The Duggan Gun?

[RedTrident]

Because a lot of everything else the Police said at the time has proven to be lies. Shoot out with the police?

[fido]

RedTrident said:

So the police shot dead a man that wasn't armed. I still think the gun was planted.

Well sometimes a gun in the hand is worth one in the bush.

[98elise]

RedTrident said:

So the police shot dead a man that wasn't armed. I still think the gun was planted.

Even though another person has already heen convicted (by a different jury) of supplying the gun to Duggan?

[scenario8]

RedTrident said:

So the police shot dead a man that wasn't armed. I still think the gun was planted.

Do you think this jury would be in a better position to come to such a conclusion? I'm not a strong believer in conspiracy theories and perhaps have a little more faith in The System. The suplier of the gun concerned was found guilty in a court of having done so (but maintains innocence). The jurors concluded unanimously he (Duggan) was in possession of the gun within the taxi immediately prior to his being challenged by the Police and by a very large margin that the gun was thrown by him immediately prior to his being shot. They went on to conclude that the Police acted lawfully in killing him by shooting at him. Nothing's ever entirely certain but as an armchair observer I'd be cautious in throwing out the jury's conclusions because it might not look entirely black and white from the comfort of my distant armchair.

[RedTrident]

He wasn't armed, there was no shoot out and then the taxi mysteriously disappears. All I need to hear now is that it took them longer than it should have to find the gun.

The police lie and they lie regularly. I have very little faith in them and look forward to them having to all wear cameras.

[loose cannon]

If Dugan was so innocent why was he followed and why did the police have so much interest in him ?
IMO if you hang around with gangsters
You have to pay the consequences when the plod come knocking on your door, sorry but as if his mum has any idea what he got up 2, justice was done IMO

[Rovinghawk]

Is this the case where the judge called the police shooter a liar?

[anonymous-user]

I wonder what's more likely, the gun was thrown from the vehicle (that someone else has been convicted of a related offence for) or that an entire firearms team and commanders decided to conspire to pervert the course of justice, planted a gun that coincidentally was linked to an associate of Duggan's that magically had no audit trail and was just being kept in police possession for such an eventuality. People really can be dense and have no concept of probabilities.

The joke here is how long it takes to get this cleared at the Coroner's Court, to then enable the IPCC and then Met to clear the brave people who step up to stop the highest risk offenders who want to use firearms.

[jcremonini]

RedTrident said:

He wasn't armed, there was no shoot out and then the taxi mysteriously disappears. All I need to hear now is that it took them longer than it should have to find the gun.

The police lie and they lie regularly. I have very little faith in them and look forward to them having to all wear cameras.

Can you explain this 'Taxi mysteriously disappears' statement ? Was that another taxi , or the taxi in all the pictures that obviously did not disappear because it contained the body of Mark Duggan, ?

[RedTrident]

jcremonini said:

RedTrident said:

He wasn't armed, there was no shoot out and then the taxi mysteriously disappears. All I need to hear now is that it took them longer than it should have to find the gun.

The police lie and they lie regularly. I have very little faith in them and look forward to them having to all wear cameras.

Can you explain this 'Taxi mysteriously disappears' statement ? Was that another taxi , or the taxi in all the pictures that obviously did not disappear because it contained the body of Mark Duggan, ?

The taxi got took away from the crime scene and then was brought back later. Or have I imagined that?

I'm sure Duggan was a very nasty man, but that's not what this was about.

[anonymous-user]

RedTrident said:

I'm sure Duggan was a very nasty man, but that's not what this was about.

What's it about then? The jury, who have been presented with all the evidence have concluded:

A) The killing was lawful,
B) it was more likely than not the gun was thrown by Duggan.

What specifically do you know that has greater weight and credibility than the jury? Or were the jury planted by the police too?

[RedTrident]

Rovinghawk said:

Is this the case where the judge called the police shooter a liar?

