The Duggan Gun?

[pork911]

The below piece Touches on a drum I've been banging (duggan not holding the gun in itself makes no difference to the lawful killing verdict, but the officer still saying he saw the gun in duggan's hand before each shot and not accepting now he is mistaken raises serious issues) unfortunately the writer does drift a bit too much from that solid ground.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/...

[pork911]

The below piece Touches on a drum I've been banging (duggan not holding the gun in itself makes no difference to the lawful killing verdict, but the officer still saying he saw the gun in duggan's hand before each shot and not accepting now he is mistaken raises serious issues) unfortunately the writer does drift a bit too much from that solid ground.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/...

[heebeegeetee]

carinaman said:

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

I imagine tackling gunmen will always be risky.

[Corpulent Tosser]

pork911 said:

The below piece Touches on a drum I've been banging (duggan not holding the gun in itself makes no difference to the lawful killing verdict, but the officer still saying he saw the gun in duggan's hand before each shot and not accepting now he is mistaken raises serious issues) unfortunately the writer does drift a bit too much from that solid ground.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/...

article said:

The study found that they were far quicker to decide to shoot an African-American suspect than a white one in similar circumstances, because the black suspects were perceived as more dangerous.

I don't have the statistics but I suspect the reason is that young black men are proportionately more likely to be involved in gun crime.

article said:

Of course, we do not know what was going through V53's head at that fatal moment. Neither do we know how or why he made the decision that he did, particularly if what he says he saw could not actually have taken place.

The bold part is stated more than once, but evidence was given that it was possible, the jury though decided that Duggan did not have the gun in his hand

article said:

Second, we need a rigorous investigation to discover why this tragic mistake happened.

May I suggest the root cause was that Duggan had a gun, had that not been the case he would not have been shot

article said:

Did flawed information given to the officer contribute to that perception of dangerousness, or was it something else?

Not flawed information, accurate information that Duggan had a gun

It seems there are some who are OK to accept one part of the jury findings but not another part.

[pork911]

Corpulent Tosser said:

Not flawed information, accurate information that Duggan had a gun

It seems there are some who are OK to accept one part of the jury findings but not another part.

there's lots of those people - including those unconcerned with his killer's evidence in light of the jury's findings

[Corpulent Tosser]

pork911 said:

there's lots of those people - including those unconcerned with his killer's evidence in light of the jury's findings

Is there ?
I don't hear much in the way of disgruntlement from those unconcerned with cop's evidence, it all seems to be coming from those who disagree with the jury verdict of lawfull killing.

From a personal standpoint I have no issue with the cop's evidence, he probably did and still does believe he saw a gun in Duggan's hand, the jury thought he was mistaken but genuinely believed Duggan was a threat.

Should the cop still be an armed officer? I am content to let the Met make that decision after assessment, that is if the officer still wants to be armed.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Corpulent Tosser said:

From a personal standpoint I have no issue with the cop's evidence, he probably did and still does believe he saw a gun in Duggan's hand, the jury thought he was mistaken but genuinely believed Duggan was a threat.

The unfortunate thing is that his "evidence" lives in a context of Plebgate and other issues around police conduct and truthfulness. Even their union is now sharply criticised for dubious practices,

"The Police Federation of England and Wales should be changed from "top to bottom", an independent panel has said. The damning report found a "worrying loss of confidence and competence" within the federation and a "serious loss of influence" outside. It said the way the federation, which represents officers, had opposed police reforms and launched personal attacks were "strategic failures".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25804728

[andy_s]

Ozzie Osmond said:

The unfortunate thing is that his "evidence" lives in a context of Plebgate and other issues around police conduct and truthfulness. Even their union is now sharply criticised for dubious practices,

So it's a good job each case is taken on its merits and in isolation, a bit like not having previous convictions presented as evidence during a trial.

[kev1974]

Not sure what this Panorama programme that's on now is trying to say. So far just seems to be "if you involve yourself with illegal guns there's a chance the police might shoot you dead at some point"

[PaulG40]

The Panorama: shooting to kill programme about Duggen is on now. Abit sensationist by the narrator I think.

Unfortunately, nowadays a split second decision made by the police (and military) seems to be reviewed, investigated and played put to the Nth degree by everyone.

[pork911]

Corpulent Tosser said:

pork911 said:

there's lots of those people - including those unconcerned with his killer's evidence in light of the jury's findings

Is there ?
I don't hear much in the way of disgruntlement from those unconcerned with cop's evidence, it all seems to be coming from those who disagree with the jury verdict of lawfull killing.

From a personal standpoint I have no issue with the cop's evidence, he probably did and still does believe he saw a gun in Duggan's hand, the jury thought he was mistaken but genuinely believed Duggan was a threat.

Should the cop still be an armed officer? I am content to let the Met make that decision after assessment, that is if the officer still wants to be armed.

Those unconcerned with his evidence are happy with the lawful killing verdict while ignoring the jury's finding that duggan was not holding the gun (before each shot as the officer STILL says he saw). (Personally I'm entirely comfortable with the lawful finding, much discussion on this however is often just knee jerk pro/anti police only.)

