Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:01 pm  

Stand-Offish wrote:

It did, a ricochet.
It was the Duggan case.

Underlines why the Police like to be in command of all armed situations and why they aim for the large body mass rather than trying to "wing" someone in Wyatt Earp style.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:05 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Underlines why the Police like to be in command of all armed situations and why they aim for the large body mass rather than trying to "wing" someone in Wyatt Earp style.

I am happy with them being in command, it would indicate that they have a plan.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:18 pm  

Stand-Offish wrote:

I am happy with them being in command, it would indicate that they have a plan.

If the target runs then the plan goes out of the window, only Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ever ran out from cover into a barrage of guns, it doesn't make sense to sensible people.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:42 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

If the target runs then the plan goes out of the window, only Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ever ran out from cover into a barrage of guns, it doesn't make sense to sensible people.

It certainly doesn't.
Faced with an array of guns aimed by trained marksmen, I don't think my instincts would dictate anything other than puppy eyes and compliance.

Duggan might have thought it was a rival gang.
lol

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 6:45 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

On the other hand your statement infers that exactly the opposite outcome should be expected, if you allow officers to confer in their statements then you'd get 20 identical statements - but clearly they didn't, they gave different statements, very different statements.

Seems to me that there is no problem with a system that receives different opinions rather than 20 identical opinions, we all know that its human nature to see things differently.

I don't know what the other police statements were, I'm only going off what I've heard and seen on TV and the bits people have posted on here, and whilst there may not be anything sinister in this case I don't agree with the principle of the police being allowed to confer, and having several days to think about it, before giving their statement. I believe they should be treated like anyone else (suspects or witnesses) at an incident in being split up and giving a statement relatively quickly. Then a senior officer or investigator from the IPCC or whichever body is suitable can pull all the statements together and decide what happened.

As I said, I'm not trying to infer that the police were "covering up" here but when they're allowed to wait a few days, get into a room together and take several hours to confer before giving their full statements it can give that impression, especially in a not straightforward case.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:01 pm  

Stand-Offish wrote:

I did answer it somewhere I believe.
I have no qualms about how they stopped the taxi. They thought that the best way to proceed and I agree.
What would I have done?
I'd have had my officers behind their cars with their weapons aimed at Duggan.
I wouldn't have approached the taxi.
I would have ordered Duggan out with his hands held high using my loudhailer.
None of my officers would have been anywhere near him until he got down on the floor as instructed.
I'm assuming that someone was in charge.

Problem 1. As soon as the police performed the hard stop Duggan was doing a runner.
Problem 2. If Duggan hadn't done a runner, you've virtually forced him to take the taxi driver as a hostage.
Problem 3. In the films cops do hide behind car doors, settee's, wooden tables, behind force fields. In real life none of these are effective ways to stop bullets.
Problem 4. They were in a busy London street at 6pm. There's a significant risk of innocent people becoming involved in the standoff and no way for the police to control the area because you've got them all hiding behind cars.

ATM you're criticising the police for their "screw up" which left an armed gangster dead. But your solution is one which is likely to end up with dead gangster, dead taxi driver and possibly a dead cop and/or bystander.

The problems with your solution would be pointed out by every armed response officer and most people who spend a short time thinking about it.

Now, if he comes out and legs it, I am a bit stuck apart from chasing him in the grand old British fashion.
I would have to know what the guidelines are. If it is OK to shoot him I would order that, if it isn't I wouldn't.
So if the guidelines say it is OK to shoot someone suspected of being armed if they are attempting to run away, then the police did nothing wrong.
But that wasn't the reason why they said they shot him, one of the officers felt threatened as Duggan was running away.
Duggan must have been a bit confused then if he was running towards the police.

This could go on for days ......

The police were performing a hard stop. Three cars stopped the taxi and at the same time as that's happening the armed cops are jumping out of the cop cars and surrounding the vehicle. While that's happening Duggan is attempting to do a runner. Duggan died about 6-10ft from the car door. IMO if the police are attempting a hard stop on a suspected armed criminal and that suspect is getting out of his car at a similar speed as the police there's simply no way to know if he's trying to do a runner or trying to take out cops with him. So the cop was totally justified in shooting him.

I do have support for the police, but in cases like this when they refuse to give evidence except on their own terms, that trust (for the people concerned, not the rest of the police) is suspended.

I've read about de Menezes death. I've read about Hillsborough. The death of de Menezes was about 1,000 times more of a screw up than this. Hillsborough was about 1 million times as bad.

Anyone who, without even bothering to look up details of the situation, invokes the names of de Menezes and Hillsborough over Duggan has no place whatsoever calling themselves a stanch supporter of the police.

Personally, I think the post incident response from police after incidents like this absolutely and totally sucks. But IMO the reason that they have to be like this is because if they aren't lawyers like Mike Mansfield would be happy to see cops jailed for simply doing their job and every time a gangster ended up dead it would be a Euromillions rollover jackpot win for their families. That would result in every armed police officer stepping down and possible chaos for the country.

The death of Jean Charles de Menezes was an absolute tragedy. The death of Mark Duggan is a tragedy for his family, but for the rest of Britain it's one less gangster thug on the streets.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:29 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Problem 1. As soon as the police performed the hard stop Duggan was doing a runner.
Problem 2. If Duggan hadn't done a runner, you've virtually forced him to take the taxi driver as a hostage.
Problem 3. In the films cops do hide behind car doors, settee's, wooden tables, behind force fields. In real life none of these are effective ways to stop bullets.
Problem 4. They were in a busy London street at 6pm. There's a significant risk of innocent people becoming involved in the standoff and no way for the police to control the area because you've got them all hiding behind cars.

ATM you're criticising the police for their "screw up" which left an armed gangster dead. But your solution is one which is likely to end up with dead gangster, dead taxi driver and possibly a dead cop and/or bystander.

The problems with your solution would be pointed out by every armed response officer and most people who spend a short time thinking about it.

The police were performing a hard stop. Three cars stopped the taxi and at the same time as that's happening the armed cops are jumping out of the cop cars and surrounding the vehicle. While that's happening Duggan is attempting to do a runner. Duggan died about 6-10ft from the car door. IMO if the police are attempting a hard stop on a suspected armed criminal and that suspect is getting out of his car at a similar speed as the police there's simply no way to know if he's trying to do a runner or trying to take out cops with him. So the cop was totally justified in shooting him.

I've read about de Menezes death. I've read about Hillsborough. The death of de Menezes was about 1,000 times more of a screw up than this. Hillsborough was about 1 million times as bad.

Anyone who, without even bothering to look up details of the situation, invokes the names of de Menezes and Hillsborough over Duggan has no place whatsoever calling themselves a stanch supporter of the police.

Personally, I think the post incident response from police after incidents like this absolutely and totally sucks. But IMO the reason that they have to be like this is because if they aren't lawyers like Mike Mansfield would be happy to see cops jailed for simply doing their job and every time a gangster ended up dead it would be a Euromillions rollover jackpot win for their families. That would result in every armed police officer stepping down and possible chaos for the country.

The death of Jean Charles de Menezes was an absolute tragedy. The death of Mark Duggan is a tragedy for his family, but for the rest of Britain it's one less gangster thug on the streets.

Life is full of problems.
But it is nice to know that we can rely on sensible people to solve them for us.
You're right, I will leave it to the experts.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:32 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Problem 1. As soon as the police performed the hard stop Duggan was doing a runner.
Problem 2. If Duggan hadn't done a runner, you've virtually forced him to take the taxi driver as a hostage.
Problem 3. In the films cops do hide behind car doors, settee's, wooden tables, behind force fields. In real life none of these are effective ways to stop bullets.
Problem 4. They were in a busy London street at 6pm. There's a significant risk of innocent people becoming involved in the standoff and no way for the police to control the area because you've got them all hiding behind cars.

ATM you're criticising the police for their "screw up" which left an armed gangster dead. But your solution is one which is likely to end up with dead gangster, dead taxi driver and possibly a dead cop and/or bystander.

The problems with your solution would be pointed out by every armed response officer and most people who spend a short time thinking about it.

The police were performing a hard stop. Three cars stopped the taxi and at the same time as that's happening the armed cops are jumping out of the cop cars and surrounding the vehicle. While that's happening Duggan is attempting to do a runner. Duggan died about 6-10ft from the car door. IMO if the police are attempting a hard stop on a suspected armed criminal and that suspect is getting out of his car at a similar speed as the police there's simply no way to know if he's trying to do a runner or trying to take out cops with him. So the cop was totally justified in shooting him.

I've read about de Menezes death. I've read about Hillsborough. The death of de Menezes was about 1,000 times more of a screw up than this. Hillsborough was about 1 million times as bad.

Anyone who, without even bothering to look up details of the situation, invokes the names of de Menezes and Hillsborough over Duggan has no place whatsoever calling themselves a stanch supporter of the police.

Personally, I think the post incident response from police after incidents like this absolutely and totally sucks. But IMO the reason that they have to be like this is because if they aren't lawyers like Mike Mansfield would be happy to see cops jailed for simply doing their job and every time a gangster ended up dead it would be a Euromillions rollover jackpot win for their families. That would result in every armed police officer stepping down and possible chaos for the country.

The death of Jean Charles de Menezes was an absolute tragedy. The death of Mark Duggan is a tragedy for his family, but for the rest of Britain it's one less gangster thug on the streets.

Do you watch plenty of 'shoot-em-up movies?
I would wager probably so.

As for your rather comic quantification of tragedy scale, is there a set process dependent on how many 0's you put on the end of it?

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:04 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

have siginificantly more opportunities and a signficantly higher living standard than the vast majority of the world.

Thanks for clarifying. Are you glad of that situation?

SmokeyTA wrote:

My wealth, like I assume you and everyone else on this board, is far closer to those at the bottom end of the scale than the top.

Why do you again answer a different question to the one asked?
I see no one else is responding to you. I'd happily discuss subjects with you, you're clearly not dumb, but not whilst you think you're playing "forum wars" and avoiding and evading questions (every thread we have conversed on) If you persist with that approach to discussion, then there is no point continuing.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:30 am  

No riots yet?

Must be winter over there.