Mark Duggan - BBC documentary

[LlcoolJ]

That is a far cry from your irresponsible generalisation of a few posts back. It may be as you describe, but I am sure that this applies to a very small minority.

I'd suggest that you haven't got a clue what you're on about and I'd leave it if I were you. There was no "irresponsible generalisation" unless you're someone who chooses to interpret something completely incorrectly in order to start an argument.

 

[mikeyjh]

What about one or two seconds earlier? Or maybe just a micro second? Or even a nano second perhaps? Maybe when the shot was fired the gun was just about leaving his palm? None of us were there and will never truly know including the experts. But he was still a knob prepared to carry an illegal firearm when already aware of police interest in him, shit happens huh?

His right arm (the one that he allegedly had the gun in) was bent and across his body when he was shot, that's not disputed (apart from by 1 witness who claimed he had his hands up), the experts have said that it's extremely unlikely that he could have thrown the gun once shot. Indeed, I don't think the police have even claimed that happened. That none of the police who were sharply focused on the 'gun' saw him throw it is simply not believable.

 

[wellquickwoody]

His right arm (the one that he allegedly had the gun in) was bent and across his body when he was shot, that's not disputed (apart from by 1 witness who claimed he had his hands up), the experts have said that it's extremely unlikely that he could have thrown the gun once shot. Indeed, I don't think the police have even claimed that happened. That none of the police who were sharply focused on the 'gun' saw him throw it is simply not believable.

Experts were not at the scene, and they only use the term 'unlikely'. Meanwhile Duggan was a known criminal under surveillance which even he knew about, and no one has denied he collected the gun from the other crim, but you keep on worrying about semantics.

 

[drew]

His right arm (the one that he allegedly had the gun in) was bent and across his body when he was shot, that's not disputed (apart from by 1 witness who claimed he had his hands up), the experts have said that it's extremely unlikely that he could have thrown the gun once shot. Indeed, I don't think the police have even claimed that happened. That none of the police who were sharply focused on the 'gun' saw him throw it is simply not believable.

Fact is no one knows how the gun got there. The three theories are that he threw it there as he was shot, it was put there by the Police or that he threw it there before he got out of the taxi. It was reported that the first time the Police at the scene saw him was when he was already partially out of the taxi so there was an opportunity for him to throw it through the open door over the fence. That is what one of the experts on the programme believed happened.

 

[mikeyjh]

Experts were not at the scene, and they only use the term 'unlikely'. Meanwhile Duggan was a known criminal under surveillance which even he knew about, and no one has denied he collected the gun from the other crim, but you keep on worrying about semantics.

Hang on a second, I'm not sure whether he had a gun on him or not is a semantic! I get it, I agree, he put himself in a situation he didn't have to and there's not an awful lot of sympathy but does that mean we cannot question the Police's behaviour? Are we not allowed to question why Hutchinson-Foster was allowed to hand over the gun to Duggan in the first place? They knew about Hutchinson-Foster, they knew that he had guns and that he had used them so why didn't they go after him?

 

[GT49er]

Hang on a second, I'm not sure whether he had a gun on him or not is a semantic! I get it, I agree, he put himself in a situation he didn't have to and there's not an awful lot of sympathy but does that mean we cannot question the Police's behaviour? Are we not allowed to question why Hutchinson-Foster was allowed to hand over the gun to Duggan in the first place? They knew about Hutchinson-Foster, they knew that he had guns and that he had used them so why didn't they go after him?

Or better still, both of them!

 

[Tooting Gull]

I thought it was a pretty balanced documentary - there was something there for everyone. The guy was clearly no angel, but you were left with the feeling that death by shooting in that fashion, whether 'reasonable' in the circumstances or not, might have been avoided in a number of ways earlier on.

If this had been in the 1980s I wouldn't have believed a word the police involved said, because they had shown at that time in many cases that their loyalty to each other was far greater than any desire to see justice done or the truth come out.

By the time of the Duggan shooting I'm sure we all hope things had changed, which makes some of the conflicting testimony odd, notably who found the gun. The most likely thing to me was that he chucked the gun over the fence either from the car or after. If so, very strange not a single police officer claims to have seen it. But then if they had testified that, less justification to shoot the bloke?

And I can only imagine that come of the intelligence considerations relate to dangerous criminals still at large and under surveillance, because otherwise there is no reason not to see it all when someone has been killed in these circumstances. If that is not the case, it should be made public. Any other reason - including embarrassing questions for those involved - is not good enough.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Hang on a second, I'm not sure whether he had a gun on him or not is a semantic! I get it, I agree, he put himself in a situation he didn't have to and there's not an awful lot of sympathy but does that mean we cannot question the Police's behaviour? Are we not allowed to question why Hutchinson-Foster was allowed to hand over the gun to Duggan in the first place? They knew about Hutchinson-Foster, they knew that he had guns and that he had used them so why didn't they go after him?

The murky world of informants and whether it's ok to let them get away with crimes in exchange for information? I've no idea if this was the case but it smells rather strongly of grass.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Hang on a second, I'm not sure whether he had a gun on him or not is a semantic! I get it, I agree, he put himself in a situation he didn't have to and there's not an awful lot of sympathy but does that mean we cannot question the Police's behaviour? Are we not allowed to question why Hutchinson-Foster was allowed to hand over the gun to Duggan in the first place? They knew about Hutchinson-Foster, they knew that he had guns and that he had used them so why didn't they go after him?

Sounds a bit like complaining about being caught for speeding when others around you were not, it makes not one jot of difference. And not sure whether he had a gun or not? You have just reiterated an undisputed fact that the other crim handed it to him . Question the behaviour of the police? Well, yes, fine, but at least do it when the 'supposed' victim is worthy of our attention. Good day to you sir.

 

[Hastings gull]

I'd suggest that you haven't got a clue what you're on about and I'd leave it if I were you. There was no "irresponsible generalisation" unless you're someone who chooses to interpret something completely incorrectly in order to start an argument.

Really? You began by generalising about the police when you wrote this: "Yeah I'm no big fan of the police and the way they do things." I asked you to elaborate and you wrote this: "I can't unfortunately. Suffice to say, some of them will think nothing of stitching people up and causing untold damage to their lives for the sake of vanity and their own career" You could not have been more specific, and it is quite clear what you meant, and I interpreted it quite correctly. As to whether I have no clue, I have three family members in the Police, two of whom read your comment earlier on, and were appalled. It was quite clear what you meant, as you well know.

 

[Hastings gull]

The murky world of informants and whether it's ok to let them get away with crimes in exchange for information? I've no idea if this was the case but it smells rather strongly of grass.

Well, if you have no idea, might it be better if . . .

 

[SeagullinExile]

I found it difficult to form a conclusive opinion on it. I found it difficult to form a conclusive opinion on the lad himself; however I had no problem forming an opinion on the police who took part in it - And the opinion I did form was borne out by one of the last statements in the programme where they stated that the Officer who shot him stands by his decision to have shot him. How he can have that stance even after it was confirmed he was not holding a gun beggars belief.

If he had said ''In hindsight my decision was incorrect but at the time I thought it was the correct decision'' I could have accepted that.

Correct me if i'm wrong. But wouldn't that be the police admitting blame?

Surely that would never happen?

 

[marlowe]

I can't unfortunately. Suffice to say, some of them will think nothing of stitching people up and causing untold damage to their lives for the sake of vanity and their own career. Not a fan of this, as I said.

Not only to further their careers. Sometimes they use their position to pursue personal vendettas. Years ago i was given constant police harassment by a policeman because he resented the fact I was going out with a girl he was interested in. I used to get stopped in my car and followed on numerous occasions and also received indirect threats that he could have me set up. Eventually after gathering enough evidence I made an official complaint and he left the force as a result. I found out later that a deal was struck between him and his superiors whereby if he left the force voluntarily he would be given an "exemplary" service record and keep his pension as opposed to going through with the disciplinary hearing and losing his job and pension which would have been inevitable due to the evidence I had gathered against him. When I found out I wasn't too impressed that his behaviour against me as a serving officer was described as "exemplary". So this closing ranks and covering up of corruption was condoned and actively facilitated by his superiors. I won't say how but I saw his "exemplary" service record with my own eyes so know that was what happened.

 

[spence]

Why wasn't any of the police not wearing body cameras ?

 

[wellquickwoody]

Why wasn't any of the police not wearing body cameras ?

KoZ vey didernt ven, did vey?

 

[mikeyjh]

Really? You began by generalising about the police when you wrote this: "Yeah I'm no big fan of the police and the way they do things." I asked you to elaborate and you wrote this: "I can't unfortunately. Suffice to say, some of them will think nothing of stitching people up and causing untold damage to their lives for the sake of vanity and their own career" You could not have been more specific, and it is quite clear what you meant, and I interpreted it quite correctly. As to whether I have no clue, I have three family members in the Police, two of whom read your comment earlier on, and were appalled. It was quite clear what you meant, as you well know.

They might be appalled, but are they surprised? This is not an uncommon view of the police.

 

[Bring back Bryan wade!!]

Sounds a bit like complaining about being caught for speeding when others around you were not, it makes not one jot of difference. And not sure whether he had a gun or not? You have just reiterated an undisputed fact that the other crim handed it to him . Question the behaviour of the police? Well, yes, fine, but at least do it when the 'supposed' victim is worthy of our attention. Good day to you sir.

Are you a police officer or affiliated to the police in any way?

 

[portlock seagull]

If gangsters have 'codes of honour' then surely they should 'man up' and not throw away weapons when about to be arrested and caught in possession? Throwing away their arms seems a bit, well, French?

 

[LlcoolJ]

Really? You began by generalising about the police when you wrote this: "Yeah I'm no big fan of the police and the way they do things." I asked you to elaborate and you wrote this: "I can't unfortunately. Suffice to say, some of them will think nothing of stitching people up and causing untold damage to their lives for the sake of vanity and their own career" You could not have been more specific, and it is quite clear what you meant, and I interpreted it quite correctly. As to whether I have no clue, I have three family members in the Police, two of whom read your comment earlier on, and were appalled. It was quite clear what you meant, as you well know.

I'm so sorry that they were "appalled". Diddums. My comment has in no way affected their lives so I'll pass on feeling bad about it if that's OK.

I did not say that all police officers are the same although that seems to be how you've chosen to interpret it.. Anyone who isn't a confrontational dick could have seen that. I'm actually rather concerned that you felt the need to show the comment to people. In what situation would you do that? Bit weird, and a bit sad.

Anyway, as far as what I was actually saying, try being on the receiving end and you might not be wandering around with your rose tinted glasses. Honestly, I hope you never have to take them off as the truth is not something that anyone wants to experience. I wouldn't even wish it on someone as blinkered and short sighted as you because I'm a decent person.

We'd all like to believe in British justice and the integrity of our police force but the reality has been proven time and time again to be something very different. I'd like you to leave this alone now to be honest as I can't elaborate to prove my point and it's also something which has almost destroyed my life and that of my family over the past year and a bit and is still ongoing. From the horses mouth if you like.

Believe what you like mate, you're wrong.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Are you a police officer or affiliated to the police in any way?

No, but I wish I had had the foresight to join up as a youngster. Would soon be ready to draw my gold plated pension and walk into another full time job without a care in the world. Most coppers have generally got their head screwed on, wish I had done so sooner than I did.