Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Restrictive

Metropolitan Police officer who shot Mark Duggan to be cleared

46 posts in this topic

 

The Scotland Yard firearms officer who shot Mark Duggan is set to be cleared by the police watchdog in an official report that will say he used justifiable force to tackle an armed criminal.

It is understood that the report by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the killing, which triggered the London riots, will conclude that Duggan was throwing away a handgun at the moment that he was shot dead.

The report will say the Met officer who fired the two bullets was entitled to because he believed that his life and those of his colleagues in the armed unit surrounding Duggan were in danger.

It is set to conclude that there is no credible evidence to support claims that a BBM Bruni gun found 4.35 metres (just over 14 feet) from Duggan’s body had been planted at the scene by police.

It will also dismiss as unreliable the claims of witnesses who questioned police accounts.

The findings, set to be released tomorrow, are certain to disappoint Duggan’s mother Pamela and girlfriend Precious Douaihy. They complained to the watchdog that officers involved in the shooting, on August 4, 2011, perverted the course of justice and committed misconduct in public office.

It is believed the report will say police were justified in mounting an armed operation against Duggan, citing intelligence that he was a member of the Tottenham Man Dem crime gang.

The 29-year-old was a passenger in a minicab travelling along Ferry Lane, Tottenham, when the vehicle was stopped by police.

His inquest heard he died “within 10 heartbeats” when he was shot by a Scotland Yard firearms officer known as V53.

 

 

Two days later, relatives of Duggan, accompanied by local residents, marched to Tottenham’s police station, demanding answers about the killing.

After a confrontation with riot officers, cars and buses were torched.

Looting then began as police stood back and over the next two days the disorder spread across the country, leading to five deaths and £200 million of damage.

More than 1,400 people were later jailed over the riots.

The police watchdog’s most significant finding is set to be that Duggan was throwing a BBM Bruni handgun away when he was shot twice.

That assessment clashes with the verdict of the jury at the inquest into Duggan’s death. It found last year that Duggan had been lawfully killed by police — despite no longer being in possession of the gun. The jury said  it was most likely that he  had already thrown the weapon away. The gun was found 4.35 metres away from Duggan’s body on a grass area.

The IPCC is set to conclude that V53 had a genuine belief that he had seen a gun pointing towards him as Duggan raised his arm, and opened fire to protect his life and that of his colleagues.

It will say that the firing of two shots was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances and that the investigation has found nothing to undermine the officer’s statements about the incident.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/metropolitan-police-officer-who-shot-gangster-mark-duggan-to-be-cleared-10130926.html

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obvious this would happen

 

They are covering up kids being tortured and killed so this aint nothing to them

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that it's nothing to them

It's more about the fact that they built the law surrounding things like this so they can kill people without recourse.

The premise that all an officer has to have is the BELEIF his/another officers life is in danger for killing a person to be lawful is wrong.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's my opinion?

Articulate yourself properly next time or don't push the button.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So did they prove he had a weapon? Last time I heard they didn't? Can't be arsed to follow this shit any more tbh.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The premise that all an officer has to have is the BELEIF his/another officers life is in danger for killing a person to be lawful is wrong.

it is your opinion that this premise is wrong

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you think it should be Trap God?

yes "belief" is questionable, but what would be better? - considering that they have to put the lives of those who aren't the possible threat above the life of the possible threat

 

I'm not saying it is a good way for it to be, it opens up the opportunity to kill innocents, but its hard to think of what a better way would be

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its easy to chuck around 'oh i shot him because I felt that an inner belief in me said he was gonna buss first'

 

fukouttahere

 

 

police doing that too much all over the gaff

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many fantasists on here. Acting like if you see a guy with a gun in his hand you are going to remain calm and keep yours tucked away. Can't say whether this guy was in a threatening pose or not but they got split seconds to make a choice whether they make it home that night to their families or not.

 

It's time to have all armed police wearing video cameras now anyways.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many fantasists on here. Acting like if you see a guy with a gun in his hand you are going to remain calm and keep yours tucked away. Can't say whether this guy was in a threatening pose or not but they got split seconds to make a choice whether they make it home that night to their families or not.

 

It's time to have all armed police wearing video cameras now anyways.

100%

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was he scared of an imaginary gun?

 

Well apparently the evidence said he did have a gun, and a public jury agreed with it.. But I apologise if I am wrong, I didn't realise you were actually at the scene and have all the facts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's time to have all armed police wearing video cameras now anyways.

100%

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jury, or investigators, whoever

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its easy to chuck around 'oh i shot him because I felt that an inner belief in me said he was gonna buss first'

 

police doing that too much all over the gaff

 

thats the point

 

fix was in from the get go

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the witness testimony made open to the media says he wasn't holding the gun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan#The_gun 

but I guess the jury decided that he was

 

One eyewitness said he was pinned to the ground when he was shot which the inquest found not to be true,

 

Another eyewitness said the copper told him to put the gun down twice and he didn't comply.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you think it should be Trap God?

yes "belief" is questionable, but what would be better? - considering that they have to put the lives of those who aren't the possible threat above the life of the possible threat

 

I'm not saying it is a good way for it to be, it opens up the opportunity to kill innocents, but its hard to think of what a better way would be

 

I think at the bare minimum police have to be held to the same standards of accountability that members of the public are

 

I can't just get off something by saying I believed something that doesn't match the evidence, why should they be able to?

 

Too many fantasists on here. Acting like if you see a guy with a gun in his hand you are going to remain calm and keep yours tucked away. Can't say whether this guy was in a threatening pose or not but they got split seconds to make a choice whether they make it home that night to their families or not.

 

It's time to have all armed police wearing video cameras now anyways.

The way members of the public would react to someone with a firearm is irrelevant.

 

If fully trained armed police officers in the line of duty allow thoughts of their families to cloud their judgement, they need to give their gun back or be prepared to do jail time when they make poor decisions.

/

I agree they all need cameras

Cameras are the only reason this is happening

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/03/metropolitan-police-anthony-long-charged-azelle-rodney

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

how do you think it should be Trap God?

yes "belief" is questionable, but what would be better? - considering that they have to put the lives of those who aren't the possible threat above the life of the possible threat

 

I'm not saying it is a good way for it to be, it opens up the opportunity to kill innocents, but its hard to think of what a better way would be

 

I think at the bare minimum police have to be held to the same standards of accountability that members of the public are

 

I can't just get off something by saying I believed something that doesn't match the evidence, why should they be able to?

 

Is it not the same rule as the "self defence" defence? or are police with guns given more leeway?

Actually stupid question, police are always given more leeway in regards to how they can apply force to someone

 

I dunno, I guess its because when it comes down to guns, if you're afraid of reacting then someone (other than the threat) might end up dead and that will be on you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

how do you think it should be Trap God?

yes "belief" is questionable, but what would be better? - considering that they have to put the lives of those who aren't the possible threat above the life of the possible threat

 

I'm not saying it is a good way for it to be, it opens up the opportunity to kill innocents, but its hard to think of what a better way would be

 

I think at the bare minimum police have to be held to the same standards of accountability that members of the public are

 

I can't just get off something by saying I believed something that doesn't match the evidence, why should they be able to?

 

Too many fantasists on here. Acting like if you see a guy with a gun in his hand you are going to remain calm and keep yours tucked away. Can't say whether this guy was in a threatening pose or not but they got split seconds to make a choice whether they make it home that night to their families or not.

 

It's time to have all armed police wearing video cameras now anyways.

The way members of the public would react to someone with a firearm is irrelevant.

 

If fully trained armed police officers in the line of duty allow thoughts of their families to cloud their judgement, they need to give their gun back or be prepared to do jail time when they make poor decisions.

 

Bruv, i was gonna write a long post explaining how i agree with what you're saying but at the same time don't. but i can't be bothered so all i'm gonna say is that these guys are doing a high pressure job. if you believe a suspect is armed and reaching for a firearm, you don't wait to see how it plays out. the fact they are not random members of the public means they should be trained to exercise judgement, but at the end of the day they are trained to neutralise threats.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

how do you think it should be Trap God?

yes "belief" is questionable, but what would be better? - considering that they have to put the lives of those who aren't the possible threat above the life of the possible threat

 

I'm not saying it is a good way for it to be, it opens up the opportunity to kill innocents, but its hard to think of what a better way would be

 

I think at the bare minimum police have to be held to the same standards of accountability that members of the public are

 

I can't just get off something by saying I believed something that doesn't match the evidence, why should they be able to?

 

Is it not the same rule as the "self defence" defence? or are police with guns given more leeway?

Actually stupid question, police are always given more leeway in regards to how they can apply force to someone

 

I dunno, I guess its because when it comes down to guns, if you're afraid of reacting then someone (other than the threat) might end up dead and that will be on you.

 

police are given more leeway because they are supposed to enforce authority, ie, exert control over situations and therefore people if needs be

 

if they weren't allowed to use force there would be no point in having a police force.

 

as someone who has worked with military/police special tactics units..there is no such thing as "not reacting". that is literally the worst possible scenario.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 men who beheaded a man ran at police with a knife and dusty gun

Yet they were not killed

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0