His evidence was more likely to result in an unlawful killing verdict than if he said he saw no gun at all and duggan's hands were empty.

The jury gave him a huge pass on it.

Any assessment that allows him to remain an armed officer would likely be quite 'interesting' though we'll never know.

Edited by pork911 on Monday 20th January 21:25

[mizx]

pork911 said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

pork911 said:

there's lots of those people - including those unconcerned with his killer's evidence in light of the jury's findings

Is there ?
I don't hear much in the way of disgruntlement from those unconcerned with cop's evidence, it all seems to be coming from those who disagree with the jury verdict of lawfull killing.

From a personal standpoint I have no issue with the cop's evidence, he probably did and still does believe he saw a gun in Duggan's hand, the jury thought he was mistaken but genuinely believed Duggan was a threat.

Should the cop still be an armed officer? I am content to let the Met make that decision after assessment, that is if the officer still wants to be armed.

Those unconcerned with his evidence are happy with the lawful killing verdict while ignoring the jury's finding that duggan was not holding the gun (before each shot as the officer STILL says he saw). (Personally I'm entirely comfortable with the lawful finding, much discussion on this however is often just knee jerk pro/anti police only.)

His evidence was more likely to result in an unlawful killing verdict than if he said he saw no gun at all and duggan's hands were empty.

The jury gave him a huge pass on it.

PaulG40 said:

The Panorama: shooting to kill programme about Duggen is on now. Abit sensationist by the narrator I think.

Unfortunately, nowadays a split second decision made by the police (and military) seems to be reviewed, investigated and played put to the Nth degree by everyone.

I saw a bit of it, it was slightly. The other mother and the other younger woman, I understand they want to see 'justice' (quotes as it comes across as just looking for someone to blame some of the time, I couldn't level that or denial at them, as I would in the case of this thread's topic) I just don't get why they (nor a supposed solicitor!!) cannot understand it matters not if it's proven there was no threat, if an officer believes there was one, leaving aside the conspiracy nonsense, shooting is justified. The way I see it, the part in bold is all there is too it, and this is what a jury found, the end.

pork911 said:

Any assessment that allows him to remain an armed officer would likely be quite 'interesting' though we'll never know.

The massive long list of thought processes compared to an American officer someone posted a few pages back, for being cartoonish it is almost telling. They are already under massive pressure with every minutiae of the procedure of something that unfolds every quickly, I can only see all this making it worse.

[pork911]

mizx said:

pork911 said:

Corpulent Tosser said:

pork911 said:

there's lots of those people - including those unconcerned with his killer's evidence in light of the jury's findings

Is there ?
I don't hear much in the way of disgruntlement from those unconcerned with cop's evidence, it all seems to be coming from those who disagree with the jury verdict of lawfull killing.

From a personal standpoint I have no issue with the cop's evidence, he probably did and still does believe he saw a gun in Duggan's hand, the jury thought he was mistaken but genuinely believed Duggan was a threat.

Should the cop still be an armed officer? I am content to let the Met make that decision after assessment, that is if the officer still wants to be armed.

Those unconcerned with his evidence are happy with the lawful killing verdict while ignoring the jury's finding that duggan was not holding the gun (before each shot as the officer STILL says he saw). (Personally I'm entirely comfortable with the lawful finding, much discussion on this however is often just knee jerk pro/anti police only.)

His evidence was more likely to result in an unlawful killing verdict than if he said he saw no gun at all and duggan's hands were empty.

The jury gave him a huge pass on it.

PaulG40 said:

The Panorama: shooting to kill programme about Duggen is on now. Abit sensationist by the narrator I think.

Unfortunately, nowadays a split second decision made by the police (and military) seems to be reviewed, investigated and played put to the Nth degree by everyone.

I saw a bit of it, it was slightly. The other mother and the other younger woman, I understand they want to see 'justice' (quotes as it comes across as just looking for someone to blame some of the time, I couldn't level that or denial at them, as I would in the case of this thread's topic) I just don't get why they (nor a supposed solicitor!!) cannot understand it matters not if it's proven there was no threat, if an officer believes there was one, leaving aside the conspiracy nonsense, shooting is justified. The way I see it, the part in bold is all there is too it, and this is what a jury found, the end.

pork911 said:

Any assessment that allows him to remain an armed officer would likely be quite 'interesting' though we'll never know.

The massive long list of thought processes compared to an American officer someone posted a few pages back, for being cartoonish it is almost telling. They are already under massive pressure with every minutiae of the procedure of something that unfolds every quickly, I can only see all this making it worse.

Are you suggesting I don't understand ('supposed solicitor') or was that directed at someone else? (I'm a retired solicitor.)

If you think me, then you plainly don't understand my posts and the distinctions I have been making.

All else being equal, if the officer's evidence had been he couldn't see any gun or anything he thought might have been a gun and he could clearly see duggan's hands were empty..the lawful killing verdict would still be correct.

The verdict was in spite of the officer's evidence.


Before looking at the procedures a proper assessment would first have to look at why the to the jury didn't accept the officer's evidence on what he says he saw (the gun in duggan's hand before each shot) and also consider his credibility generally, his understanding of what lawful killing is, his eyesight, his memory etc

[Mr_B]

kev1974 said:

Not sure what this Panorama programme that's on now is trying to say. So far just seems to be "if you involve yourself with illegal guns there's a chance the police might shoot you dead at some point"

Those two that tried to do the Securicor van didn't see that one coming - hidden Police snipers !

[Corpulent Tosser]

pork911 said:

Before looking at the procedures a proper assessment would first have to look at why the to the jury didn't accept the officer's evidence on what he says he saw (the gun in duggan's hand before each shot) and also consider his credibility generally, his understanding of what lawful killing is, his eyesight, his memory etc

Balance of probability. Given where the gun was found it was unlikely (though not impossible according to an 'expert' witness) that it was in Duggans hand when the shots were fired.

The bit you seen unable to comprehend though is that the officer believed he saw a gun and still does believe he saw a gun, he may or may not have, the jury believed he didn't, I recall the witness on the 9th floor of a building 100 yards away said Duggan was not holding a gun but thought Duggan was holding a phone, perhaps that was what the officer mistook for a gun.

Bottom line though it happened fast, the officer thought there was a threat and removed the threat.

[Corpulent Tosser]

For clarity, is your problem that the officer will not accept he was mistaken, or that you think he was lying ?

[pork911]

There is a world of difference between believing there was a threat and saying you clearly saw duggan holding a gun before each shot (which is also different from seeing something you believed was a gun).

Lying is one of the possible explanations but I personally doubt that's the case.

There is no satisfactory answer for his evidence. If he is right (duggan was holding the gun before each shot as he says) there should be major concerns about the other officers' faculties, abilities, evidence gathering etc. If he is wrong and didn't lie then he hallucinated, has other problems with his eyes, has memory problems or whatever

The lawful killing verdict didn't need the jury to believe duggan was holding the gun (or anything else).


Given the intelligence, the briefing, the decision to hard stop etc from the officer's pov there were very few scenarios where duggan wasn't going to get shot and for this to be lawful (other than perhaps being naked and stepping out of the car with his hands on his head then slowly spreading out on the floor etc in a way the officer was entirely comfortable with was safe)

Much of the discussion on duggan is just he was baddie and deserved it Vs ACAB - I don't agree with either.

[Corpulent Tosser]

pork911 said:

There is a world of difference between believing there was a threat and saying you clearly saw duggan holding a gun before each shot (which is also different from seeing something you believed was a gun).

Not very different IMO, he believed he saw a gun, so his evidence was he saw a gun, turns out the jury thought he was mistaken, he clearly doesn't think he was mistaken.

pork911 said:

Lying is one of the possible explanations but I personally doubt that's the case.

That is something we agree on.

[pork911 said:

There is no satisfactory answer for his evidence. If he is right (duggan was holding the gun before each shot as he says) there should be major concerns about the other officers' faculties, abilities, evidence gathering etc. If he is wrong and didn't lie then he hallucinated, has other problems with his eyes, has memory problems or whatever

The satisfactory answer for his evidence is that he genuinely believed he saw a gun. The jury think the gun was disposed of before the shots were fired, and that is probable, but there is some doubt. I don't think memory is an issue as his recall of what he saw, or thought he saw is consistent.

pork911 said:

The lawful killing verdict didn't need the jury to believe duggan was holding the gun (or anything else).

Something else we agree on.

pork911 said:

Given the intelligence, the briefing, the decision to hard stop etc from the officer's pov there were very few scenarios where duggan wasn't going to get shot and for this to be lawful (other than perhaps being naked and stepping out of the car with his hands on his head then slowly spreading out on the floor etc in a way the officer was entirely comfortable with was safe)

All he had to do was throw the gun out of car, then get out with hands clearly visible.

pork911 said:

Much of the discussion on duggan is just he was baddie and deserved it Vs ACAB - I don't agree with either.

Perfectly understandable that people should think he was a baddie and deserved it.
What is the root cause of his death ?
Having a gun ? No I think the root goes deeper.
Being involved in crime and associating with others who are involved in crime, particularly gun crime? Possibly but again I think it can go deeper.
Growing up in a family/community where law breaking was considered the norm ?
I think that is close to the root cause.

[Corpulent Tosser]

the accused said:

It's not good that a policeman believes he saw something (a gun) that wasn't there. Police observations of fact form compelling evidence in courts. How many other fantasies has this/other policemen had, believing them to be accurate? Worrying. In this case it's led to a death. But how many convictions have been secured based on a fantasy?

We are discussing one incident, given the circumstances and that the officer was expecting Duggan to have a gun I am not surprised he thought he saw a gun, it could have been a phone, or even a clenched fist but in the very short time he had to make a decision, he believed he saw a gun.
Perhaps he did see a gun, one member of the jury believed he did.

[pork911]

According to the officer his hands were clearly visible since he says he saw he was holding the gun before each shot

While not attempting to justify anything about duggan or in any way criticising the lawful killing verdict itself, that according to the officer is the reason he pulled the trigger and then again a second time.

Anyone who wishes to maintain trust in the police and law should be concerned with that, against the other evidence and the jury's findings.