The Duggan Gun?

[scenario8]

RedTrident said:

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.

No the inquest was to discover whether his death was lawful or not.

Duggan was found to have been in possession of the gun that was found a short distance from his body when travelling in the taxi concerned. A unanimous conclusion.

The jury concluded he had thrown the gun to its resting position by a majority of 9 to 1.

The IPCC ordered the removal of the taxi from the scene as part of its investigations but later ordered it be returned to the scene.

The inquest, having heard from a large number of witnesses and exposed to much evidence has concluded that despite Duggan, while not holding a gun in his hand at the time he was shot by armed officers, was killed lawfully.

Sadly we live in a world of shades of grey and while it is plausible Duggan was intentionally shot when it was known he was unarmed it is at least as plausible that he was shot within the law - despite the possibility of lying, misleading, cover up or (perhas more likely) cock up or mayber even (regrettable) actions made in split seconds within a particular set of circumstances. It seems the jurors were satisfied it was a lawful killing.

The IPCC and the Police contributed to the complaints and arguably some of the unrest and disorder following Duggan's death which is regrettable. There are plenty of questions to be asked about their conduct. Hopefully this inquest's conclusion will allow that inquiry to continue.

[Andehh]

scenario8 said:

Andehh said:

Cookie220 said:

Morons outside the court appear to be chanting 'fk the police' and something else unintelligible.

Laughable, and shows the general mentality of them. He could have had the gun still in his hand as he was buried and they'd still blame the police. They never bother to look at the family, community, his (polite, eloquent, well mannered friends) as to who is to blame!?

One less thug in the country, it's a good start.

Sorry, what (in bold)?

Exactly!

[Starfighter]

RedTrident said:

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?

Its called the weapon effect in psychology.

When presented with a serious situation or a weapon the indiviual concentrates on the threat / weapon rather than the wider picture. Martial arts teaches to look at the eyes as they tend to sub-consciously look in the direction of the strike and can give early warning. I would have expected an AFO do be doing something similar buy my fire-arms training is limited to basic infantry work.

[Chlamydia]

RedTrident said:

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?

Were you in court to hear the evidence and testimonies or are you basing your theories on what you have read or seen in the media? Do you think this country's media is infallible and never makes mistakes? If you have evidence that is contrary to that heard in court then why didn't you make yourself available to them?
... or maybe you're just a drama queen with his own agenda?

[carinaman]

Breadvan72 said:

Rants are fun, but checking the facts before engaging rantage can be a sort of fun thing too.

A bit like the IPCC saying that Duggan was shooting at the police when he wasn't, just as they tried to stop Channel 4 News showing the CCTV footage of the shove on Tomlinson and the police said 'There's no CCTV footage from cameras in that area' and then having to back pedal and 'apologise' and say they were wrong and there was?

If that was a nominal or the posts of a PHer they'd be called out on such consistency.

[RedTrident]

scenario8 said:

No the inquest was to discover whether his death was lawful or not.

Duggan was found to have been in possession of the gun that was found a short distance from his body when travelling in the taxi concerned. A unanimous conclusion.

The jury concluded he had thrown the gun to its resting position by a majority of 9 to 1.

The IPCC ordered the removal of the taxi from the scene as part of its investigations but later ordered it be returned to the scene.

The inquest, having heard from a large number of witnesses and exposed to much evidence has concluded that despite Duggan, while not holding a gun in his hand at the time he was shot by armed officers, was killed lawfully.

Sadly we live in a world of shades of grey and while it is plausible Duggan was intentionally shot when it was known he was unarmed it is at least as plausible that he was shot within the law - despite the possibility of lying, misleading, cover up or (perhas more likely) cock up or mayber even (regrettable) actions made in split seconds within a particular set of circumstances. It seems the jurors were satisfied it was a lawful killing.

The IPCC and the Police contributed to the complaints and arguably some of the unrest and disorder following Duggan's death which is regrettable. There are plenty of questions to be asked about their conduct. Hopefully this inquest's conclusion will allow that inquiry to continue.

That's as fair as can be.

[RedTrident]

Chlamydia said:

RedTrident said:

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?

Were you in court to hear the evidence and testimonies or are you basing your theories on what you have read or seen in the media? Do you think this country's media is infallible and never makes mistakes? If you have evidence that is contrary to that heard in court then why didn't you make yourself available to them?
... or maybe you're just a drama queen with his own agenda?

He either said it or he didn't. Simple really. I think the evidence for such a thing is pretty straightforward.

Rather strange opinion to have - having to have been there to believe if something was true or not. As for being a drama queen - a man was shot dead and then we witnessed some of the worst instances of social unrest in this country for a very long time.

[pork911]

Starfighter said:

RedTrident said:

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?

Its called the weapon effect in psychology.

When presented with a serious situation or a weapon the indiviual concentrates on the threat / weapon rather than the wider picture. Martial arts teaches to look at the eyes as they tend to sub-consciously look in the direction of the strike and can give early warning. I would have expected an AFO do be doing something similar buy my fire-arms training is limited to basic infantry work.

Concentrating on something that wasn't there? - The officer who killed him said duggan was holding the gun when he shot him twice.

[bitchstewie]

Part of me thinks the media should just shut the fk on this one and report it very low key.

The sort of people involved in the riots don't need too much of a cause and this seems to be getting much more time and coverage than it deserves.

[SystemParanoia]

Murdering Pigs cover their own backs yet again and prove they can get away with anything they want.

Filthy murdering pig scum.

i bet all of the jury were ex police..

[scenario8]

Honestly I doubt many of the sort of people either genuinely agrieved by Duggan's death or even those involved in opportunistic rioting (whether quasi-politically or financially motivated) soon after his death spend much time being influenced by leaders in The Telegraph or even by Sky News.

The very fact the inquest concluded a lawful killing would hack off many. I imagine many would source their "news" and have their opinions influenced via non-mainstream media anyway (eg through their mates or facebook and Twitter etc). At least if the media spend a bit of time explaining the decision it might educate some away from kneejerk ill-informed perhaps violent actions.

Besides, the riots that followed Duggan's death were pretty darn significant so I don't have a problem with the inquest being high profile.

[andy_s]

SystemParanoia said:

Murdering Pigs cover their own backs yet again and prove they can get away with anything they want.

Filthy murdering pig scum.

i bet all of the jury were ex police..

It can't be murder if it's lawful. It' been found to be lawful by the courts, not the police; by a jury, not a mob.

He'd still be alive if it wasn't for that pesky pistol, murdering pigs didn't make him carry it, maybe murdering scumbags did though. Filthy murdering scumbags so they are; should be shot, the lot of 'em.....oh.

[heebeegeetee]

I don't care about cases like this. I don't care about the likes of Duggan being shot. I don't think police should have to arm themselves, but if we want to look for someone to blame, then blame those who arm themselves to kill or terrorise innocent people.

If it wasn't for them there would be no armed police.

The scummy Duggan family are screaming about justice, but if they didn't occupy the justice system so much then they'd have nothing to complain about.

[FarleyRusk]

So what time is 'London's burning' on tonight?

[SystemParanoia]

andy_s said:

SystemParanoia said:

Murdering Pigs cover their own backs yet again and prove they can get away with anything they want.

Filthy murdering pig scum.

i bet all of the jury were ex police..

It can't be murder if it's lawful. It' been found to be lawful by the courts, not the police; by a jury, not a mob.

He'd still be alive if it wasn't for that pesky pistol, murdering pigs didn't make him carry it, maybe murdering scumbags did though. Filthy murdering scumbags so they are; should be shot, the lot of 'em.....oh.

Of course.. the police never get things horribly wrong and then get away with it scot free.

despite committing premeditated murder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles...

[heebeegeetee]

Are they going to be trashing the property of shopkeepers again?

Scum, them shopkeepers, they've got it coming to them. 'Specially them posh furniture shop twunts.

[SystemParanoia]

oh.. and another

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinso...

IPCC needs to be taken down and replaced by something that doesnt blindly protect the police from being punished for running around murdering everyone

EDIT :

And here's 827 more poor souls

http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/deaths-i...


Scum with Badges the lot of them

Edited by SystemParanoia on Wednesday 8th January 18:55

[greygoose]

heebeegeetee said:

I don't care about cases like this. I don't care about the likes of Duggan being shot. I don't think police should have to arm themselves, but if we want to look for someone to blame, then blame those who arm themselves to kill or terrorise innocent people.

If it wasn't for them there would be no armed police.

+1

Good riddance.

[scenario8]

I think we're putting a bit too much Paranoia into SystemParanoia here, aren't we?

[loose cannon]

System paranoia
Why are you so anti police ?
Your rumblings sound like a drug dealer with everything to lose ?
But surely your not stupid enough to come on here shouting out pig scum if you were ? So why the constant ranting about police ? What is your evidence that all police are scum ?