved after?
If he hadn't been involved in crime? Well he could have been a Brazilian plasterer with a 'dusky hue' so the answer is yes. And again 'involvement in crime' is quite a wide and vague catch all for judicial killings.
Now about this responsibility thing, does none attach to the officer,the police or the state?
Whose fault? His, the officer's, everybody's or nobody's, it all depends how you look at it. Regardless, what measure of fault justifies execution? And is that justification to be merely suspected beforehand or proved after?
If he hadn't been involved in crime? Well he could have been a Brazilian plasterer with a 'dusky hue' so the answer is yes. And again 'involvement in crime' is quite a wide and vague catch all for judicial killings.
Now about this responsibility thing, does none attach to the officer,the police or the state?
Edited by pork911 on Wednesday 15th October 10:23
pork911 said:
Corpulent Tosser - They are ill informed and meaningless questions but hey oh here goes....
Whose fault? His, the officer's, everybody's or nobody's, it all depends how you look at it. Regardless, what measure of fault justifies execution? And is that justification to be merely suspected beforehand or proved after?
If he hadn't been involved in crime? Well he could have been a Brazilian plasterer with a 'dusky hue' so the answer is yes. And again 'involvement in crime' is quite a wide and vague catch all for judicial killings.
Now about this responsibility thing, does none attach to the officer,the police or the state?
I don't think you have a clue about personal reponsibility, or you are someone who would rather not take any and want to blame everything on someone or anyone else.Whose fault? His, the officer's, everybody's or nobody's, it all depends how you look at it. Regardless, what measure of fault justifies execution? And is that justification to be merely suspected beforehand or proved after?
If he hadn't been involved in crime? Well he could have been a Brazilian plasterer with a 'dusky hue' so the answer is yes. And again 'involvement in crime' is quite a wide and vague catch all for judicial killings.
Now about this responsibility thing, does none attach to the officer,the police or the state?
Edited by pork911 on Wednesday 15th October 10:23
Yes there is reponsibility attached to the officer, the police and the state, the officer was trained by the police who were funded and directed by the state.
The officer acted in a manner which was reasonable given the circumstances and intelligence available, this was because of the training given to him by said police, therefore he acted responsibly.
Can the same be said for Duggan ?
pork911 said:
Now about this responsibility thing, does none attach to the officer,the police or the state?
Not really because it is the Duggan's of the world, and only the Duggan's of the world, who put armed police on the streets in the first place.The world, society and local communities are better off without the likes of Duggans in their midst.
Why would anyone have any sympathy for someone who carries a gun for solely criminal purposes? How on earth can you benefit in nay way by having 'Duggans' on the street? How could anyone possibly think we'd sooner have a Duggan other than a brave, armed cop with experience?
Unless you're a criminal yourself or who have sympathies with criminals, I can't see why this would bother you. And just to remind ourselves - criminals only carry guns so that they can terrorise people. Lets not forget that.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
Lord Justice Leveson said:
Whilst the claimant is entirely correct to point to the emphatic evidence given by V53 and his own view that absent the presence of a gun he would have had no justification in shooting, that was not the only evidence which the jury had before them. They were entitled to reject his core factual account whilst at the same time accepting that he had an honest belief that Mr Duggan was armed. The fact that the jury rejected V53's account admitted of two contrasting possibilities; either that V53 was mistaken or he was lying. The Coroner gave the jury a modified Lucas direction (R v. Lucas [1981] Q.B. 720) derived from the practice in criminal trials to warn against impermissibly moving from a finding that someone has lied directly to a conclusion that he is guilty of an offence. As jurors are told in criminal trials throughout the country, people lie for all sorts of reasons, including to bolster a good case. Even if V53 was lying (by which we mean deliberately telling an untruth) the conclusion for which the claimant contends does not follow.
In our judgment, the short summary of the facts we have set out demonstrates that there was a considerable body of evidence to suggest that a range of people (including Witness B, particularly as was said to have been recounted to Witness C) took the movements made by Mr Duggan, or there being something in his hand, as indicating a threat. Add to that the immediate circumstances that intelligence suggested that Mr Duggan was in possession of a gun in the minicab and that the gang he was believed to belong to had a history of extreme violence. It is not difficult to understand how the jury could come to its conclusion that, during a period which may have been as short as four seconds, V53 honestly believed that he was in danger of being shot.
In our judgment, the short summary of the facts we have set out demonstrates that there was a considerable body of evidence to suggest that a range of people (including Witness B, particularly as was said to have been recounted to Witness C) took the movements made by Mr Duggan, or there being something in his hand, as indicating a threat. Add to that the immediate circumstances that intelligence suggested that Mr Duggan was in possession of a gun in the minicab and that the gang he was believed to belong to had a history of extreme violence. It is not difficult to understand how the jury could come to its conclusion that, during a period which may have been as short as four seconds, V53 honestly believed that he was in danger of being shot.
pork911 said:
Sounds akin to supporting judicial killings of those that fit the profile then, which I doubt the officer would support.
But Nevermind my views clearly demonstrate I am but a desk jockey with no experience in such matters
Pork911,I do not think anyone supports "judicial killings" but there will always be 'collateral damage' in the quest for security. Additionally there will be mistakes. Hindsight decisions are easy. I do not think anyone on here will miss Duggan. He was a criminal involved in firearms and chances are if the police had not shot him he would have gone in a gangland tiff. It may well be horrible to say but as far as I am concerned that is life.But Nevermind my views clearly demonstrate I am but a desk jockey with no experience in such matters
We are a long way away from the USA and have a considerable structure of investigation and inquest to prevent the misuse of firearms by the authorities.
'Desk jockey' was not supposed to be offensive only that it is unlikely that you or indeed many others have had to make a life or death decision in four seconds. It is easy therefore to judge.
Pip
Corpulent Tosser said:
I don't think you have a clue about personal reponsibility, or you are someone who would rather not take any and want to blame everything on someone or anyone else.
Yes there is reponsibility attached to the officer, the police and the state, the officer was trained by the police who were funded and directed by the state.
The officer acted in a manner which was reasonable given the circumstances and intelligence available, this was because of the training given to him by said police, therefore he acted responsibly.
Can the same be said for Duggan ?
i happen to think it reasonable to expect the state to work according to higher standards than 'people like' duggan or whateverYes there is reponsibility attached to the officer, the police and the state, the officer was trained by the police who were funded and directed by the state.
The officer acted in a manner which was reasonable given the circumstances and intelligence available, this was because of the training given to him by said police, therefore he acted responsibly.
Can the same be said for Duggan ?
by your (vague) standards ('the circumstances and the intelligence available to the officers') the killing of the 'dusky hued' plasterer was reasonable
Pip1968 said:
pork911 said:
Sounds akin to supporting judicial killings of those that fit the profile then, which I doubt the officer would support.
But Nevermind my views clearly demonstrate I am but a desk jockey with no experience in such matters
Pork911,I do not think anyone supports "judicial killings" but there will always be 'collateral damage' in the quest for security. Additionally there will be mistakes. Hindsight decisions are easy. I do not think anyone on here will miss Duggan. He was a criminal involved in firearms and chances are if the police had not shot him he would have gone in a gangland tiff. It may well be horrible to say but as far as I am concerned that is life.But Nevermind my views clearly demonstrate I am but a desk jockey with no experience in such matters
We are a long way away from the USA and have a considerable structure of investigation and inquest to prevent the misuse of firearms by the authorities.
'Desk jockey' was not supposed to be offensive only that it is unlikely that you or indeed many others have had to make a life or death decision in four seconds. It is easy therefore to judge.
Pip
due to my own experiences professionally and personally with highly corrupt police and other arms of the state abroad i value our police very highly
i believe holding them to account and questioning their actions is absolutely entwined with wishing to maintain those high standards
however some here cannot see that and just rage at anything they misinterpret as anti police and spout 'you can't handle the truth' defences of them which no decent police officer would wish to be associated with
Breadvan72 said:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
hence why the verdict is entirely correct but the officer should perhaps not be back on duty carrying a gunLord Justice Leveson said:
Whilst the claimant is entirely correct to point to the emphatic evidence given by V53 and his own view that absent the presence of a gun he would have had no justification in shooting, that was not the only evidence which the jury had before them. They were entitled to reject his core factual account whilst at the same time accepting that he had an honest belief that Mr Duggan was armed. The fact that the jury rejected V53's account admitted of two contrasting possibilities; either that V53 was mistaken or he was lying. The Coroner gave the jury a modified Lucas direction (R v. Lucas [1981] Q.B. 720) derived from the practice in criminal trials to warn against impermissibly moving from a finding that someone has lied directly to a conclusion that he is guilty of an offence. As jurors are told in criminal trials throughout the country, people lie for all sorts of reasons, including to bolster a good case. Even if V53 was lying (by which we mean deliberately telling an untruth) the conclusion for which the claimant contends does not follow.
In our judgment, the short summary of the facts we have set out demonstrates that there was a considerable body of evidence to suggest that a range of people (including Witness B, particularly as was said to have been recounted to Witness C) took the movements made by Mr Duggan, or there being something in his hand, as indicating a threat. Add to that the immediate circumstances that intelligence suggested that Mr Duggan was in possession of a gun in the minicab and that the gang he was believed to belong to had a history of extreme violence. It is not difficult to understand how the jury could come to its conclusion that, during a period which may have been as short as four seconds, V53 honestly believed that he was in danger of being shot.
In our judgment, the short summary of the facts we have set out demonstrates that there was a considerable body of evidence to suggest that a range of people (including Witness B, particularly as was said to have been recounted to Witness C) took the movements made by Mr Duggan, or there being something in his hand, as indicating a threat. Add to that the immediate circumstances that intelligence suggested that Mr Duggan was in possession of a gun in the minicab and that the gang he was believed to belong to had a history of extreme violence. It is not difficult to understand how the jury could come to its conclusion that, during a period which may have been as short as four seconds, V53 honestly believed that he was in danger of being shot.
heebeegeetee said:
pork911 said:
Now about this responsibility thing, does none attach to the officer,the police or the state?
Not really because it is the Duggan's of the world, and only the Duggan's of the world, who put armed police on the streets in the first place.The world, society and local communities are better off without the likes of Duggans in their midst.
Why would anyone have any sympathy for someone who carries a gun for solely criminal purposes? How on earth can you benefit in nay way by having 'Duggans' on the street? How could anyone possibly think we'd sooner have a Duggan other than a brave, armed cop with experience?
Unless you're a criminal yourself or who have sympathies with criminals, I can't see why this would bother you. And just to remind ourselves - criminals only carry guns so that they can terrorise people. Lets not forget that.
its not merely a choice (putting aside judicial process) of duggan type Vs brave police officers
anyhow, do 'dusky hued' plasterers deserve to be executed? or is it just a case of broken eggs and all that? ah well hopefully its never you or yours who are mistaken
pork911 said:
Corpulent Tosser said:
I don't think you have a clue about personal reponsibility, or you are someone who would rather not take any and want to blame everything on someone or anyone else.
Yes there is reponsibility attached to the officer, the police and the state, the officer was trained by the police who were funded and directed by the state.
The officer acted in a manner which was reasonable given the circumstances and intelligence available, this was because of the training given to him by said police, therefore he acted responsibly.
Can the same be said for Duggan ?
i happen to think it reasonable to expect the state to work according to higher standards than 'people like' duggan or whatever{/quote]Yes there is reponsibility attached to the officer, the police and the state, the officer was trained by the police who were funded and directed by the state.
The officer acted in a manner which was reasonable given the circumstances and intelligence available, this was because of the training given to him by said police, therefore he acted responsibly.
Can the same be said for Duggan ?
I agree, and they did.
pork911 said:
by your (vague) standards ('the circumstances and the intelligence available to the officers') the killing of the 'dusky hued' plasterer was reasonable
Vague standards ? WTF are you talking about ? Can we stick with the thread topic which is the Duggan case, IMO the officer acted in a reasonable manner, you appear to have a major problem with the police in this country, perhaps if you were open about just what your 'beef' with them is it might add some clarity to your views.pork911 said:
Pip1968 said:
pork911 said:
Sounds akin to supporting judicial killings of those that fit the profile then, which I doubt the officer would support.
But Nevermind my views clearly demonstrate I am but a desk jockey with no experience in such matters
Pork911,I do not think anyone supports "judicial killings" but there will always be 'collateral damage' in the quest for security. Additionally there will be mistakes. Hindsight decisions are easy. I do not think anyone on here will miss Duggan. He was a criminal involved in firearms and chances are if the police had not shot him he would have gone in a gangland tiff. It may well be horrible to say but as far as I am concerned that is life.But Nevermind my views clearly demonstrate I am but a desk jockey with no experience in such matters
We are a long way away from the USA and have a considerable structure of investigation and inquest to prevent the misuse of firearms by the authorities.
