The Duggan Gun?
Discussion
loafer123 said:
Didn't Dale Cregan walk into a police station and give himself up? Rather different.
Completely different circumstances, but he doesn't both with fundamental differences like an armed threat and an unarmed person walking into a police station when there's an opportunity to bash some authority. La Liga said:
loafer123 said:
Didn't Dale Cregan walk into a police station and give himself up? Rather different.
Completely different circumstances, but he doesn't both with fundamental differences like an armed threat and an unarmed person walking into a police station when there's an opportunity to bash some authority. Cigarette lighter shaped as a pistol, chair leg in a plastic bag, air gun.
It seems that if there's any possible reason for Armed Plod to believe what you've got in your hand could be a gun, they shoot first, and ask questions later.
They then justify this with the old, it could have been a gun, routine.
Its how it all works.
I know that.,
You know that.
Duggan knew that
Right or wrong, Im not the judge here, Duggan had a gun, they knew he had a gun, and hes now either wormfood or ash.
He should have just put his hands up.
Plod look pretty scary armed.
It seems that if there's any possible reason for Armed Plod to believe what you've got in your hand could be a gun, they shoot first, and ask questions later.
They then justify this with the old, it could have been a gun, routine.
Its how it all works.
I know that.,
You know that.
Duggan knew that
Right or wrong, Im not the judge here, Duggan had a gun, they knew he had a gun, and hes now either wormfood or ash.
He should have just put his hands up.
Plod look pretty scary armed.
stuttgartmetal said:
It seems that if there's any possible reason for Armed Plod to believe what you've got in your hand could be a gun, they shoot first, and ask questions later.
They then justify this with the old, it could have been a gun, routine.
Its how it all works.
I know that.,
You know that.
Nearly every armed deployment is resolved without discharging a firearm. No armed officer wants to kill someone. The system and culture is to look to resolve without using lethal force. They then justify this with the old, it could have been a gun, routine.
Its how it all works.
I know that.,
You know that.
Was it 5 discharges in the last 12,500 deployments (formal deployments)? Are they looking to shoot first?
stuttgartmetal said:
Duggan knew that
Evidently not. 
Let's turn this around and get in the few cells that must have comprised Duggan's brain:
"I'm a violent gangster who is waving a gun about, around the time that armed police are attempting to arrest me before, they believe, I complete a MURDER.... And my expectation is to NOT be shot by them."
Ok mate.
Well you're now a dead c**t.
"I'm a violent gangster who is waving a gun about, around the time that armed police are attempting to arrest me before, they believe, I complete a MURDER.... And my expectation is to NOT be shot by them."
Ok mate.
Well you're now a dead c**t.
Very pleased to note that the High Court are going to hear an appeal against the "lawful killing" verdict. I hope that it will be overturned as it is plainly a travesty. Perhaps an inquiry into how much the police knew about the weapons Hutchinson-Foster had in his possession prior to the botched operation on Duggan would shine some more, much needed light, on to the Police actions. Particularly those actions surrounding the killing, where independent witnesses stated that Duggan was not armed. One witness stated that an armed police officer threatened to shoot him if he did not stop looking at Duggan's body. If that is true what was the purpose of that? We also need to know why the police moved the car Duggan was travelling in then returned it to the scene later. There are many questions surrounding the killing and Police conduct after. Duggan's family believe the picture of Duggan the Police used, had been cropped and doctored to make him look more sinister. The uncropt picture showed him at his daughter's grave and is innocuous compared to the cropt version.
Duggan's family have not stopped campaigning to get to the truth and some of them feel that they are under surveillance. If they are they would not be the first.
Duggan's family have not stopped campaigning to get to the truth and some of them feel that they are under surveillance. If they are they would not be the first.
Indeed!RobinOakapple said:
Or at least a 'truth' they are happy with.
I recommend you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_DugganIt makes very interesting reading.
davidball said:
I recommend you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan
It makes very interesting reading.
Why? Have they edited the Wiki in their favour too?It makes very interesting reading.
Wikipedia is much better than the IPCC reports and reports from the inquest 
David can now spoil us with his ignorance and lack of knowledge about the law like he does in lots of police firearms topics.
David can now spoil us with his ignorance and lack of knowledge about the law like he does in lots of police firearms topics.
davidball said:
We also need to know why the police moved the car Duggan was travelling in then returned it to the scene later.
We certainly do, if only there were an investigatory body who looked into the matter and established why... IPPC about the Minicab said:
1079. From 6.13pm on 4 August 2011, and throughout the night of 4 August 2011, the minicab remained in place at the Ferry Lane scene as it had been agreed it would be removed for a full forensic examination as part of the forensic strategy. It was intended that the minicab would be lifted by a low-loader truck and forensically examined and searched at a later date at Perivale Metropolitan Police Forensic Car Pound.
1080. The inside of the minicab was captured on the 360 degree photography of the scene taken during the night of 4 August 2011. As shown in the photograph over the page, there was an orange Sainsbury’s carrier bag between the front driver’s seat and the first set of rear passenger seats, and a yellow cardboard box with the lid displaced between the first and second set of rear passenger seats.
1081. Mr David Kirkpatrick, an IPCC investigator, gave evidence to the inquest on 4 November 2013 and explained that he arrived at the scene some time around 9.50pm on 4 August 2011 and left at around 2.30am on 5 August 2011. During that time he kept a log for DSI Mahaffey who was the senior investigator at the scene from the IPCC.
1082. Mr Kirkpatrick returned at about 10.51am on 5 August 2011 and was accompanied by Ms Nicola Heley, a trainee investigator. He said that they saw the box in the rear passenger area of the minicab. Mr Kirkpatrick explained that he understood the shoebox would be recovered and exhibited when the minicab was lifted and forensically
examined.
1083. During the 5 August 2011, DC Payne oversaw the arrangements for the removal of the minicab from the scene. It was sealed, put onto a lowloader, and it left the scene to be taken to Perivale.
1084. However, in the meantime, DSI Sparrow became aware that the owner of the minicab was complaining that he had no means of earning a living without his vehicle and he was becoming angry and distressed. In light of this, DSI Sparrow asked that the vehicle remain at Ferry Lane and be searched at the scene so that, once the search was complete, the vehicle could be returned to the minicab driver that evening. DSI Sparrow did not know that the vehicle had already been lifted and the transport of the vehicle to Perivale had actually already commenced.
1085. In light of DSI Sparrow’s request, the recovery drivers returned the vehicle to Ferry Lane, placing it further down the road towards Walthamstow.
1086. Before requesting that the minicab should be searched at the scene, DSI Sparrow had taken steps to establish whether there was any relevant forensic evidence on the outside of the vehicle. He was told by police officers at the scene that an external visual search had been conducted and was negative. For that reason, DSI Sparrow was content that the internal search of the vehicle could occur at the scene with a view to expediting the return of the minicab to the driver. In his evidence at the inquest on 2 December 2013, DSI Sparrow reiterated that he was unaware that any blood spatter had been seen on the vehicle. He explained to the inquest that had he known that fact then “I just would not even have considered taking it back to the scene. It would have gone to Perivale….On reflection, it was the wrong decision frankly and, on reflection, the best thing that I could have done was taken the taxi can back to Perivale, we would have completed the visual search of the vehicle, established the blood spatter and then carried out whatever extra work that we needed to do”.
1080. The inside of the minicab was captured on the 360 degree photography of the scene taken during the night of 4 August 2011. As shown in the photograph over the page, there was an orange Sainsbury’s carrier bag between the front driver’s seat and the first set of rear passenger seats, and a yellow cardboard box with the lid displaced between the first and second set of rear passenger seats.
1081. Mr David Kirkpatrick, an IPCC investigator, gave evidence to the inquest on 4 November 2013 and explained that he arrived at the scene some time around 9.50pm on 4 August 2011 and left at around 2.30am on 5 August 2011. During that time he kept a log for DSI Mahaffey who was the senior investigator at the scene from the IPCC.
1082. Mr Kirkpatrick returned at about 10.51am on 5 August 2011 and was accompanied by Ms Nicola Heley, a trainee investigator. He said that they saw the box in the rear passenger area of the minicab. Mr Kirkpatrick explained that he understood the shoebox would be recovered and exhibited when the minicab was lifted and forensically
examined.
1083. During the 5 August 2011, DC Payne oversaw the arrangements for the removal of the minicab from the scene. It was sealed, put onto a lowloader, and it left the scene to be taken to Perivale.
1084. However, in the meantime, DSI Sparrow became aware that the owner of the minicab was complaining that he had no means of earning a living without his vehicle and he was becoming angry and distressed. In light of this, DSI Sparrow asked that the vehicle remain at Ferry Lane and be searched at the scene so that, once the search was complete, the vehicle could be returned to the minicab driver that evening. DSI Sparrow did not know that the vehicle had already been lifted and the transport of the vehicle to Perivale had actually already commenced.
1085. In light of DSI Sparrow’s request, the recovery drivers returned the vehicle to Ferry Lane, placing it further down the road towards Walthamstow.
1086. Before requesting that the minicab should be searched at the scene, DSI Sparrow had taken steps to establish whether there was any relevant forensic evidence on the outside of the vehicle. He was told by police officers at the scene that an external visual search had been conducted and was negative. For that reason, DSI Sparrow was content that the internal search of the vehicle could occur at the scene with a view to expediting the return of the minicab to the driver. In his evidence at the inquest on 2 December 2013, DSI Sparrow reiterated that he was unaware that any blood spatter had been seen on the vehicle. He explained to the inquest that had he known that fact then “I just would not even have considered taking it back to the scene. It would have gone to Perivale….On reflection, it was the wrong decision frankly and, on reflection, the best thing that I could have done was taken the taxi can back to Perivale, we would have completed the visual search of the vehicle, established the blood spatter and then carried out whatever extra work that we needed to do”.
Thanks for the explanation. Now can we have one that explains the discrepancies in the the police officers statements made at the scene and those "corrected" later. Did the police officers discuss their statements with each other prior to writing them or amending earlier ones? Were the independent witnesses allowed to collude with each other before they wrote their statements?
Read the reports. All the answers will be in there: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/investigations/mark-duggan...
I mean this sincerely. If after that you have questions or think something is amiss then I'm more than happy to answer. Fatal shootings and the law around using force can be highly-complex events, and concise summaries will give little insight into the necessary detail to understanding the decision-making.
In order for a Coroner's jury to find a verdict of 'unlawful killing', they need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. I can't see how that can occur in these circumstances.
I mean this sincerely. If after that you have questions or think something is amiss then I'm more than happy to answer. Fatal shootings and the law around using force can be highly-complex events, and concise summaries will give little insight into the necessary detail to understanding the decision-making.
In order for a Coroner's jury to find a verdict of 'unlawful killing', they need to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. I can't see how that can occur in these circumstances.
I note you chose not to address the issue of police collusion over statements.In doing so you ignore the broader point of Police credibility.
It is best to write down what you perceived happened directly after the event. Include all the details that are remembered because, as time goes by, details are forgotten. The account is even more suspect if it is a result of peer pressure, as when police officers collude over statements. After the Duggan killing at least one police officer was told to omit details in his initial statement. Why? This flies in the face of common sense, unless there is a hidden agenda. W70's short-form report did not say Duggan had a gun yet 48 hours later he stated he saw Duggan drawing a gun! Apparently short-form reports are deliberately brief. Why?
If the Police officers acted in accordance with their training and in the true belief they were in mortal danger why was it necessary to omit details from the statements and amend statements at a later date? Were all the initial statements presented as evidence at the inquest so the discrepancies could be evaluated and explained?
Did any officers hold the opinion that they were in jeopardy of being charged with an offence and refused to make a statement or appear at the inquest on legal advice?
As to the IPCC report, for what it is worth, the IPCC cannot even compel police officers to testify. With the result that it has only succeeded in delaying things. I do not think the IPCC is fit for purpose in its present form with its present powers. It needs more powers and teeth.
It is best to write down what you perceived happened directly after the event. Include all the details that are remembered because, as time goes by, details are forgotten. The account is even more suspect if it is a result of peer pressure, as when police officers collude over statements. After the Duggan killing at least one police officer was told to omit details in his initial statement. Why? This flies in the face of common sense, unless there is a hidden agenda. W70's short-form report did not say Duggan had a gun yet 48 hours later he stated he saw Duggan drawing a gun! Apparently short-form reports are deliberately brief. Why?
If the Police officers acted in accordance with their training and in the true belief they were in mortal danger why was it necessary to omit details from the statements and amend statements at a later date? Were all the initial statements presented as evidence at the inquest so the discrepancies could be evaluated and explained?
Did any officers hold the opinion that they were in jeopardy of being charged with an offence and refused to make a statement or appear at the inquest on legal advice?
As to the IPCC report, for what it is worth, the IPCC cannot even compel police officers to testify. With the result that it has only succeeded in delaying things. I do not think the IPCC is fit for purpose in its present form with its present powers. It needs more powers and teeth.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff