The Duggan Gun?

[anonymous-user]

- If you talk of specific parts i.e. V23 wrote his statement at X and changed it to Y on whenever, then I can address it. I'm not hunting down whichever specific parts you may mean.

- You need to do some research into stressful events and the impact upon memory and recollection. Capturing evidence is often not best straight away in the circumstances.

- When you say 'collusion' you actually mean 'coffering'. There is no evidence of the former and the latter is examined in the IPCC report. The latter is also allowed in some circumstances.

- The IPCC aren't there to just 'fact find' and be friends. They are there to look at criminal prosecutions. With that in mind police officers have to balance providing evidence and the times in which they do so, with placing themselves in a legally strong position.

- The IPCC can compel officers to attend interviews since March 2013. They can't compel them to answer questions, just as the police can't compel you to answer them.

- They can't refuse to attend at a Coroners' court. Well, they can, but the Coroner would issue a summons.

[Rovinghawk]

La Liga said:

- When you say 'collusion' you actually mean 'coffering'.

I suspect you mean conferring.

La Liga said:

There is no evidence of the former.

Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack.

La Liga said:

police officers have to balance providing evidence and the times in which they do so, with placing themselves in a legally strong position.

So not telling the whole truth if it might not suit them.................. not exactly the moral high ground here.

[anonymous-user]

Rovinghawk said:

Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack.

Did you take a similar view with your incident with the Inspector / solicitor?

Rovinghawk said:

So not telling the whole truth if it might not suit them.................. not exactly the moral high ground here.

Where was truth or not telling it mentioned?

[davidball]

I used the word collusion because that is what I meant. Conferring over a witness statement is collusion.

I would be interested to see the evidence that it is best to wait till later to write down recallections after a stressful event. Meanwhile I will look at the psychological research on this.

[anonymous-user]

One is allowed the other is not. It'd therefore be wise the distinguish between them given that relevance.

[spaximus]

I am disappointed this is being dragged out by lawyers and the family. Duggan was a known criminal, in a car where he was known to be armed, he was shot and that was seen as justified.

Now his family don't want to accept that he was in any way guilty of actions that led to his death, by being armed in the first place.

They are suggesting he was executed, others found otherwise after hearing all the evidence. Even if this new enquiry upholds the decision, they will never agree with it as they cannot or will not accept anything but their view.

[Rovinghawk]

La Liga said:

Rovinghawk said:

Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack.

Did you take a similar view with your incident with the Inspector / solicitor?

After one of the policemen admitted to the solicitor that no offence had even allegedly been committed, evidence or its lack didn't really come into the issue.

La Liga said:

Rovinghawk said:

So not telling the whole truth if it might not suit them.................. not exactly the moral high ground here.

Where was truth or not telling it mentioned?

When you suggested that their answer might take into account a need to cover their arse.

[LastLight]

davidball said:

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.

Yes, he wasn't sinister at all, nope, a fine upstanding member of the gangster community. Which is why so many of us shed such tears at his demise and the loss of his ongoing positive contribution to society.

[Oakey]

You only haven to read that IPCC report to see he wasn't an upstanding member of the community. I assume David has already?

[anonymous-user]

The basic problem Duggan had is he was an armed criminal transporting a firearm. The more specific problem was that he had the weapon in his possession immediately before or at the time of the hard stop. If you have a firearm in your possession at the those times, then you risk being shot. If Duggan had any interest in maximising his chances of not being shot, he'd have left the gun well alone rather than trying to discard it.

Rovinghawk said:

After one of the policemen admitted to the solicitor that no offence had even allegedly been committed, evidence or its lack didn't really come into the issue.

Nor does collusion come into it when there's no evidence of it occurring.

Rovinghawk said:

When you suggested that their answer might take into account a need to cover their arse.

I was talking more about time frames in terms of how quickly they provide and account, and to what level of detail they provide initially. Even taking legal advice as to the structure and wording doesn't mean there'd be any form of dishonesty. If you were ever needing to justify a use of force, you can bet your wording would change if you took legal advice.

If they're going to be subject to an investigation which is looking at gathering evidence for murder charges and the like, then the officers are going to consider their legal position from the outset. It's as simple as that.

[heebeegeetee]

Davidball, please, I'm asking as an ordinary member of the public, will you you tell me has Duggan been involved in gun crime in his past, was he carrying a gun either on him or in that vehicle on the day?

[pork911]

La Liga said:

The basic problem Duggan had is he was an armed criminal transporting a firearm. The more specific problem was that he had the weapon in his possession immediately before or at the time of the hard stop. If you have a firearm in your possession at the those times, then you risk being shot. If Duggan had any interest in maximising his chances of not being shot, he'd have left the gun well alone rather than trying to discard it.

The final problem Dugan had was that the officer pulling the trigger says he saw him holding the gun on each shot. Regardless of any other evidence.

[Mr_B]

pork911 said:

La Liga said:

The basic problem Duggan had is he was an armed criminal transporting a firearm. The more specific problem was that he had the weapon in his possession immediately before or at the time of the hard stop. If you have a firearm in your possession at the those times, then you risk being shot. If Duggan had any interest in maximising his chances of not being shot, he'd have left the gun well alone rather than trying to discard it.

The final problem Dugan had was that the officer pulling the trigger says he saw him holding the gun on each shot. Regardless of any other evidence.

Occupational hazard I would have thought when you're a notorious scum bag criminal who thinks you should have to face zero risk when carrying a gun. Seems the moment he tossed the weapon was the time he thought he was safe, but that still involves a huge risk. It wasn't his lucky day.
His family are idiots who try and stir up a race issue and unfortunately sucker in thick black people ( mostly ) who buy into their lame defence, when they should be running a mile to be disassociated with cliche black wannabe gangster types.

[pork911]

any tips on how I might avoid a hallucinating shooter?

[Mr_B]

pork911 said:

any tips on how I might avoid a hallucinating shooter?

Best advice would be -
1, don't be a known criminal scum bag carrying a gun
2, don't get the weapon and try to toss the weapon to rid yourself of any implicating evidence and be ignorant of the risk that involves
3, don't rely on the fact the millisecond it leaves your hand you are perfectly safe and everything is perfectly clear to the Police who you know have been following you and who are instructing you otherwise.

Not following these steps may result in death, but for the 99.999999999% of everyone else in the UK, its works fine.

[pork911]

And not be a 'dusky' guy on the tube?

[anonymous-user]

pork911 said:

any tips on how I might avoid a hallucinating shooter?

Start by doing some research on stress and memory, especially in short time spans. Our brain may merge things together, change the order or erase them.

I was involved in a bit of a public order fracas involving about 50 football fans and 15 or so officers. Once it was all sorted my mate said to me, "That chap was lucky the punch you threw didn't connect with him". I thought he was joking. I had no memory whatsoever as to throwing a punch. I would have promised I didn't throw one.

When viewing the CCTV, there I was, throwing a punch at someone who had just clipped me in the side of the head. It was a pure, subconscious, instinctive response in which I did not 'record' the memory of. It was a bit of an eye-opener as to how the mind works.

The fact there are inconsistencies with the accounts of the officers is probably the best indication there was no collusion or inappropriate conferring, and that they were operating at a pure, subconscious and instinctive manner to a threat.

[Mr_B]

pork911 said:

And not be a 'dusky' guy on the tube?

Oh, you've moved on to blur it into another unrelated case ?

[RobinOakapple]

davidball said:

RobinOakapple said:

Or at least a 'truth' they are happy with.

I recommend you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan
It makes very interesting reading.

I really can't imagine the circumstances in which I would want to follow one of your recommendations.

[Oakey]

IPCC Report;

57. Mr Duggan had been arrested and interviewed for a number of offences including:

• in May 2004, in connection with the murder of Mr Gavin Smith;
• in May 2006, for the attempted murder of Mr xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; and
• in July 2007, when one round of live ammunition was found in a car in which he was a passenger.

58. On 19 March 2007, Mr Duggan attended the A&E department of North Middlesex Hospital with a gunshot wound to his right foot. The Duty Inspector for Enfield Borough recorded that he attended and spoke with Mr Duggan. Mr Duggan informed the Duty Inspector that he had been in the “Rec, Lordship Lane, N17” when he was approached by three men who asked him if his name was “Joshua”. Mr Duggan had replied “no” and he was then shot. The report stated that Mr Duggan refused to give details of the weapon used during the incident nor would he provide other material such as clothing, his mobile phone, or submit to any firearms discharge residue and DNA swabs

59. The report stated that Mr Duggan signed the Inspector’s Evidence and Action Book that he did not want any further assistance from the police. The report recorded that officers attended the “Rec” (a large park) but could find no obvious sign of a shooting. The report indicates that Mr Duggan was also spoken to by Trident officers the following day. The report recorded that Mr Duggan indicated that he thought the shooting was a case of mistaken identity. The report stated that several appointments were made with Mr Duggan to take a full statement however, on 27 March 2007, he informed officers that he did not wish to give a statement.

60. In March 2008, Mr Duggan was one of fourteen people arrested while driving a vehicle in a convoy of five cars, stopped by armed police as part of a pre-planned Trident led firearms operation. The driver of the lead vehicle was found to be in possession of a loaded firearm wrapped in a sock, tucked into the waistband of his jeans. No relevant fingerprints, DNA or other forensic evidence was recovered from the gun, the ammunition or the sock. All fourteen people were arrested for conspiracy to possess firearms, but only the driver of the lead vehicle was charged with possession of a firearm and pleaded guilty. The other thirteen (including Mr Duggan) were not charged with any offences

• “In 2006 intelligence indicated that Mark DUGGAN and his associates were involved in the supply of firearms between Manchester and London.”;

• “In April 2010, police received intelligence regarding a gang dispute which had occurred at a bar called Ekubanz in Tottenham. Various individuals were named as having produced firearms and fired shots. Mark DUGGAN was named as one of these.”;

• “In July 2010, police received intelligence that shots had been fired at a pub in Tottenham by an associate of Mark DUGGAN. Intelligence indicated that the gun used belonged to Mark DUGGAN. (On 6th July 2010 a 9mm bullet casing was found in the garage area next to the British Queen Public House, N.17 which has been forensically examined with no connections

• “In September 2010 police received anonymous information that Mark DUGGAN was walking around with a shotgun.”;

• Intelligence was received that Mark DUGGAN shot another male in the leg at a party held on Christmas Day 2010. This shooting was never reported to police by the victim. Without a victim or any evidence, Mark DUGGAN was never arrested in relation to this allegation.”; and

• “In January 2011, intelligence was received that Mark DUGGAN was taking guns into dances and that he had someone to transport these guns on his behalf. This intelligence and criminal profile formed part of the decision making to seek authority for Mark Duggan to be subject of surveillance under RIPA 2000.”

• “In February 2011, intelligence was received that Mark DUGGAN had attended a dance in Tottenham and that at the end of the night, in the car park of the venue, he fired a volley of shots into the air from a handgun. He did this openly in front of a lot of people.”

• DCI Foote stated that on 6 June 2011 intelligence suggested Mr Duggan was becoming prominent in relation to illegal drugs and firearms.

• “On 20 June 2011 I received credible intelligence that Mark Duggan had been offered for sale two firearms, a Glock and a Berretta by an associate, and that Mark Duggan also had under his control a firearm that he was seeking to sell on behalf of an unidentified party. This firearm was being stored on his behalf by a third party. This intelligence indicated that Mark Duggan had then brokered the onward sale of the Glock and Berretta to an unidentified party who wished to purchase the firearms