Was the officer's eyes not 'glued to the gun' or something like that when he shot and killed Duggan? We now find that he was unarmed.

Was there a shoot out? Or was that made up?

Lie, mislead, make up, call it what you want but there's a reason why I'm not the only one who thinks this was a cover up.

[jcremonini]

RedTrident said:

jcremonini said:

RedTrident said:

He wasn't armed, there was no shoot out and then the taxi mysteriously disappears. All I need to hear now is that it took them longer than it should have to find the gun.

The police lie and they lie regularly. I have very little faith in them and look forward to them having to all wear cameras.

Can you explain this 'Taxi mysteriously disappears' statement ? Was that another taxi , or the taxi in all the pictures that obviously did not disappear because it contained the body of Mark Duggan, ?

The taxi got took away from the crime scene and then was brought back later. Or have I imagined that?

I'm sure Duggan was a very nasty man, but that's not what this was about.

The taxi was moved sometime after he was shot , but at the request if the complaints authority for examination. It was then decided to return it back.

So, it was not really the Police themselves who moved it, was it ?

[JuniorD]

loose cannon said:

If Dugan was so innocent why was he followed and why did the police have so much interest in him ?
IMO if you hang around with gangsters
You have to pay the consequences when the plod come knocking on your door, sorry but as if his mum has any idea what he got up 2, justice was done IMO

Do you mean justice was done in the court, or justice was done when the police shot him?

In either case, I think the whole episode, both the shooting and the verdict, is a shocker.

[RedTrident]

La Liga said:

RedTrident said:

I'm sure Duggan was a very nasty man, but that's not what this was about.

What's it about then? The jury, who have been presented with all the evidence have concluded:

A) The killing was lawful,
B) it was more likely than not the gun was thrown by Duggan.

What specifically do you know that has greater weight and credibility than the jury? Or were the jury planted by the police too?

This is about whether or not a man was assassinated on our streets. He wasn't armed, he was targeted, ambushed and shot dead.

[Tea Pot One]

RedTrident said:

Because a lot of everything else the Police said at the time has proven to be lies. Shoot out with the police?

The 'shootout' comment was from the IPCC, not the Police - and they have accepted they were wrong. The Police never said this.

[rohrl]

In this case I think that on the balance of probabilities the right decision has been made. I'm not at all surprised at the general distrust of the police and particularly the Met however. They often lie and cover up for each other as we have seen so often over the past years.

[jcremonini]

RedTrident said:

La Liga said:

RedTrident said:

I'm sure Duggan was a very nasty man, but that's not what this was about.

What's it about then? The jury, who have been presented with all the evidence have concluded:

A) The killing was lawful,
B) it was more likely than not the gun was thrown by Duggan.

What specifically do you know that has greater weight and credibility than the jury? Or were the jury planted by the police too?

This is about whether or not a man was assassinated on our streets. He wasn't armed, he was targeted, ambushed and shot dead.

Wrong. He was not, at the time he was shot, carrying a gun. 10 seconds before that he was, and the jury accepted he was.

I wonder what you would have done, bearing in mind the police knew he would have a gun at the time they stopped the taxi and had every right to believe he still had it on him? Wait until he fired a shot ? Hindsight is such a wonderful thing, isn't it ?

[anonymous-user]

RedTrident said:

This is about whether or not a man was assassinated on our streets. He wasn't armed, he was targeted, ambushed and shot dead.

He wasn't "assassinated", a jury has concluded he was lawfully killed according to common and statutory and criminal law that applies to everyone in the UK.

That is a fact, regardless of how emotively or irrational you want to be. So unless you're privy to some information the jury weren't when they drew this conclusion, your opinion is wrong and worthless.

[RedTrident]

Tea Pot One said:

RedTrident said:

Because a lot of everything else the Police said at the time has proven to be lies. Shoot out with the police?

The 'shootout' comment was from the IPCC, not the Police - and they have accepted they were wrong. The Police never said this.

eyes glued on the gun?