'Desk jockey' was not supposed to be offensive only that it is unlikely that you or indeed many others have had to make a life or death decision in four seconds. It is easy therefore to judge.
Pip
due to my own experiences professionally and personally with highly corrupt police and other arms of the state abroad i value our police very highly
i believe holding them to account and questioning their actions is absolutely entwined with wishing to maintain those high standards
however some here cannot see that and just rage at anything they misinterpret as anti police and spout 'you can't handle the truth' defences of them which no decent police officer would wish to be associated with
You DO come across as a pious anti-police ranter.
That opinion is just from reading what you have written in this thread.
I cant believe these people are being given the chance to appeal and appeal again.
I am no friend of police but in this situation they were 100% correct. Jean Charles de Menezes was a travesty.
There was intelligence that the man in the car was armed and this turns out to be right. If he stayed put and didnt jump out of the car when confronted, he would still be alive (but in prison).
He must have handled the gun at some point during the operation cause it was found 20ft away.
We are quite lucky in this country. In the US all an officer needs to justify a shooting is say subject made some irregular movements.
Mark Duggan's family should give it a rest and its not something I'd normally say but thanks to the armed officer who took out this scum.
I am no friend of police but in this situation they were 100% correct. Jean Charles de Menezes was a travesty.
There was intelligence that the man in the car was armed and this turns out to be right. If he stayed put and didnt jump out of the car when confronted, he would still be alive (but in prison).
He must have handled the gun at some point during the operation cause it was found 20ft away.
We are quite lucky in this country. In the US all an officer needs to justify a shooting is say subject made some irregular movements.
Mark Duggan's family should give it a rest and its not something I'd normally say but thanks to the armed officer who took out this scum.
in 2012 the UK police services as a whole were deployed to 12,500 ish incidents where firearms authorisation for use was given ( however i don't think this includes all the standing authorisations etc airports, MODplod, CNC, carrying of side arms by ARV , VVIP protection and DPG - rather situations where authorisation was granted to actual point a gun at someone )
5 incidents resulted in discharges of weapons , with 2 fatalities ( one of which was Duggan)
in Germany in either 2011 or 2012 there were 85 discharges of firearms by the Police , not sure on the fatality numbers without going back and checking
5 discharged weapons per day is the probably the number for one STATION per day / weekin many US cities or somewhere like Seth Effrica...
5 incidents resulted in discharges of weapons , with 2 fatalities ( one of which was Duggan)
in Germany in either 2011 or 2012 there were 85 discharges of firearms by the Police , not sure on the fatality numbers without going back and checking
5 discharged weapons per day is the probably the number for one STATION per day / weekin many US cities or somewhere like Seth Effrica...
pork911 said:
ah well hopefully its never you or yours who are mistaken
There is NO chance of that happening, absolutely no chance at all. It is extraordinarily rare for these events to happen, and for law abiding people almost no chance at all of it happening. It is ridiculous to suggest that an extremely rare occurrence can in any way impact the lives of the rest of us or make it more likely to happen to any one of us. There is a far greater chance of us meeting 'a Duggan' than there is of us being confronted by an armed policeman who is ready to shoot. But thanks to the efforts of our police even the threat of a crim with a gun is extremely rare.
I have no time for those who carry guns. Again, I cannot understand why anyone wants to waste time or energy sympathizing with those who would terrorise us. Anyone who carries a gun in our society deserves *everything* bad that comes to them.
Imo the Duggan family could do well to take on board that most people are glad that their son is dead.
Corpulent Tosser said:
pork911 said:
i believe holding them to account and questioning their actions is absolutely entwined with wishing to maintain those high standards
Hol said:
I guess you need to really work on your articulation then....
You DO come across as a pious anti-police ranter.
That opinion is just from reading what you have written in this thread.
nothing wrong with a rejoinder for those applauding a thorough verdict while spouting absolute bs justifications - 'he was a wrong 'un so feck it'You DO come across as a pious anti-police ranter.
That opinion is just from reading what you have written in this thread.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff