Duggan verdict

[steveo]

So if you had been that copper and had reason to believe he was armed would you have waited to see if he fired at you?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Many of you appear to want American style policing in the UK.

I certainly hope I never live long enough to see it happen (and I'm not planning to pop my cloggs just yet).

 

[Pubey]

So if you had been that copper and had reason to believe he was armed would you have waited to see if he fired at you?

I would have waited until I saw he had a gun and was a threat.

He didn't have a gun, he wasn't a threat.

 

[Special Blue]

Many of you appear to want American style policing in the UK.

I certainly hope I never live long enough to see it happen (and I'm not planning to pop my cloggs just yet).

How about the armed response vehicle who turned up when Lee Rigby was innocently murdered!
Not sure many would have shed a tear if the low life was shot.
To this day i haven't a clue why this wasn't the case,
It would hardly be mistaken identity.
I do agree american policing is not the way forward.
Alot of met police won't even carry tazers so your safe

 

[OldBlueLady]

I would have waited until I saw he had a gun and was a threat.

He didn't have a gun, he wasn't a threat.

For any ordinary bloke in the street, yes, I would agree. But Duggan wasn't just an "ordinary" man in the street. He had history and was known to have dealings with guns. That is what makes this case different from other so called "miscarriages of justice" where someone has been shot dead by armed police mistakenly. Of course he was a threat as both Tony and I have said earlier in this thread, live by the sword, die by the sword.

 

[steveo]

I would have waited until I saw he had a gun and was a threat.

He didn't have a gun, he wasn't a threat.

So, like Barna, you are pretty sure the copper who shot him thought he was unarmed, although as usual Barna refuses to answer the question.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So, like Barna, you are pretty sure the copper who shot him thought he was unarmed, although as usual Barna refuses to answer the question.

The important point is that the jury found he was mistaken.

"The jury decided his account of the shooting, in which he said Duggan had had a gun in his hand, was wrong."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/12/mark-duggan-marksman-return-armed-police-duties

 

[steveo]

The important point is that the jury found he was mistaken.

"The jury decided his account of the shooting, in which he said Duggan had had a gun in his hand, was wrong."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/12/mark-duggan-marksman-return-armed-police-duties

But my question to you remains unanswered:

If the Police had been certain he was unarmed, would they have shot him?

See if you can answer it Barna.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

But my question to you remains unanswered:

If the Police had been certain he was unarmed, would they have shot him?

See if you can answer it Barna.

I suggest you scroll back to post 114 in this thread for your answer.

 

[steveo]

I suggest you scroll back to post 114 in this thread for your answer.

Why don't you just answer. You can type Yes or you can type No. Its a fairly straight forward question.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Why don't you just answer. You can type Yes or you can type No. Its a fairly straight forward question.

What I think (and I have no particular opinion either way) really doesn't matter here.

What matters is the jury found that V53 was mistaken in his belief that Duggan was armed at the time he was shot dead.

 

[Pubey]

The copper thought he was armed. He was wrong. It might be lawful but he's made a grave error of judgement and that's why people are angry and upset. The police are there to protect peopl, and accidentally shooting unarmed people is not protection - irrespective of what they were trying to do.

 

[Pubey]

For any ordinary bloke in the street, yes, I would agree. But Duggan wasn't just an "ordinary" man in the street. He had history and was known to have dealings with guns. That is what makes this case different from other so called "miscarriages of justice" where someone has been shot dead by armed police mistakenly. Of course he was a threat as both Tony and I have said earlier in this thread, live by the sword, die by the sword.

Disgusting. So the same laws and principles don't apply?

 

[South Bank Hank]

Why don't you just answer. You can type Yes or you can type No. Its a fairly straight forward question.

In post 114, we learn that someone can typically throw stones at others yet dodge the question for themselves on the grounds of "I don't do hypotheticals". Thankfully, while gun crime does appear to be rising, our police force (who put their lives on the line for our benefit) aren't engaged in lethal situations on a daily basis. They therefore HAVE TO base their considerable training on hypotheticals. It shouldn't by now, but it still does amaze me how someone can paint themselves as superior in judgment when they can't even hypothetically answer a question they're criticising a hand-picked, enormously trained individual for answering in a real world, potentially life-threatening scenario.

I think there's a phrase that says 'those that can't do, teach'.
Thankfully, there's still a lot of people out there prepared to DO.

Steveo, give it up mate.

 

[South Bank Hank]

The copper thought he was armed. He was wrong. It might be lawful but he's made a grave error of judgement and that's why people are angry and upset. The police are there to protect peopl, and accidentally shooting unarmed people is not protection - irrespective of what they were trying to do.

Further proof that life isn't black or white. It was obviously an error of judgment (proven in hindsight) but it was made with an honest belief. Is that a result? Of course not. Should we question it? Of course.

But if there's a better way than screening, educating then training, continually assessing and re-training your protectors to the point of excess to act honestly in their efforts to get it right every time, then I'm genuinely all ears. How exactly would people improve the system?

Hypothetically speaking of course...

:dim:

 

[chapperzUK]

In post 114, we learn that someone can typically throw stones at others yet dodge the question for themselves on the grounds of "I don't do hypotheticals". Thankfully, while gun crime does appear to be rising, our police force (who put their lives on the line for our benefit) aren't engaged in lethal situations on a daily basis. They therefore HAVE TO base their considerable training on hypotheticals. It shouldn't by now, but it still does amaze me how someone can paint themselves as superior in judgment when they can't even hypothetically answer a question they're criticising a hand-picked, enormously trained individual for answering in a real world, potentially life-threatening scenario.

I think there's a phrase that says 'those that can't do, teach'.
Thankfully, there's still a lot of people out there prepared to DO.

Steveo, give it up mate.

Is that why Barna is an English teacher? :winking:

 

[Perth Bambi]

The copper thought he was armed. He was wrong. It might be lawful but he's made a grave error of judgement and that's why people are angry and upset. The police are there to protect peopl, and accidentally shooting unarmed people is not protection - irrespective of what they were trying to do.

They didn't accidentally shot an unarmed man. They on purposely shot a man that in their mind was armed. It's all very well quoting with hindsight. On the other hand say the policeman had not shot,
And duggan did have a gun and shot an innocent person or policeman dead. Would you have said that was ok of the pocan said 'I hesitated because I saw something and wasn't sure'

Yes as it turns out he didn't have a gun. But the policeman shot a man who he was CERTAIN was holding a gun. Whether he was wrong or not is not the issue here. Yes he was wrong and I am sure he will never forget that his actions caused the death of someone. I am not in the same boat as people who keep saying about his last. It shouldn't really matter if he was a lowlife scumbag or a saint, they should go on facts alone. In the police eyes it was a fact he was holding the gun when he shot him. If the policeman knew he didn't have a gun but shot him anyway I can see why some idiots are throwing around this execute word bit that just isn't the case.

 

[steveo]

Steveo, give it up mate.

Yes I think its time. It seem fairly obvious that the people on here complaining about the verdict, won't actually commit to saying the policeman thought Duggan was unarmed but shot him anyway.

How many people given the option of making that split second decision would have got it right knowing they could have died if they got it wrong?

I will hopefully never be put in the same position but in all honesty if it was me I would be in the shoot first and ask questions later camp.

 

[South Bank Hank]

How many people given the option of making that split second decision would have got it right knowing they could have died if they got it wrong?

...if it was me I would be in the shoot first and ask questions later camp.

You're asking those sneaky hypotheticals again aren't you!

:dim:

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Something that has gone round my head a few times. Duggan was faced with armed police. He was unarmed. Why did he pull a phone from his pocket? That seems to be really odd. Did he want the police to think it was a gun?

If I was in that situation, there is no way I am going to reach into my pocket for a phone or anything. I am going to do exactly as I am told by the police for fear of getting shot.