The Duggan Gun?
Discussion
paddyhasneeds said:
That the police had the gun in their possession before Duggan got shot? paddyhasneeds said:
That some people won't accept that a lowlife 'Gangsta' drug dealer had a gun on him?Sounds like the 2 plod got it wrong somewhere in the first arrest and didn't recover the gun, or something along those lines ?
I caught a report on TV about it a couple of hours ago and there was already some 'community leader' moaning that the IPCC and the Police hadn't consulted the familiy and the community and that lessons hadn't been learnt from which the riots started etc etc moan moan same od story.
I caught a report on TV about it a couple of hours ago and there was already some 'community leader' moaning that the IPCC and the Police hadn't consulted the familiy and the community and that lessons hadn't been learnt from which the riots started etc etc moan moan same od story.
Nothing more than a guess here -
The gun in question was actually a Bruni blank firing replica of a Berretta 92, if the article is to be believed. I gather, from other news reports, that the gun that Duggan had was a blank firer converted to fire live rounds.
Perhaps the officers at the the first arrest recognised it as a blank firer and were unaware that these could be converted, so returned it - or it was unmodified at the time of the first offence, so was returned, and was modified to fire live rounds in the meantime.
Again, I should stae that this is pure guesswork.
The gun in question was actually a Bruni blank firing replica of a Berretta 92, if the article is to be believed. I gather, from other news reports, that the gun that Duggan had was a blank firer converted to fire live rounds.
Perhaps the officers at the the first arrest recognised it as a blank firer and were unaware that these could be converted, so returned it - or it was unmodified at the time of the first offence, so was returned, and was modified to fire live rounds in the meantime.
Again, I should stae that this is pure guesswork.
cwis said:
paddyhasneeds said:
That the police had the gun in their possession before Duggan got shot? I can't imagine the police would be so stupid to use a gun that is already evidence in an upcoming case.
I'm not well up on converted guns....do replicas have serial numbers?
If not how do they know it was the same gun?
I hate these half stories
There seems to be a lot of confusion developing around the information being reported at the moment.
If we assume these reports to be factually correct, then a logical conclusion could be that Duggan had the gun, albeit in a sock/box while he was in the taxi but when the Police stopped the car he either threw it over the fence or was holding it (or the box) at the time he was shot by the Police.
10-14 feet is not a great distance in either case so it's hardly likely to be coincidence and if the gun was in the box and he threw it, the Police couldn't be sure he was unarmed at the point they fired.
It seems that someone may be trying to infer that the gun was planted or placed at the scene by someone other than Duggan, but there's no evidence to back that up. I'm sure the family will want to believe that to be the case.
I don't think these new disclosures are going to make much difference. It seems very likely he was in possession of a loaded firearm when the Police made the stop and as we know, they don't have to wait until someone points a gun at them with finger on trigger to engage and 'neutralise the threat'. Their intelligence was correct and they acted on it. Can't see an issue unless other contradictory evidence is revealed later.
If we assume these reports to be factually correct, then a logical conclusion could be that Duggan had the gun, albeit in a sock/box while he was in the taxi but when the Police stopped the car he either threw it over the fence or was holding it (or the box) at the time he was shot by the Police.
10-14 feet is not a great distance in either case so it's hardly likely to be coincidence and if the gun was in the box and he threw it, the Police couldn't be sure he was unarmed at the point they fired.
It seems that someone may be trying to infer that the gun was planted or placed at the scene by someone other than Duggan, but there's no evidence to back that up. I'm sure the family will want to believe that to be the case.
I don't think these new disclosures are going to make much difference. It seems very likely he was in possession of a loaded firearm when the Police made the stop and as we know, they don't have to wait until someone points a gun at them with finger on trigger to engage and 'neutralise the threat'. Their intelligence was correct and they acted on it. Can't see an issue unless other contradictory evidence is revealed later.
BruceV8 said:
That Guardian report is a bit sloppy, to say the least. "No forensic evidence" doesn't mean anything if there were eyewitnesses who saw him with a gun. He was there. The gun was there. The gun didn't get its own taxi.
If Duggan had survived, the police would now have a very hard time trying to make the case stick. The defence would only have to establish doubt... http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/17/mark-dugg...
The more I read about this the more I think the Police planted the gun.
The more I read about this the more I think the Police planted the gun.
As a "logical" sequence of events, how does this sound:
[*]A gun is used in an assault by Person A. It is a "pool" gun, passed around in the criminal community. It is in a sock to frustrate forensically linking the weapon to a person. (i.e. you might link the SOCK to a person, but can you link the person to the gun through the sock, and therefore the person, to the gun, to a murder?)
[*]That gun is then transferred to Duggan in a box, which he handles.
[*}Information is passed to police that Duggan has got/is going to get a gun and use it.
[*]Police follow Duggan.
[*]The rest is history.
For me, if we've got evidence that the transfer to duggan happened with the gun in a box, and we link duggan to the box, then that is enough to say that Duggan had the gun. But I will freely admit bias. The alternatives need to be excluded.
But what is more likey? On being stopped he throws the gun, turns towards officers and is shot, or that officers plant a gun at the scene to cover up a shooting in broad daylight in a public place? I'm not saying it can't happen, just that occams razor might be judiciously applied.
FWIW I don't think there's any suggestion that the gun has ever been in police possession. If a blank firing gun/convincing replica/brocock or whatever comes into police possession, it doesn't get handed back. We'd rather pay compensation for destroying it than hand it back.
But the conspiracy theorists and those who really want there to be some other truth to all this will never be convinced.
[*]A gun is used in an assault by Person A. It is a "pool" gun, passed around in the criminal community. It is in a sock to frustrate forensically linking the weapon to a person. (i.e. you might link the SOCK to a person, but can you link the person to the gun through the sock, and therefore the person, to the gun, to a murder?)
[*]That gun is then transferred to Duggan in a box, which he handles.
[*}Information is passed to police that Duggan has got/is going to get a gun and use it.
[*]Police follow Duggan.
[*]The rest is history.
For me, if we've got evidence that the transfer to duggan happened with the gun in a box, and we link duggan to the box, then that is enough to say that Duggan had the gun. But I will freely admit bias. The alternatives need to be excluded.
But what is more likey? On being stopped he throws the gun, turns towards officers and is shot, or that officers plant a gun at the scene to cover up a shooting in broad daylight in a public place? I'm not saying it can't happen, just that occams razor might be judiciously applied.
FWIW I don't think there's any suggestion that the gun has ever been in police possession. If a blank firing gun/convincing replica/brocock or whatever comes into police possession, it doesn't get handed back. We'd rather pay compensation for destroying it than hand it back.
But the conspiracy theorists and those who really want there to be some other truth to all this will never be convinced.
I'm not aware of any serious suggestion the gun was already in police possession either.
But, it appears the brave officer / pleb (choose your prejudice) is saying he was absolutely sure duggan was brandishing the gun and preparing to fire
- we can discuss possibilities of intel was he had gun and real threat, looked like he was holding something so reasonable etc etc
but that's not what the guy who (unintentionally) killed him appears to be saying, after apparently a non-conferring 8 hour sit down with his colleagues to prepare their statements.
But, it appears the brave officer / pleb (choose your prejudice) is saying he was absolutely sure duggan was brandishing the gun and preparing to fire
- we can discuss possibilities of intel was he had gun and real threat, looked like he was holding something so reasonable etc etc
but that's not what the guy who (unintentionally) killed him appears to be saying, after apparently a non-conferring 8 hour sit down with his colleagues to prepare their statements.
The Guardian said:
a gun collected by Mr Duggan earlier in the day was recovered 10 to 14ft away, on the other side of a low fence from his body, and that he was killed outside the vehicle he was travelling in, after a police marksman fired twice.
On the day Mr Duggan was shot, there is overwhelming evidence he had obtained a firearm, but the investigation is considering whether he had the weapon in his possession when he was shot...
On the day Mr Duggan was shot, there is overwhelming evidence he had obtained a firearm, but the investigation is considering whether he had the weapon in his possession when he was shot...
- So according to the Guardian he (apparently) did collect a gun earlier in the day.
- It was only 10 to 14 feet away. If you knew the police were onto you, it would not be an entirely un-natural reaction to throw the firearm out of the way?
Bit of a thread resurrection. I googled and could have chosen from a number of threads but this one will do. I couldn't see a current thread.
Finally, the supplier of the gun has been prosecuted. Maybe this will help provide more answers as to what went on that day and the inquest on Duggan's death can now proceed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-211762...
Finally, the supplier of the gun has been prosecuted. Maybe this will help provide more answers as to what went on that day and the inquest on Duggan's death can now proceed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-211762...
24th October Duggan inquest. The BBC report
" ... W70 said he had told his legal adviser on the night of the shooting that Mr Duggan was holding a gun, but the lawyer told him to leave it out of his initial account.
He later said he was told by a solicitor that if he himself had not used force then he should not put that detail in his initial account."
Why would a lawyer advise the police officer to leave such a crucial piece of information out of his initial statement?
" ... W70 said he had told his legal adviser on the night of the shooting that Mr Duggan was holding a gun, but the lawyer told him to leave it out of his initial account.
He later said he was told by a solicitor that if he himself had not used force then he should not put that detail in his initial account."
Why would a lawyer advise the police officer to leave such a crucial piece of information out of his initial statement?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff