Mark Duggan inquest

debeli

I am feeling a little uncomfortable about the media coverage of the response to the inquest findings.

I've lived in places where the Police are routinely armed and in others where they are routinely violent and threatening. The British Police are neither of these things.

It is a tragedy when someone (anyone) is shot dead in the street, but this fellow does seem to have been something of a knock to the community. A man was convicted late last year of providing him with the weapon he 'wasn't carrying'. I know Tottenham well and am familiar with the sharper edge of the strictly-for-profit gang culture. His age, profile and background suggest rather more than the lovable scamp his supporters paint him as.

I have sympathy for the family and friends of the deceased, but it seems he died as he lived. It was not a murder or an execution. He was playing grow-up games and sufered a grown-up consequence. Painting him as a terribly wronged scamp convinces nobody.

fast as fupp

oh well, thats allright then.

rick_chasey

Given what happened with Charles de Menezes (appreciate it's a different case) I'm a fair bit more sceptical about the Met than I ever used to be.

I can see why people are angry with the police, and are using this as a vehicle to vent their frustration, regardless of the details of particular case.

tim_wand

Were is the comparison with De Menezes. He was killed 14 days post 7/7 Whilst police were monitoring the block of flats he was living in which was occupied by another group planning further bombings in London.

Duggan was known to be carrying a hand gun that he had just collected from a known gang associate (for what purpose was he off to do a bit of vermin control?)

There is some argument that the intelligence in the De Menezes case was completely flawed and they only tailed him from the flats to Stockwell Tube because he fitted the Profiling of the group they were monitoring. He then panicked when challenged for reasons which are not entirely clear.

Duggan like it or not was at some point in possession of a Hand gun , and although I doubt very much (with the advantage of hindsight) that he still had that weapon when the firearms officer decided to engage him, I for one would not have liked to have made that call.

The simple matter of the fact is If he never had at any point had a gun , its highly unlikely he would have been engaged by firearms officers in the first place.

De menezes however played no part in his tragic killing.

Its very very easy to bash our Police and security services. Just remember these are the same Group of officers who went from containing Lee Rigby's killers , to giving them First aid in a matter of seconds in Woolwich .

GiantMike

Debeli wrote:

His age, profile and background suggest rather more than the lovable scamp his supporters paint him as.

I'm sure he had an entirely innocent reason to be in a cab with an illegal firearm. Probably had nothing to do with his membership of a local gang.

buckles

I thought innocence or guilt was for the courts to decide?

arran77

Buckles wrote:

I thought innocence or guilt was for the courts to decide?

No it's for the Bike Radar jury

Bozman

You live by the sword you die by the sword.

VTech

I always try to look at things from the side of the person harshly dealt with (you all know as many here constantly give me stick about it) but I know now, and have since a kid that if I carry a gun I have a chance of getting myself into quite a shi*tstorm of trouble.
There is no reason in my life or that of any of my friends where would need to carry a gun and so we don't.
Ive never been shot by the police.

Its sad the price was life but on a spectrum scale, it is known that the high and low level of punishment incorporates a minimum sentence of Jail and a maximum of life.
Thats to me, someone who doesn't go to the police station weekly or monthly.
To "gang" members who know far more about the laws I would guess they were all fully aware of the punishments possible.

Herbsman

Of course, life is that simple, logical and sensible decisions are easy for everybody, nobody out there is desperate or vulnerable at any point in their life or gets pressured or forced into anything by other people, etc. Why don't we just kill everyone who does bad things... I'm sure that'll fix the root cause of the problem.

If the police make a questionable action that leads to a fatality then damn right it should be fully investigated an no stone left unturned no matter who it is they killed.

Media coverage is never going to be fair, accurate or balanced. Deal with it.

natrix

Buckles wrote:

I thought innocence or guilt was for the courts to decide?

Exactly, and he'd only ever been found guilty of minor offences like cannabis possession.

Let's not forget that the Police initially claimed that Duggan fired at them first and that they then shot back in self defence. Once that was revealed as a pack of lies, anything they said subsequently was going to be viewed with suspicion whether it was true or not.

DeVlaeminck

It's a difficult one, the police story doesn't seem believable. There was no forensic evidence he'd held a gun, the gun that was found or the sock it was found in. Nobody saw him throw the gun. The officers were allowed to sit together the next day and confer over their statements and then refused to answer questions. A lot seems to depend on faith that the police wouldn't lie.

rick_chasey

tim wand wrote:

Were is the comparison with De Menezes. He was killed 14 days post 7/7 Whilst police were monitoring the block of flats he was living in which was occupied by another group planning further bombings in London.

Duggan was known to be carrying a hand gun that he had just collected from a known gang associate (for what purpose was he off to do a bit of vermin control?)

There is some argument that the intelligence in the De Menezes case was completely flawed and they only tailed him from the flats to Stockwell Tube because he fitted the Profiling of the group they were monitoring. He then panicked when challenged for reasons which are not entirely clear.

Duggan like it or not was at some point in possession of a Hand gun , and although I doubt very much (with the advantage of hindsight) that he still had that weapon when the firearms officer decided to engage him, I for one would not have liked to have made that call.

The simple matter of the fact is If he never had at any point had a gun , its highly unlikely he would have been engaged by firearms officers in the first place.

De menezes however played no part in his tragic killing.

Its very very easy to bash our Police and security services. Just remember these are the same Group of officers who went from containing Lee Rigby's killers , to giving them First aid in a matter of seconds in Woolwich .

It's not a comparison. Where do I make a comparison?

I just feel that after that I no longer take what the police say about police killings necessarily at face value.

But like I said. This case is not actually about Duggan. It's a vehicle which people are using to vent their anger at the police and how they treat certain minorities / poor.

joelsim

He's a dodgy geezer, no doubt about that.

bompington

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's a difficult one, the police story doesn't seem believable. There was no forensic evidence he'd held a gun, the gun that was found or the sock it was found in. Nobody saw him throw the gun. The officers were allowed to sit together the next day and confer over their statements and then refused to answer questions. A lot seems to depend on faith that the police wouldn't lie.

A lot of truth in that, but on the other hand, a lot of the reaction seems to be based on faith that the police always lie, not to mention the belief that the police go roaming around looking for black men to shoot.
As usual, it would seem the truth lies somewhere between - I'm guessing a hasty reaction by police when a man they knew to be armed got out of the cab in a hurry, and a genuine belief by the shooting officer that he was pulling, or was about to, pull a gun - but then the story was massaged a bit in post-production.
The decision to go Gopro seems sensible.

VTech

bompington wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's a difficult one, the police story doesn't seem believable. There was no forensic evidence he'd held a gun, the gun that was found or the sock it was found in. Nobody saw him throw the gun. The officers were allowed to sit together the next day and confer over their statements and then refused to answer questions. A lot seems to depend on faith that the police wouldn't lie.

A lot of truth in that, but on the other hand, a lot of the reaction seems to be based on faith that the police always lie, not to mention the belief that the police go roaming around looking for black men to shoot.
As usual, it would seem the truth lies somewhere between - I'm guessing a hasty reaction by police when a man they knew to be armed got out of the cab in a hurry, and a genuine belief by the shooting officer that he was pulling, or was about to, pull a gun - but then the story was massaged a bit in post-production.
The decision to go Gopro seems sensible.

There is a certain amount of truth in that though (to a degree of course).
When I was at school in the 1980's we had a group of friends who were best buddies from aged 11 and many still now and in our group there were around 11 of us and only one was black, in fact he was the only black lad (actually half-cast) in the school at that time.
We used to get stopped by the police regularly and they ALWAYS went to him, never to anyone else and it wasn't right.
He has never broken the law that I know of and had made a decent go of life but thats what happened to us.

I got stopped once and told the policeman that I needed to catch this last bus and he kept me until the bus pulled away and let me go, I had to walk 11 miles home !!!

Pross

natrix wrote:

Buckles wrote:

I thought innocence or guilt was for the courts to decide?

Exactly, and he'd only ever been found guilty of minor offences like cannabis possession.

Let's not forget that the Police initially claimed that Duggan fired at them first and that they then shot back in self defence. Once that was revealed as a pack of lies, anything they said subsequently was going to be viewed with suspicion whether it was true or not.

Let's not forget that a judge and jury have sat through a 3 month inquest listening to all the evidence and witness statements, advised of the definition of what would have constituted behaving illegally and by a 4-1 majority decided the police had not acted illegally. Obviously that isn't as robust as forming a decision based on a few sketchy reports in the media but it is how the legal system works.

I'd love to see how some people would react when they have to make a split second decision that could result in them either being killed if they don't act or being accused of 'murder' if they do. Some people have enough problems trying to decide whether they should get a 54cm or 56cm bike without being re-assured!

rick_chasey

The main question I have is why the police felt it necessary and the best course of action to lie to the IPCC when they first investigated the case, saying Mark fired at them when he didn't.

natrix

I can accept that the police officer made a split second decision and did what he thought was right.

However, it wasn't a split second decision to brief the press that Duggan had fired at the police............

bdu98252

Perhaps Mark was coming out of gang culture and fancied a career in badger culls. Unfortunately he had not read the small print and realised that a hand gun was not going to cut in the harsh world of badger culling. As an unlikely coincidence he met a police officer who really liked badgers and as the say the rest is history.

Even thinking of this story makes me want to loot the high street to see just how much free stuff I can get before the Police catch up with me. Anyone for some freshly stolen Nike Air Max.

lesfirth

Police shot a convicted criminal in Warrington in similar dodgy circumstances. He was white, Mark Duggan was not. I have no sympathy for either. Colour has nothing to do with it.
I do not like the way the police handled the aftermath but if the consequence of getting your job a bit wrong was a murder charge I think the tactical firearms unit would have a few vacancies.

southdownswolf

The only sad part for me, is that a portion of our society is now in such a state, that the police have to make these decisions.

Bozman

Dodgy point, if Mr Duggan had been white would you get this level of coverage by the Beeb(The BBC were camped outside the local nick in Tottenham last night just waiting for it to kick off ), would the white community be up in arms saying that he'd been executed by the police and would all the lefties come out of the woodwork slamming the police and backing the local community.

slowmart

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.

Which is the whole point. We ask the police to put themselves in harms way and then try and second guess their actions which in some instances are down to decisions made in seconds in a potentially lethal situation.

Frank the tank

People make lifestyle choices, people make mistakes.

Duggan made the choice to become associated with men of violence, invariably such men come into conflict with the police. On this occasion he was apprehended on his way to probably commit an act of violence (hence he was carrying a gun). He was shot dead whilst unarmed, the officer had a call to make hindsight is 20/20, he made a mistake in a very dangerous situation it turned out to be a fatal one.

I have never felt the need to go out carry any kind of weapon and while I can't guarantee I'll never get shot dead by an armed response police officer I would say the lifestyle I live would make it highly unlikely. However if I was a member of a street gang or involved in armed criminality I would be greatly increasing my chances of coming to such an end. Or even more likely coming to the same end but at the hand of some other hood.

Men of such violence get no sympathy from the massive majority of the general public, me included.

Colinthecop

DeVlaeminck wrote:

It's a difficult one, the police story doesn't seem believable. There was no forensic evidence he'd held a gun, the gun that was found or the sock it was found in.

That's why bad people carry guns within socks, the chances of forensic exchange are greatly reduced.

Even if the gun is fired within the sock, the chances of residue being found on their hands is also greatly reduced.

Lets not forget a man is currently in prison having been convicted of handing Duggan a gun before he got into the minicab.

DeVlaeminck

Wouldn't there be some DNA on the sock though ? And wouldn't someone have seen him chuck the gun too ? And why would they claim he had fired at them ? And why would a witness say Duggan appeared to be surrendering ?

Duggan may well of had a gun in the cab - but it seems there is at least a reasonable chance that it found its way from the cab to the spot it was found after Duggan had been shot.

Colinthecop

Probably not, a human hand touching fabric is about the worst combination for the transfer of DNA.

If he'd spanked his monkey in to it, that would be entirely different.

VTech

Frank the tank wrote:

People make lifestyle choices, people make mistakes.

Duggan made the choice to become associated with men of violence, invariably such men come into conflict with the police. On this occasion he was apprehended on his way to probably commit an act of violence (hence he was carrying a gun). He was shot dead whilst unarmed, the officer had a call to make hindsight is 20/20, he made a mistake in a very dangerous situation it turned out to be a fatal one.

I have never felt the need to go out carry any kind of weapon and while I can't guarantee I'll never get shot dead by an armed response police officer I would say the lifestyle I live would make it highly unlikely. However if I was a member of a street gang or involved in armed criminality I would be greatly increasing my chances of coming to such an end. Or even more likely coming to the same end but at the hand of some other hood.

Men of such violence get no sympathy from the massive majority of the general public, me included.

I think you kind of hit the nail on the head.
If we thought about it like we do an insurance policy which in fairness probably covers most aspects of life.

1) You act lawfully, don't associate with criminals and don't beat the cr*p out of your wife = you get a 60% discount and a decent chance that your door isn't going to be kicked off by the police.

2) You smoke the odd joint, have loud parties and fiddle the benefits = whilst your not a sociapathic criminal, you do have the chance of getting yourself into a slight degree of trouble, still unlikely to have your head blown off. You also get no discount on your life insurance policy but they don't load it.

3) You are part of a gang, you carry a knife and occasional gun, you commit robbery and sell class A drugs = You are refused life cover and the chances of having your head split open is increased by 20,000;1

This may sound daft but yesterday I had to fill in the medical cover for me and the staff and it is all about life choices, do you smoke, do you take part in dangerous activities, do you this, do you that and so many things relate to this.

You may be the weekend cyclist who accidentally falls and kills himself on the side of the road but I guarantee you that the odds of that happening are far less than if your weekend pastime was bank robbery.

I know little about this case, to be honest they do my head in as when the word gang comes into subjects I just shut off from it. So many decent people getting drawn into these types of lifestyle is a sick waste of time, energy and life.

GiantMike

While I'm struggling to rouse any sympathy, I do think it's important that the process of the IPCC and Inquest are fair and have the correct level of scrutiny. Internal Police investigations will always lead to suspicion to collusion and dishonesty, and a long history of malicious Police action and force cover-ups has made the situation worse.

As a result, regardless of what people think about Duggan, a lot of people believe the Police to be a bunch of semi-competent liars, based on a few dodgy coppers over the years. And if you live in the kind of areas where the Duggans of this world operate, you're more than likely to believe the rumours on the street than read the court transcript (or even understand it if you do).

laurentian

If a verdict of Unlawful Killing had been arrived at, would the police officer who pulled the trigger be guilty of it or would it be the Police Force?