Re: Riots
 

But there was no gun, remember?... :confused: :rolleyes:

Re: Riots
 

So why did they shoot him dead if there was no gun? :confused: :rolleyes:

Re: Riots
 

Apparently it was heard in court that he planned to go and shoot someone for shooting his cousin ,sure does sound like a fine upstanding citizen ......who didn't have a gun

Re: Riots
 

Duck that low-flying sarcasm ...

Re: Riots
 

It's not actually settled what happened to Duggan yet, we know he had the gun but the inquest isn't until later in the year.

Re: Riots
 

He had a gun. He got shot. His family claimed he was a nice boy and didn't have a gun. :erm:

Re: Riots
 

I'm waiting for someone I know to explain how this gun covered with the fingerprints of Duggan and the man who gave it to him plus the blood of the man that was beaten with the gun days before came to be in the possession of the police so they could plant it on Duggan..;)

Re: Riots
 

It's a conspiracy!!!

Re: Riots
 

Yes but I think the inquiry is going to center around if he had the gun on him when he was shot. That's what I linked to previously where there continues to be some confusion on the issue.

I am not saying this is the case, nor that he was the best guy in the world. Still needs to be looked into.

Re: Riots
 

He knew the Police were behind him. He would have been well aware they were armed officers.

If he did ANYTHING other than follow the Police orders exactly then he would have known its likely the Police would open fire.

Personally I'd like to see the person who claimed at the trial she saw the Police plant the gun should be done with perjury.

Re: Riots
 

I agree but we need to ascertain the exactly circumstances of what happened.

Re: Riots
 

Me too! :tu:

Re: Riots
 

has this been posted...

DNA tag gun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk65e...e_gdata_player

Re: Riots
 

And the metpoliceuk twitter feed is now reporting

Re: Riots
 

I saw that the riots thread came active and looked in expecting a post by GaryL :LOL:

Re: Riots
 

No you've got it wrong there was NO firearm remember. :erm:

Re: Riots
 

so this was for nothing

:mad: i think ive blown a fuse listening to that again!

Re: Riots
 

Is there a specific reason why this is allowed as evidence at an inquest? Surely the only evidence should relate to whether or not the shooting was justified or not? A mothers statement would only serve as emotional ammunition to one side.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24240168

Re: Riots
 

It certainly does not come under traditional definition of a witness giving evidence which must not be opinion or hearsay but am not a legal expert.

Re: Riots
 

Sorry but I have as much sympathy for the likes of Duggan as they have for their many victims.

Re: Riots
 

Yep, politics.

---------- Post added at 10:59 ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 ----------

Yeah but don't forget he was only a (plastic) 'gangsta' because "society turned him in to one".

Re: Riots
 

Inquest has heard that it was a phone, not a gun, according to a witness. This inquest is going on a long time:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...s-8980615.html

I am still not clear on if he had a gun or not.

edit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24947695

Re: Riots
 

It sounds like the Police have got their stories sorted out. How can that guy who was so many floors up in the flat see that he had a gun??

While I do agree on some part with the Armed Police as they've got to make a snap decision which can result in the loss of a life.

Re: Riots
 

Well this is one witness amongst many in the inquest. Once it's all completed we should hopefully have a better idea.

Re: Riots
 

So a witness several floors up, whose first instinct was to make money from the footage by selling it, initially says it was a gun then changes his mind to it being a phone AFTER reading newspaper reports and admits in court he hates the Police is classed as credible when he says Duggan was executed???

Re: Riots
 

He is just a witness. These points were brought up when he was being questioned so I guess they can decide his credibility. He is only one witness among many so I doubt his word is being taken as gospel.

Re: Riots
 

The jury will decide if he's credible. At the moment he's simply a witness. TBH I think it's obvious from a mile off that he has an axe to grind.

Re: Riots
 

I know but from reading the media coverage most of them skim over his more ludicrous claims. :mad:

Re: Riots
 

Helmets at the ready...

Re: Riots
 

To get a verdict of unlawful killing the Jury needs to be sure that he didn't have a gun and sure that the officer knew that.

Re: Riots
 

Juries are funny creatures, the length of time for a decision is making me nervous.

Re: Riots
 

It seems like it was a a very complex case so I don't think that means anything either way.

Re: Riots
 

the jury have said he was lawfully killed.

Re: Riots
 

So the jury find the Duggan did not have the gun when confronted by the police but believe the officer didn't know that.

Re: Riots
 

Re: Riots
 

Yup all kicking off in court.

To be honest it's the verdict that would cause the biggest reaction.

Re: Riots
 

Riots part 2 tonight....

Re: Riots
 

If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword. Ancient wisdom that still has resonance today. Duggan may not have been in possession of a gun at the fatal moment, but he put himself at risk of exactly this end by way he conducted his life.

I hope the liberal hand-wringers and professional agitators will drop it now this verdict is in - a verdict by a jury, let us not forget, not a coroner deciding alone.

But I doubt it.

Re: Riots
 

but he had a gun and was presumably prepared to use it so yes the correct action was taken and the correct verdict imo

Re: Riots
 

So what can the family do now?

Re: Riots
 

Judicial Review maybe?

---------- Post added at 16:50 ---------- Previous post was at 16:45 ----------

Although the main reason it won't drop is because this is the worst possible verdict for drawing a line under the case. They found he didn't aim a gun or have it on him at the time police confronted him but did agree he had a gun and the police believed him to still be in possession of that gun. Everyone is going to believe they're right here. The 'hand-wringers' will point to his lack of possession of the weapon at the time of the shooting whilst others will point to the police believing he had a gun on him at the time and the fact he had a gun in the first place.

Re: Riots
 

accept that their son was a scroat and give the rest of us a break

Re: Riots
 

:sleep:

Just needs a few, and the rest will have to follow.

I was gonna go out later to get some sugar too.

Re: Riots
 

'F the Police' and destroy the High Court. yup this is definitely going to go away.

---------- Post added at 16:56 ---------- Previous post was at 16:55 ----------

:tu:

Re: Riots
 

Oh I know they won't drop it. But I can hope. The main thing to bear in mind here is that the jury's job was to weigh up precisely these arguments and this is the conclusion they have come to. A properly directed jury, fairly exposed to relevant evidence, cannot be wrong. That's just how it is. If anyone wants a judicial review they are going to have to show some evidence that the process was not fair. They cannot secure a review by simply asserting that the jury was wrong.

Re: Riots
 

I thought that's what I could hear on the BBC news report :erm:

Re: Riots
 

You still can. Were you planning to pay for it?

Re: Riots
 

ah yes.. more of this please http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424

:rolleyes: :mad:

Re: Riots
 

The verdict was presumably based on the fact the Jury decided that the officer honestly believed Duggan was armed and was going to shoot when they shot him. The decision was not based on Duggan being a 'scroat' or being an alleged criminal as the latter is not a reason to shoot someone.

Re: Riots
 

my reply was in answer to the question of "what can the family do now" not how did the jury arrive at their decision ,i stand by my answer

Re: Riots
 

Depends if it's raining or not.....

Re: Riots
 

True - chavs and plastic gangstas don't like the rain.

Re: Riots
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25363828

This is what some people just don't want to hear and frankly I fail to see how the verdict could have gone any other way.

Re: Riots
 

Just in case anyone missed this.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32041119

3 1/2 years for an investigation and no recommendation at the end for the IPCC not to give misleading info to the media after an incident.

Re: Riots in Tottenham
 

Look what I found buried in the depths of this thread, from 2011.

Funny how Arthur changed his mind about water cannon as soon as the evil Tory Boris did as Arthur asked and bought some.

Re: Riots
 

Sadly our police and the US police are too trigger happy. If they did more to contain situations and had fewer lethal outcomes we would save a lot of money on enquiries to find out if they acted appropriately. No-one wants dead policemen but families don't want dead family members simply because the police were too keen to use weapons. The 4 C mantra - Contain - Communicate - Co-operate - Control usually works most of the time. Police also need to record incidents like these on video and on high definition photographs so that the public and public enquiries can see what the police saw and heard and make a fully informed judgement.Lack of transparency tends to lead to public suspicion.

Re: Riots
 

How many shots were fired by the UK Police last year?

I think you'll find the answer means trigger happy is one of the least apt ways to describe the UK Police.

Re: Riots
 

Maybe we should ask "In how many situations were weapons used where their usage was totally unnecessary?"

Weapons are supposed to be the last option not the first.

When mentally ill people, deaf people or drunken people are killed because they do not respond to police commands you have to ask what other methods did they try before the guns came out.

I suspect that the Police were looking for the quickest solution. Holding a mobile phone might carry a death sentence for suspects in such circumstances.

Re: Riots
 

As might travelling in the back of a taxi whilst in possession of a lethal firearm - which, let us not forget, is what happened here.

Re: Riots
 

I'll actually answer that. In my opinion the answer, for firearms, in the UK is none.

In other words your argument is complete rubbish, you cannot back it up and try to divert the question away.

---------- Post added at 10:44 ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 ----------

*Community leader voice*

Noooooo, he had a box of puppies in the back he was just about to distribute to local orphans before the big bad Met Feds executed him on the street.

Re: Riots
 

You do realise that the number of officers carrying firearms is actually quite limited? AFAIK even baton use has quite strict rules governing it.

Re: Riots
 

You can't compare the UK vs USA police with firearms.
the UK are virtually zero when it comes to shooting anything that moves compared to the panicky pyscho cops in the US.

Re: Riots
 

I think you will find, as supported by these three links, that your presumptions regarding UK police are unfounded.

http://www.channel4.com/news/police-...ppy-fact-check

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...8/armed-police

http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics...lice-shootings

Re: Riots
 

Remember some of what you read on the internet is true but not all of what you read on the internet is true.You as the reader must exercise some sort of filter to discern truth or lie,fact or hyperbole.

Re: Riots
 

True, but I knew someone who was the son of a member of the Police's Firearms squad. The guns they used were kept in a locked compartment of the car and they could not even get them out (let alone fire them) without an expressed order from the most senior Police officer available.

Re: Riots
 

Now most forces have ARV crews armed with side arm and taser at all times. Other weapons are secured until needed, that way the officers can self authorise if needed.

This hasn't caused a huge spike in the number of Police shootings despite what some people would have you believe.

Re: Riots
 

Yeah, I did last speak to this guy several years ago, so I figured things might have changed. Can't remember what Firearm his dad used, but it was considerably bigger than a sidearm.

Re: Riots
 

Then again in the USA the criminals are much more likely to have guns themselves. A more valid comparison would be countries where the Police carry firearms but the criminals less so than in the US., eg Australia.

Re: Riots
 

Not even with the taser

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...omplaints.html

Re: Riots in Tottenham
 

:nworthy::clap: