The Duggan Gun?
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
It means 'that which is seen'. It doesn't mean rumour, gossip or unsubstantiated claims.
You might want to familiarise yourself with 2013's judgement of the Hunt V Times libel trial where Justice Simon concluded that Hunt was the head of an organised criminal network despite him not having been convicted of a crime since the 80s. drainbrain said:
It's beyond reasonable doubt that MD was involved in so-called 'organised crime'. That's what DCI Foote appears to be saying and with good reason. And MD's involvement included proximity to firearms.
But even the 'intel' provided, whilst clearly indicating this proximity, at no time appears to suggest MD required to be hard stopped and shot. Does it?
He required to be apprehended and prosecuted for anything illegal that evidence could show he had done.
Raoul Moat required to be shot. Andrew(?) Cregan required to be shot. Duggan required to be arrested. Armed maybe but dangerous to the police or general public, no.
(IMO)
And what are you basing your opinion on? I suspect the police have a better idea of whether or not he's a threat than you do. This is a guy who had been questioned for murder and attempted murder after all. But even the 'intel' provided, whilst clearly indicating this proximity, at no time appears to suggest MD required to be hard stopped and shot. Does it?
He required to be apprehended and prosecuted for anything illegal that evidence could show he had done.
Raoul Moat required to be shot. Andrew(?) Cregan required to be shot. Duggan required to be arrested. Armed maybe but dangerous to the police or general public, no.
(IMO)
Edited by drainbrain on Thursday 5th November 10:39
May I bump this question:
Davidball, would you confirm or deny that Duggan had been involved in gun crime in his past, and more pertinently, was there a gun in that car when he was killed?
heebeegeetee said:
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?
The question is for Davidball becsuse it's interesting to be able to speak to someone on the Duggan side.Davidball, would you confirm or deny that Duggan had been involved in gun crime in his past, and more pertinently, was there a gun in that car when he was killed?
Oakey said:
And what are you basing your opinion on? I suspect the police have a better idea of whether or not he's a threat than you do. This is a guy who had been questioned for murder and attempted murder after all.
“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."
IMO the above indicates that MD may have been involved in
a)buying and selling firearms
b)carrying guns and showing them to others in bars and dance halls
c)discharging firearms into the air in the presence of others
d)discharging firearms in circumstances of heated dispute
e)(most seriously) allegedly shooting another in the leg (unsubstantiated)
These activities - if PROVED - merit (at a guess) custodial recommendations of 5 - 15 years.
NONE of these (alleged) activities appear to suggest a threat so serious that they require MD to be hard stopped and shot.
So what DID make the police suggest he was sufficiently dangerous to need stopped and shot? Being questioned (and not subsequently charged) in connection with other matters isn't (IMO) sufficient either. In fact, the opposite. Given what police appear to have known about MD, shooting him was a huge overreaction to the level of threat he was known to pose.
drainbrain said:
So what DID make the police suggest he was sufficiently dangerous to need stopped and shot? Being questioned (and not subsequently charged) in connection with other matters isn't (IMO) sufficient either. In fact, the opposite. Given what police appear to have known about MD, shooting him was a huge overreaction to the level of threat he was known to pose.
Er, that they had received intelligence that he was planning to obtain a firearm for use in retaliation to the killing of his cousin?Duggan being shot was a consequence of that, they didn't stop him with the aim of shooting him.
Oakey said:
drainbrain said:
So what DID make the police suggest he was sufficiently dangerous to need stopped and shot? Being questioned (and not subsequently charged) in connection with other matters isn't (IMO) sufficient either. In fact, the opposite. Given what police appear to have known about MD, shooting him was a huge overreaction to the level of threat he was known to pose.
Er, that they had received intelligence that he was planning to obtain a firearm for use in retaliation to the killing of his cousin?Duggan being shot was a consequence of that, they didn't stop him with the aim of shooting him.
Yes he was a criminal. Yes he was involved in firearms. He MAY even have been on the way to shoot his cousin's killer. But is that sufficient reason to justify shooting him? Not in my opinion.
Surely shooting him requires the reasonable certainty that he is likely to use any firearm he is carrying against the police who have stopped him and are about to apprehend him? What is there in his past that suggested that? He's alleged to have shot someone in the leg once. Other than that he likes showing off with guns and dealing in them. Is that enough to stop him and prepare the option to shoot him? Not in my opinion. In my opinion that's a huge over - reaction. But that's all it is, an opinion.
Oh well in future they should just ask the Pre-Cog Division as to whether he's going to use the firearm he's carrying or not, that way they can decide whether or not they should use armed police officers to apprehend an armed criminal. It all makes so much sense now you've put it like that.
You do recall what happened the last time unarmed officers attempted to arrest an armed criminal, don't you?
You do recall what happened the last time unarmed officers attempted to arrest an armed criminal, don't you?
Oakey said:
Oh well in future they should just ask the Pre-Cog Division as to whether he's going to use the firearm he's carrying or not, that way they can decide whether or not they should use armed police officers to apprehend an armed criminal. It all makes so much sense now you've put it like that.
It does, doesn't it? Then, based on the 'intel'/gossip they've gathered from their informers/other criminals/criminal associates they could work out the likelihood of him using the gun against them which in his case seems to have been pretty low/negligible. Rovinghawk said:
heebeegeetee said:
was there a gun in that car when he was killed?
Presume that there was- is that on its own sufficient grounds to kill him?Then I'll explain why I as an individual am asking.
drainbrain said:
It does, doesn't it? Then, based on the 'intel'/gossip they've gathered from their informers/other criminals/criminal associates they could work out the likelihood of him using the gun against them which in his case seems to have been pretty low/negligible.
It makes no sense because you aren't privvy to the same intelligence that the police are i.e. who the sources are, how reliable they've been in the past, etc. drainbrain said:
Oakey said:
Oh well in future they should just ask the Pre-Cog Division as to whether he's going to use the firearm he's carrying or not, that way they can decide whether or not they should use armed police officers to apprehend an armed criminal. It all makes so much sense now you've put it like that.
It does, doesn't it? Then, based on the 'intel'/gossip they've gathered from their informers/other criminals/criminal associates they could work out the likelihood of him using the gun against them which in his case seems to have been pretty low/negligible. 
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ah the wonderful flexible world of "what if...". Well, what if the cops had a very good idea (via gossip they rated as 'hi-quality intel') what this particular villain was all about and there was nothing via gossip or in his past form to suggest he'd start a shoot out with cops.
What WAS it about MD that made them think he'd suddenly escalate from medium weight gun toting showoff to the type of crime that gets him natural life? Must have been SOMETHING surely?
drainbrain said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Ah the wonderful flexible world of "what if...". Well, what if the cops had a very good idea (via gossip they rated as 'hi-quality intel') what this particular villain was all about and there was nothing via gossip or in his past form to suggest he'd start a shoot out with cops.
What WAS it about MD that made them think he'd suddenly escalate from medium weight gun toting showoff to the type of crime that gets him natural life? Must have been SOMETHING surely?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff