The Duggan Gun?
Discussion
the accused said:
At least the cop didn't say Duggan was holding something which looked 'uncannily like a gun' which turned out to be a table leg in a plastic bag!! I mean ffs if you can get THAT one past an inquest what CAN'T you do?
Bless you for not being able to comprehend words. In this very thread, you have had our very own PH Barrister, not known for his right-leaning views, stating that in his opinion, based on actual sight of the offending item, that it looked exactly like a gun.But obviously, that's hearsay, and therefore worthless.
Can I ask if you disagree with the whole of the jury's verdict, or simply specific bits?
If he'd texted from the Toyota Estima taxi 'Trident have got me, green BMW van' or whatever he texted, why would he then do anything to look like he had a gun in his hand unless he wanted to go for the 'suicide by cop'. or 'please martyr us' option as displayed by the two killers of Lee Rigby that didn't even think of getting a replica gun to save them arguing over who had the gun to stand a better chance of being martyred?
So if he knew he was surrounded by armed police, why would he do anything that looked like he may have been holding a gun? For a jolly jape?
So if he knew he was surrounded by armed police, why would he do anything that looked like he may have been holding a gun? For a jolly jape?
Another day,another story of dodgy police tactics that is then covered up during the legal process.
Not the best of times to be a police officer. Only a matter of time from when a police officer's testimony is not accepted because of the wider underhand practice. Major overhaul coming I think, regardless of this case.
Not the best of times to be a police officer. Only a matter of time from when a police officer's testimony is not accepted because of the wider underhand practice. Major overhaul coming I think, regardless of this case.
carinaman said:
So if he knew he was surrounded by armed police, why would he do anything that looked like he may have been holding a gun? For a jolly jape?
You can't really apply rational thought process to someone who has already decided that carrying a firearm is a good idea anyway.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)
I don't think so. Hundreds / thousands of hard stops at this risk level get carried out annually and nearly all result in no discharge of a firearm. carinaman said:
So if he knew he was surrounded by armed police, why would he do anything that looked like he may have been holding a gun? For a jolly jape?
Duggan's behaviour undermines that line of thinking. He tried / did discard the gun immediately prior / during the hard stop. If he were concerned about minimising risk to himself he'd have left the gun well alone as soon as he was aware who was following him.
Judge Cutler doesn't seem happy. It seems he wasn't satisfied with some wishy washy generic fob off answer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-276932...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-276932...
Duggan's family failed in their application for judicial review of the Inquest verdict -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29611987
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/c...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29611987
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.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 15th October 11:01
Having just read the post of Breadvan72 I wonder who Witness B and Witness C are? Are they independent witnesses or two police officers present at the killing? In which case were they allowed to and did they discuss with each other, and other police officers, what they would remember before making their statements?
This is crucial and we need to know this because,in relation to lethal force, all a police officer has to do is state the he honestly believed that his life, or the lives of others were in danger,for the law to judge it a lawful killing. This is a license to kill.
The police go to great lengths to ensure that witnesses and suspects are not able to collude with each other and yet jealously guard their ability to do this themselves. This is a shameful abuse of public trust and indicative of the contempt of that trust shown by those officers who do it.
This is crucial and we need to know this because,in relation to lethal force, all a police officer has to do is state the he honestly believed that his life, or the lives of others were in danger,for the law to judge it a lawful killing. This is a license to kill.
The police go to great lengths to ensure that witnesses and suspects are not able to collude with each other and yet jealously guard their ability to do this themselves. This is a shameful abuse of public trust and indicative of the contempt of that trust shown by those officers who do it.
A mere assertion of belief will not always be sufficient, as the evidence of the surrounding circumstances has to be studied also. In the Azelle Rodney Inquiry, the Judge did not accept the police officer's assertion that he believed he was under threat.
Shootings by police officers in the UK are very rare. Every shooting is closely examined. The suggestion that police are licensed to kill is, I suggest, as unrealistic as the suggestion at the other extreme that scrutinising police shootings will cause firearms officers to resign in droves.
Shootings by police officers in the UK are very rare. Every shooting is closely examined. The suggestion that police are licensed to kill is, I suggest, as unrealistic as the suggestion at the other extreme that scrutinising police shootings will cause firearms officers to resign in droves.
Breadvan72 said:
A mere assertion of belief will not always be sufficient, as the evidence of the surrounding circumstances has to be studied also. In the Azelle Rodney Inquiry, the Judge did not accept the police officer's assertion that he believed he was under threat.
Shootings by police officers in the UK are very rare. Every shooting is closely examined. The suggestion that police are licensed to kill is, I suggest, as unrealistic as the suggestion at the other extreme that scrutinising police shootings will cause firearms officers to resign in droves.
The Menezes shooting contradicts your belief. However, whilst police officers are allowed to collude prior to making statements, I can have no confidence in the truth of them. It is just too easy to claim an honest belief that lives were in danger.Shootings by police officers in the UK are very rare. Every shooting is closely examined. The suggestion that police are licensed to kill is, I suggest, as unrealistic as the suggestion at the other extreme that scrutinising police shootings will cause firearms officers to resign in droves.
How does it contradict my belief? Incidents such as the de Menezes shooting are very rare, and are subject to detailed scrutiny. In that case, the officers had been passed bad information and acted honestly on that bad information. The fault lay with the observation and communications chain.
Andehh said:
Who is paying their legal fees to still dispute this over & over again?
All the money that the scum had amassed selling crack and running guns no dought looked after by his family and friends under various floorboards etc, Good ridence in my opinion anyone that walks around in public waving guns about being a gangster deserves everything coming to them, he was a total scumbag and now he is gone what's not to like !
Undoubtably, the killing of De Menezes was the result of a catalogue of incompetence and mistakes which did not end at his execution. They continued afterward in the misinformation and attempts to besmirch his character until the out-of-court settlement was agreed. A settlement that has not been made public. Who benefits the most from that?
It is in the public interest to know just what the police admitted to and what they contested.
Has any police officer been charged with a criminal offence over the De Menezes killing?
Also I note that, in both your replies so far, you have studiously ignored the scandal of police collusion when writing their statements and the corrosive affect this has on their reputation. Why the silence?
It is in the public interest to know just what the police admitted to and what they contested.
Has any police officer been charged with a criminal offence over the De Menezes killing?
Also I note that, in both your replies so far, you have studiously ignored the scandal of police collusion when writing their statements and the corrosive affect this has on their reputation. Why the silence?
I am not being cross examined, and can choose to address whatever I like. It so happens that I deplore police colluding to prepare statements. Mr De Menezes was not, as you put it, "executed". He was tragically killed by mistake, by officers who, judged by what they knew at the time, believed (wrongly) that they were facing a threat. The Commissioner was later fined for breaches of health and safety legislation. The killing was a result of negligence, not intent, so no other criminal charges would fly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff