The Duggan Gun?
Discussion
Otis Criblecoblis said:
In all fairness, the appeal judgement was weak.In my albeit limited experience, one does have to explicitly describe what “reasonable” means and when it should be applied.
In this case, the jury were not so directed, and the appeal seemed to be based at least in part on this point.
In the wider sense, I still have considerable misgivings about the case. I struggle to believe that an honest belief that a burglar has a gun wouldn’t get you off on the basis of self defence if you killed him, even if your honest belief was somebody else shouting “he’s got a gun.”
Anyhow, the civil case will be interesting.
I've just read the IPCC report and the coroners recommendations.
My view is, lots of intel that MD was dodgy and dangerous, the Police had thought he had just purchased a gun, when stopped he appeared to come out of the vehicle towards the police officer - if I was the officer I probably would have shot him anyway - whether I could see the gun or not.
There is some conflict in the case though because I do struggle to see how he could have flung the gun over the railings after being shot - so the IPCC explanation seems like the best balance (he was throwing it just before he was shot).
With regards to the intel - either one his his best mates was stitching him up (as the intel was very strong and fresh) or it was come from somesort of phone tap. I note that the iPCC and Coroner comment that some type of intel cannot be discussed in public and this seems to relate to telephone itercepts. Maybe it was Duggans text messages. One would thing if they could directly listen into his calls (assuming thats possible) they would have had far better information).
As others have siad, it was his own actions after the stop which led to his death.
Couple of other points
- would make a good movie - its oging to be inevitable surely.
- the investigation with the Met Polcie and IPCC was very confusing and as the Coroner stated in his report this led to some confusion.
In relation to the civil claim - given that both the inquest and the IPCC basically say that Duggan probably did not have the gun in his hand - there may be a possibility that the civil court finds in their favour
My view is, lots of intel that MD was dodgy and dangerous, the Police had thought he had just purchased a gun, when stopped he appeared to come out of the vehicle towards the police officer - if I was the officer I probably would have shot him anyway - whether I could see the gun or not.
There is some conflict in the case though because I do struggle to see how he could have flung the gun over the railings after being shot - so the IPCC explanation seems like the best balance (he was throwing it just before he was shot).
With regards to the intel - either one his his best mates was stitching him up (as the intel was very strong and fresh) or it was come from somesort of phone tap. I note that the iPCC and Coroner comment that some type of intel cannot be discussed in public and this seems to relate to telephone itercepts. Maybe it was Duggans text messages. One would thing if they could directly listen into his calls (assuming thats possible) they would have had far better information).
As others have siad, it was his own actions after the stop which led to his death.
Couple of other points
- would make a good movie - its oging to be inevitable surely.
- the investigation with the Met Polcie and IPCC was very confusing and as the Coroner stated in his report this led to some confusion.
In relation to the civil claim - given that both the inquest and the IPCC basically say that Duggan probably did not have the gun in his hand - there may be a possibility that the civil court finds in their favour
Edited by Mojooo on Sunday 24th March 22:29
j_4m said:
Halb said:
Are the family just greedy for cash then? The fella had a gun, that's not dispute, but he lobbed it unbeknownst to anyone?
They’ve got to replace that drig money income somehow.
t load of heroin and get let off completely because she’s won the ghetto lottery. Scared of touching her because the local youths will riot at the injustice.
Pesty said:
j_4m said:
Halb said:
Are the family just greedy for cash then? The fella had a gun, that's not dispute, but he lobbed it unbeknownst to anyone?
They’ve got to replace that drig money income somehow.t load of heroin and get let off completely because she’s won the ghetto lottery. Scared of touching her because the local youths will riot at the injustice.
Halb said:
Are the family just greedy for cash then? The fella had a gun, that's not dispute, but he lobbed it unbeknownst to anyone?
Not sure I'd agree with "that's not [in] dispute" - very hard to reconcile the witness and police testimony, and shocking to me that the police should be allowed to sit together and "agree their stories"...skwdenyer said:
Halb said:
Are the family just greedy for cash then? The fella had a gun, that's not dispute, but he lobbed it unbeknownst to anyone?
Not sure I'd agree with "that's not [in] dispute" - very hard to reconcile the witness and police testimony, and shocking to me that the police should be allowed to sit together and "agree their stories"...Conferring warning said:
“As a matter of general practice, officers should not confer with others before making their accounts (whether initial or subsequent accounts). The important issue is to individually record what their honestly held belief of the situation was at the time force was used. There should therefore be no need for an officer to confer with others about what was in their mind at the time force was used. If, however, in a particular case a need to confer on other issues does arise, then, in order to ensure transparency and maintain public confidence, where some discussion has taken place, officers must document the fact that this has taken place; The issues discussed; With whom; The reasons for discussion.”
La Liga said:
skwdenyer said:
Halb said:
Are the family just greedy for cash then? The fella had a gun, that's not dispute, but he lobbed it unbeknownst to anyone?
Not sure I'd agree with "that's not [in] dispute" - very hard to reconcile the witness and police testimony, and shocking to me that the police should be allowed to sit together and "agree their stories"...Conferring warning said:
“As a matter of general practice, officers should not confer with others before making their accounts (whether initial or subsequent accounts). The important issue is to individually record what their honestly held belief of the situation was at the time force was used. There should therefore be no need for an officer to confer with others about what was in their mind at the time force was used. If, however, in a particular case a need to confer on other issues does arise, then, in order to ensure transparency and maintain public confidence, where some discussion has taken place, officers must document the fact that this has taken place; The issues discussed; With whom; The reasons for discussion.”
skwdenyer said:
La Liga said:
skwdenyer said:
Halb said:
Are the family just greedy for cash then? The fella had a gun, that's not dispute, but he lobbed it unbeknownst to anyone?
Not sure I'd agree with "that's not [in] dispute" - very hard to reconcile the witness and police testimony, and shocking to me that the police should be allowed to sit together and "agree their stories"...Conferring warning said:
“As a matter of general practice, officers should not confer with others before making their accounts (whether initial or subsequent accounts). The important issue is to individually record what their honestly held belief of the situation was at the time force was used. There should therefore be no need for an officer to confer with others about what was in their mind at the time force was used. If, however, in a particular case a need to confer on other issues does arise, then, in order to ensure transparency and maintain public confidence, where some discussion has taken place, officers must document the fact that this has taken place; The issues discussed; With whom; The reasons for discussion.”
skwdenyer said:
La Liga said:
skwdenyer said:
Halb said:
Are the family just greedy for cash then? The fella had a gun, that's not dispute, but he lobbed it unbeknownst to anyone?
Not sure I'd agree with "that's not [in] dispute" - very hard to reconcile the witness and police testimony, and shocking to me that the police should be allowed to sit together and "agree their stories"...Conferring warning said:
“As a matter of general practice, officers should not confer with others before making their accounts (whether initial or subsequent accounts). The important issue is to individually record what their honestly held belief of the situation was at the time force was used. There should therefore be no need for an officer to confer with others about what was in their mind at the time force was used. If, however, in a particular case a need to confer on other issues does arise, then, in order to ensure transparency and maintain public confidence, where some discussion has taken place, officers must document the fact that this has taken place; The issues discussed; With whom; The reasons for discussion.”
I think the issue was there was opportunity to confer rather than it being proven they did so. That's from searching for "confer" in the IPCC report and the prevention of death report from the coroner so I may have missed something. I understand the policies and procedures have been updated since the issues which were arisen from the Duggan shooting around this subject. The coroner makes reference to the Met updating theirs in his report.
It's quite a complex area as there's balance between providing evidence and information vs the over-arching risk to the officers whom are going to be investigated with a view to see if there's sufficient evidence to prosecute them for murder etc.
Now if you or I killed someone, there's no way we'd give an account / statement until we had taken legal advice because we'd want to do all we could to minimise the chances of being prosecuted and we'd do that by knowing what evidence the investigators have against us through disclosure. The police don't have that luxury (although if I'd killed anyone when a police officer I wouldn't have provided anything until I'd taken legal advice).
It's an ambiguous tightrope. Usually you're either a witness or a suspect, not both, as the information you provide will usually depend on which one you are.
In any event, armed officers (unless not practical if undercover etc) should all be wearing cameras these days.
La Liga said:
skwdenyer said:
La Liga said:
skwdenyer said:
Halb said:
Are the family just greedy for cash then? The fella had a gun, that's not dispute, but he lobbed it unbeknownst to anyone?
Not sure I'd agree with "that's not [in] dispute" - very hard to reconcile the witness and police testimony, and shocking to me that the police should be allowed to sit together and "agree their stories"...Conferring warning said:
“As a matter of general practice, officers should not confer with others before making their accounts (whether initial or subsequent accounts). The important issue is to individually record what their honestly held belief of the situation was at the time force was used. There should therefore be no need for an officer to confer with others about what was in their mind at the time force was used. If, however, in a particular case a need to confer on other issues does arise, then, in order to ensure transparency and maintain public confidence, where some discussion has taken place, officers must document the fact that this has taken place; The issues discussed; With whom; The reasons for discussion.”
I think the issue was there was opportunity to confer rather than it being proven they did so. That's from searching for "confer" in the IPCC report and the prevention of death report from the coroner so I may have missed something. I understand the policies and procedures have been updated since the issues which were arisen from the Duggan shooting around this subject. The coroner makes reference to the Met updating theirs in his report.
It's quite a complex area as there's balance between providing evidence and information vs the over-arching risk to the officers whom are going to be investigated with a view to see if there's sufficient evidence to prosecute them for murder etc.
Now if you or I killed someone, there's no way we'd give an account / statement until we had taken legal advice because we'd want to do all we could to minimise the chances of being prosecuted and we'd do that by knowing what evidence the investigators have against us through disclosure. The police don't have that luxury (although if I'd killed anyone when a police officer I wouldn't have provided anything until I'd taken legal advice).
It's an ambiguous tightrope. Usually you're either a witness or a suspect, not both, as the information you provide will usually depend on which one you are.
In any event, armed officers (unless not practical if undercover etc) should all be wearing cameras these days.
 The officers wrote their statements in the same room around a
collection of tables but separately from each other;
 The statements were written in segments with each segment being
discussed and then written up individually;
 If an officer finished writing a segment they could take a break until
every officer had completed that segment which is why the process
took a long time;
 There was no discussion about the segment covering Mr Duggan
getting out of the minicab and the shooting because everyone saw
this from a different angle and direction so everyone had a different
account of what they saw and heard; and
 The officers did not look at each other’s statements at the end of
the process.
Bigends said:
From the inquest -
? The officers wrote their statements in the same room around a
collection of tables but separately from each other;
? The statements were written in segments with each segment being
discussed and then written up individually;
? If an officer finished writing a segment they could take a break until
every officer had completed that segment which is why the process
took a long time;
? There was no discussion about the segment covering Mr Duggan
getting out of the minicab and the shooting because everyone saw
this from a different angle and direction so everyone had a different
account of what they saw and heard; and
? The officers did not look at each other’s statements at the end of
the process.
Did all the officers state this? Did they discuss it first? ? The officers wrote their statements in the same room around a
collection of tables but separately from each other;
? The statements were written in segments with each segment being
discussed and then written up individually;
? If an officer finished writing a segment they could take a break until
every officer had completed that segment which is why the process
took a long time;
? There was no discussion about the segment covering Mr Duggan
getting out of the minicab and the shooting because everyone saw
this from a different angle and direction so everyone had a different
account of what they saw and heard; and
? The officers did not look at each other’s statements at the end of
the process.
If the five figure sum was in the order of 10,000, that is a nuisance payment to save public expense and eliminate litigation risk. If the sum was more like 99,000 that might be a substantive deal. Bear in mind that the Met would have had to pay a six figure sum to go to trial, and if successful might not have recovered costs from the family. Public bodies facing litigation risk have to weigh up whether it is better to fight or deal on a daily basis. Taking a stand on principle is a luxury for the very rich and the very poor, not available to a publicly funded body.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff