Mark Duggan: Tottenham shooting that led to the riots
Comments
-
daviesee wrote:1.1 That depends on the person, the gun and the situation.
1.2 It wasn't a forgone conclusion that they were in the wrong either. Turns out they were but on the night of the riot it was still unclear.
2. Very definitely.
3. My hero. The Oracle
1.1 Raoul Moat had a gun and had shot a police officer in the face. They didn't shoot him. But yes, it depends on the circumstances. But having a gun in your possession doesn't mean the police can shoot.
1.2 I think I already said that it wasn't a forgone conclusion that they were wrong.
2. Glad we agree
3. Your welcome.Wallace wrote:1.1 But it was enough of a reason for the Cops to be armed and if they had intelligence that he had a gun, he might use it.
1.2 As Daviesee, we dont know the exact movements that led to the shooting. Did he twitch, try and escape.
2. I think the problem is the misinformation that is given out in the immediate aftermath. The truth usually comes out, as it has in the case and in the Stockwell case.
3. The guy show was still a dealer and of interest to the Police and was known to be involved with firearms. Does not mean he should be shot, but..... you can see why they took no chances.
1.1 I'm not seeing how you can get round this. Regardless of whether or not the police had cause to be armed. Being in possession of a gun is not reason enough for the police to shoot. Point in case, Duggan had a gun but, without using it, was shot when he was unarmed.
1.2 I think I already asserted that it could still turn out that the police were well within their right to shoot him.
2. Nope the information that he was unarmed was well and truly buried. That's a problem.
3. Can you prove that he was a dealer. No I cannot see why they took no chances and ended his life when he was clearly unarmed.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:No, no. Like Spen I owe you an apology.
I'm not angling for an apology, and don't need one, but having checked the original thread I see I was on holiday then. I made a couple of posts, one asking what was going on (compared to the foreign news feed I was getting) and one flippant towards the end.
Just saying.0 -
I'm sorry Greg/s I meant GregT. I think I named the noted conservatives but to my suprise it was the more liberal minded lot that were disagreeing with me in that thread.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
-
DonDaddyD wrote:Wallace wrote:1.1 But it was enough of a reason for the Cops to be armed and if they had intelligence that he had a gun, he might use it.
1.2 As Daviesee, we dont know the exact movements that led to the shooting. Did he twitch, try and escape.
2. I think the problem is the misinformation that is given out in the immediate aftermath. The truth usually comes out, as it has in the case and in the Stockwell case.
3. The guy show was still a dealer and of interest to the Police and was known to be involved with firearms. Does not mean he should be shot, but..... you can see why they took no chances.
1.1 I'm not seeing how you can get round this. Regardless of whether or not the police had cause to be armed. Being in possession of a gun is not reason enough for the police to shoot. Point in case, Duggan had a gun but, without using it, was shot when he was unarmed.
1.2 I think I already asserted that it could still turn out that the police were well within their right to shoot him.
2. Nope the information that he was unarmed was well and truly buried. That's a problem.
3. Can you prove that he was a dealer. No I cannot see why they took no chances and ended his life when he was clearly unarmed.
1.1 Having a gun should not automatically mean you get shot, agreed. But I think that carrying one will make it more likely you are confronted with an armed officer. And as you say in 1.2, it could still turn out that they acted lawfully.
2. I think it came out soon afterwards that there was a weapon found, but it was not on the person. This point was all over the original thread. The original assumption that there was a firefight was wrong and I think the true facts came out fairly quickly. There were untruths told initially, but to say that it was "well and truly buried" is IMHO taking it a bit far.
3. You cannot see why they were armed and confronted him? He was known and thought to be carrying a firearm. They clearly would not know he was unarmed, and as you say in 1.2, it could still be called a "lawful" shooting. OK cant prove he was a dealer.... but he certainly was not a Sunday School preacher.
He probably did not deserve to die, but by carrying a gun (ok he wasn't at the time, but he was no strager to them) it illicets a strong response from the Police.
I am sure being a Police Officer confronting a potentially armed criminal is going to be rather a tense situation. The "criminal" must be extremely careful of their move/s. As should the police."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:
1.1 Having a gun should not automatically mean you get shot, agreed. But I think that carrying one will make it more likely you are confronted with an armed officer. And as you say in 1.2, it could still turn out that they acted lawfully.
We agree.2. I think it came out soon afterwards that there was a weapon found, but it was not on the person. This point was all over the original thread. The original assumption that there was a firefight was wrong and I think the true facts came out fairly quickly. There were untruths told initially, but to say that it was "well and truly buried" is IMHO taking it a bit far.
I agree as far as it was quickly determined that he did not shoot at the police. I believe it was after the riots and looting had been quelled that details he was unarmed was released. I believe that piece of information was deliberately "well and truly" buried. (I'm actually quoting on MS DDD on "well and truly buried").3. You cannot see why they were armed and confronted him?
No, I asked whether you could prove that he was a dealer?
I also said that I cannot why they took no chances and ended his life when he was clearly unarmed. (I wish to retract 'clearly').
(I'm tired of the conjecture) You cannot substantiate that. As much as I cannot substantiate that he was clearly unarmed, hence my retraction. What is known is that he was unarmed when shot.3. He was known and thought to be carrying a firearm. They clearly would not know he was unarmed,
What we need to know is whether the police thought he was still armed when shot and even if they thought he was armed, it is still unclear why they chose to shoot. Carrying a gun isn't reason enough to shoot.
The rest of it is going around in circles.
I think I'm right.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
No, not a back down.
I believe I did (Tell you so).
People were like "a drug dealer was shot police must have had a reason".
I was like "hang on, it's not clear why they shot him. A) being an alleged drug dealer or an unsavory type isn't enough of a reasonto be shot.
Being in possession of a gun isn't enough of a reason to be shot. C). Every other expression of negative conjecture is just peoples prejudices trying to justify the action of shooting him.
Turns out he was unarmed. It's now plausible (in mind it always was) the police were wrong for shooting him.
Told you so.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:No, not a back down.
I believe I did (Tell you so).
People were like "a drug dealer was shot police must have had a reason".
I was like "hang on, it's not clear why they shot him. A) being an alleged drug dealer or an unsavory type isn't enough of a reasonto be shot. Being in possession of a gun isn't enough of a reason to be shot. C). Every other expression of negative conjecture is just peoples prejudices trying to justify the action of shooting him.
Turns out he was unarmed. It's now plausible (in mind it always was) the police were wrong for shooting him.
Told you so.
I am not disagreeing with you. Being in possesion of a gun is in itself not a reason to be shot. However, if it is know to Police, that there is apossibility of a gun being carried, then surely you can agree that there will be an armed response. This then leads to a rather tense situation and has the potential for extreme force to be applied.
OK, I apologise for saying he was a dealer. That was wrong. He was a person of interest to the police and was thought to have picked up a weapon.
I think the story quickly emerged that he was not armed, it is covered in the original thread only a few days after the incident. However, this does not alter inconsistencies that came out in the immediate aftermath.
As you say, we still do not know the movements during the incident, so whether he tried to surrender/resist is not known."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:
I am not disagreeing with you. Being in possesion of a gun is in itself not a reason to be shot. However, if it is know to Police, that there is apossibility of a gun being carried, then surely you can agree that there will be an armed response. This then leads to a rather tense situation and has the potential for extreme force to be applied.
Yes there is need for an armed response. But it goes full circle back to the point that a gun or suspected gun in itself is not a reason to be shot no matter how tense the situation.I think the story quickly emerged that he was not armed, it is covered in the original thread only a few days after the incident. However, this does not alter inconsistencies that came out in the immediate aftermath.
No, it was initially reported that he shot at the police. Then it was reported that he didn't shoot at the police and there were questions around the gun and that a gun had been found at the scene.
Confirmation of his being unarmed was revealed as part of the subsequent inquiry to the shooting. I believe confirmation of this was given in November. The riots happened in August.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Agreed - a gun in itself is not a reason to be shot. Have not seen anyone disagreeing with this, but it puts you in a far more likely position to be shot as it illicits an armed response.
Initial report was of a firefight. But it came out in August that he did not fire and that a non Police gun was found "close" to the scene. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14510329
To my mind this suggests he was not armed."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:Agreed - a gun in itself is not a reason to be shot. Have not seen anyone disagreeing with this, but it puts you in a far more likely position to be shot as it illicits an armed response.
That's neither here nor there. You either have justifiable grounds to shoot or you don't. What if the person is suspected of being 'armed and dangerous' (as most are) is met by an armed response, is shot and then found not to be actually be 'armed and dangerous'. You cannot work on prejudice.
Harry Stanley
To me it suggests that there was no fire fight and a non-police issue gun was at the scene. It does not confirm that he was armed or unarmed.Initial report was of a firefight. But it came out in August that he did not fire and that a non Police gun was found "close" to the scene. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14510329
To my mind this suggests he was not armed.
He was unarmed when shot.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
No, but police armed response units have to work on intelligence and assessing the situation. The intelligence - apparently, and I agree that the police attempts to justify / cover up must cast some doubt on this - was that he was a known drug dealer and gang member, armed and on his way to shoot someone. If he makes a single move that they see is threatening, are they going to hold a public enquiry before opening fire?DonDaddyD wrote:That's neither here nor there. You either have justifiable grounds to shoot or you don't. What if the person is suspected of being 'armed and dangerous' (as most are) is met by an armed response, is shot and then found not to be actually be 'armed and dangerous'. You cannot work on prejudice.
Even this is just supposition, going by what evidence is in the public domain. He had been in contact with the box the gun had been in. Suppose he was carrying the gun when stopped and threw it away in panic? Would a police marksman have time to decide if that's what he was doing rather than drawing it on them?DonDaddyD wrote:He was unarmed when shot.
I fully admit that my scenario there is quite likely full of holes, and may very well be easily disproved from available evidence. But that's the point, the available evidence so far doesn't really seem to definitively pin down exeactly what happened at all.
Funnily enough, the only real evidence I can see that points to the police being incompetent or worse is the string of inconsistent and implausible statements afterwards - if they'd just said "OK, we had really good reasons to believe he was armed and threatening, turned out we misjudged it" then it might be a different story altogether.0 -
bompington wrote:
No, but police armed response units have to work on intelligence and assessing the situation. The intelligence - apparently, and I agree that the police attempts to justify / cover up must cast some doubt on this - was that he was a known drug dealer and gang member, armed and on his way to shoot someone. If he makes a single move that they see is threatening, are they going to hold a public enquiry before opening fire?DonDaddyD wrote:That's neither here nor there. You either have justifiable grounds to shoot or you don't. What if the person is suspected of being 'armed and dangerous' (as most are) is met by an armed response, is shot and then found not to be actually be 'armed and dangerous'. You cannot work on prejudice.
Where does it confirm that he was a drug dealer or gang member? That in itself doesn't justify shooting him. Nor does being suspected of carrying a gun.
He was carrying a gun though, it was said to be in a box. It was wrapped in a sock when found. The box was seperate from the gun. Forensic evidence shows that Duggan had not directly handled the gun.
It's been confirmed that he was unarmed when shot.
Equally where does it say that he did anything threatening when shot? Where does it say that he tried to escape/resisted arrest? Where does it say that he refused to surrender? What we know is that he was unarmed when shot.
It's a tough situation I know, but (i) we shouldn't act on our prejudices and leap to the police's defence everytime it is described that they have gunned down an unsavory character. (ii) it is not wrong to question the police's actions when they shoot someone. (iii) In my mind it's not good enough to hear/read "gun" and be expected that person to be shot. It becomes an excuse to justify unlawful killings at the hands of the authorities.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DDD, I agree its not a reason to be shot, however it makes it more likely. If Police stopping Joe Bloggs who they have no suspicion of carrying a gun, they would not be armed, thefore no chance of shooting him in error (or justifably). But if they suspect Bill Bloggs of carrying a gun, they will be armed and probably tense, no knowing what could happen.
Police had justifiable reason to be armed. The nitty gritty of why they opened up is yet to come out so it is speculation. It is fact he was not armed, but was suspected of being so."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
How do you ensure public safety and the safety of innocent people with something like "No knowing what could happen" looming at the end of that sentence?Wallace1492 wrote:DDD, I agree its not a reason to be shot, however it makes it more likely. If Police stopping Joe Bloggs who they have no suspicion of carrying a gun, they would not be armed, thefore no chance of shooting him in error (or justifably). But if they suspect Bill Bloggs of carrying a gun, they will be armed and probably tense, no knowing what could happen.
What is there to protect the wrongfully accused of being 'armed and dangerous' of being shot when confronted by armed police. You don't shoot based on an assumption.
Suspected of being armed isn't a justifiable reason for the police to shoot.Police had justifiable reason to be armed. The nitty gritty of why they opened up is yet to come out so it is speculation. It is fact he was not armed, but was suspected of being so.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DDD like a dog with a bone.
Tell you what. Write down the procedure that should have happened and present it to the Police for future reference.
Sorted.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
I don't believe myself that there is a racist angle to this. The Police in that area are notorious for not taking chances and to be fair on most of them it is a dangerous part of London to patrol in. There has been countless shootings by people of all ages aimed at the Police and they don't get paid enough money to be shot at, after all, it is just a job.
That said, they are extremely trigger happy in that area and the reason I say the race angle here might be not be the real reason is one just has to look at Harry Stanley (white Glaswegian), shot not far away in 1999. A similar thing happened, intelligence there was somebody armed and Harry had no respect for the Police (rightly or wrongly). He too we are told was not co-operative and was shot. Whilst the facts in Mark Duggan's case are yet to face the judiciary the Police were called to account and it went all the way to the High Court. All that was recovered from that scene was a table leg and there was never a gun. The Police in the end came in for criticism but the facts and outcome of the case point towards there needing to be a review of procedure on how events like that would be handled in the future. This is the responsibility of politicians and the Police and obviously lessons have been learnt but not enough done to avoid a repeat.
Different Police forces deal with guns differently. My native Queensland back in Australia train Police to only pull their gun once they have already made the decision it needs to be used and someone will die as a result. Go to America and I personally have been stopped in the street at night walking back to my hotel and had a gun drawn on me by both officers while reaching for my passport. As per my earlier point, they don't get paid enough to be shot at and depending on that likelyhood will depends on how itchy their trigger fingers are. These so called "Community Leaders" that only seem to be noticed when tragedies like this occur and take a pop at the Police are people who are in the position to shop these scrotes beforehand. The odd one who makes for great headlines or interviews on TV are quoted by the journalists instead creating headlines that perpetuates the barriers between the communities and Police while the real people on the street trying to make a difference remain under the radar.
Watching Neville and Doreen Lawrence tell their story is infinitely more valuable to society when it comes to dealing with racism and the Police than politicians like David Lammy who rabbit on about how big a problem he has in his area with the Police yet only seems to be seen doing something when a tragedy occurs.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
How do you ensure public safety and the safety of innocent people with something like "No knowing what could happen" looming at the end of that sentence?Wallace1492 wrote:DDD, I agree its not a reason to be shot, however it makes it more likely. If Police stopping Joe Bloggs who they have no suspicion of carrying a gun, they would not be armed, thefore no chance of shooting him in error (or justifably). But if they suspect Bill Bloggs of carrying a gun, they will be armed and probably tense, no knowing what could happen.
What is there to protect the wrongfully accused of being 'armed and dangerous' of being shot when confronted by armed police. You don't shoot based on an assumption.
Suspected of being armed isn't a justifiable reason for the police to shoot.Police had justifiable reason to be armed. The nitty gritty of why they opened up is yet to come out so it is speculation. It is fact he was not armed, but was suspected of being so.
1. They had reason to suspect he was armed, therefore an armed response was called for. Think we both agree there. We do not know what happened when confronted, so it is speculation. He may have tried to surrender, so absolutely no justification for shooting. He may have acted as if he was pulling a gun, or trying to escape, again speculation. What protects us is the training that armed Police get, and the fact that a rigourous investigation will be done. Also I do not believe the Police would fire without due provocation or a high degree of certainty that they are correct.
2. Correct being armed is not a justifiable reason to get shot. We are going round in circles and agreeing. Being armed is a justifiable reason to be confronted by armed Police, but not to be shot. We do not know the thought process or actions that led to the decision to pull the trigger.
I do not think there is a inherint shoot first policy by the Police. Yes, there have been a few well publicised instances that an unarmed person was shot, but this really is few and far between. In several instances the Police who confronted the individual were given the information that the person was armed/dangerous, so they have to take this into account. Sometimes the intelligence is wrong.
No you do not shoot based on an assumption but you act accordingly.
DDD, I we agree on this. Also it is of course correct to question the Police's actions and have them account for it."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0
