Mark Duggan.

[SocketRocket]

Some seem to be hailing him as more of a Nelson Mandela than gun carrying, drug dealing gangster. Even our justice system seems to be under threat from the mob rule of his supporters.

Is there a better system than the Jury for dealing with such trials, I think not. It may not be perfect but its probably the best we have.

Is there a better way to deal with this?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Can't think of any way else

People are looking to find a reason to attack the police over this and it's possibly going to kick off again - hopefully this time people won't use it as an excuse to get free stuff

There is nothing about Duggan that was innocent - an innocent man doesn't deal drugs , carry guns or get arrested for murder

It's never an easy call to use lethal force but it's a power the police need and shouldn't be afraid to use it

 

[stevie_r]

Can't think of any way else

People are looking to find a reason to attack the police over this and it's possibly going to kick off again - hopefully this time people won't use it as an excuse to get free stuff

There is nothing about Duggan that was innocent - an innocent man doesn't deal drugs , carry guns or get arrested for murder

It's never an easy call to use lethal force but it's a power the police need and shouldn't be afraid to use it

Not defending Duggan here who was clearly a scum bag however, we do not have armed police in order that they can dish out summary executions - regardless of who gets it.

 

[chris661]

Just before this really takes off can we please remember to argue the points and not just resort to a slanging match please (Not that it has happened yet). Ta Muchly.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Not defending Duggan here who was clearly a scum bag however, we do not have armed police in order that they can dish out summary executions - regardless of who gets it.

Yes the use of that lethal force must be lawful and the last resort as per normal rules of engagement - can't have trigger happy coppers roaming the streets :thup:

 

[In_The_Rough]

Duggan was clearly no angel. However we have thousands of his type walking up on down the UK towns and cities but this does not happen. I am in no doubt that the police went in with the intention of taking him out. The real full version of events will probably never come out

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Duggan was clearly no angel. However we have thousands of his type walking up on down the UK towns and cities but this does not happen. I am in no doubt that the police went in with the intention of taking him out. The real full version of events will probably never come out

Was the version given in the court of law during the inquest in front of the judge not the real full version of events then ?

 

[chrisd]

Simple for me, the old maxim

"You live by the sword you die by the sword!"

I don't condone summary executions by the police and am sure that this wasn't one but he was taking the gun to do just that to someone else and therefore " You live by..............."

 

[In_The_Rough]

Was the version given in the court of law during the inquest in front of the judge not the real full version of events then ?

Again only my gut feeling as that is all we can go on unless we believe every word we have been told. But to answer your question no I do not think it was. Not that is has not happened before either stuff being covered up or papered over

 

[stevie_r]

Was the version given in the court of law during the inquest in front of the judge not the real full version of events then ?

I'm sure it was, it was acknowledged though that when Duggan was shot he was not in possession of a firearm or indeed anywhere near it. Therefore he was not capable of causing the death or serious injury of anyone and to shoot him exceeded minimum force. He could for example have been tazered. Clearly the copper that fired just took him out anyway or he had an ND. How his killing can therefore be declared lawful is beyond me. The rules of engagement were clearly not adhered to.

That said, the world is probably a better place without him.

 

[SocketRocket]

I'm sure it was, it was acknowledged though that when Duggan was shot he was not in possession of a firearm or indeed anywhere near it. Therefore he was not capable of causing the death or serious injury of anyone and to shoot him exceeded minimum force. He could for example have been tazered. Clearly the copper that fired just took him out anyway or he had an ND. How his killing can therefore be declared lawful is beyond me. The rules of engagement were clearly not adhered to.

That said, the world is probably a better place without him.

From the Police Officers perspective he may not have had the benefit of after knowledge and needed to make a split second decision. Would any of us in a similar situation have been able to decide if he was in fact unarmed?

 

[In_The_Rough]

Why not shoot him in the leg or shoulder then like they did with the 2 scumbags that killed Lee Rigby

 

[Blue in Munich]

Why not shoot him in the leg or shoulder then like they did with the 2 scumbags that killed Lee Rigby

Because the only person who could do that with any consistency with a handgun was John Wayne. Basic rule of engagement is go for the biggest target, the torso area. If the officers that shot the two killers of Lee Rigby only hit leg and shoulder I'd suggest it was more by accident than design.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Why not shoot him in the leg or shoulder then like they did with the 2 scumbags that killed Lee Rigby

Rules of engagement is to go for the torso - biggest area of mass

 

[In_The_Rough]

They shot him twice though once in the chest and once in the bicep, we are talking about trained firearms officers here. Could they miss by that much with one shot to hit someone in the arm

 

[Deleted member 15344]

They shot him twice though once in the chest and once in the bicep, we are talking about trained firearms officers here. Could they miss by that much with one shot to hit someone in the arm

Yes they could miss by that much

He was moving remember and it's not easy to hit a moving target at distance

 

[Blue in Munich]

They shot him twice though once in the chest and once in the bicep, we are talking about trained firearms officers here. Could they miss by that much with one shot to hit someone in the arm

The impact of the first shot would probably make the victim move, so the target may have effectively moved by the time the second shot hits. And depending on where the victim's arm was, the bicep possibly isn't that far from the chest.

 

[USER1999]

Remember when armed police shot that Brazilian guy? Marksmen plugged about 9 shots into him from two feet away, and still some of the bullets missed!

 

[Andy]

Why not shoot him in the leg or shoulder then like they did with the 2 scumbags that killed Lee Rigby

He was shot in the thigh and the chest.

 

[stevie_r]

Rules of engagement is to go for the torso - biggest area of mass

Rules of engagement is when you can shoot.
Decent marksmanship training is to go for the centre of mass.