Ipcc Said Firearms Officer Was Justified In Shooting Mark Duggan.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3010170/Mark-Duggan-death-sparked-London-riots-holding-gun-officer-killed-him.html

At last after a three-and-a-half year investigation a justified result, yet even after this there were still some on a LBC phone not only claiming that it was a police conspiracy but also calling the radio presenter a racist for daring to agree with the verdict.

Can we now expect yet another riot now that things have not gone the way that some expected?

[dave50]

Yes, out will come the race card yet again.

[ToraToraTora]

why does this keep comiing up? One less peice of drug dealing scum, result, end of.

[mushroom25]

well, there is a school of thought that says referring a matter to the IPCC is like appointing Lord Hutton to head your inquiry - they have a very wide brush and a huge tin of snowcem

[jno]

no surprise there: police are never wrong when they shoot people, even when they're only carrying table legs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Harry_Stanley

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // Can we now expect yet another riot now that things have not gone the way that some expected? //

We can only hope not.

The death is a tragedy for all concerned, but the officer concerned will hopefully take comfort from the conclusion that his actions were right at the time.

[douglas9401]

Re the rioting, maybe someone could ask someone else to organise it then the first someone could step in and defuse the situation showing a new maturity in the rioting classes.

[andy-hughes]

naval - // I believe the IPCC said that Mr Duggan 'was probably throwing a gun away' to me that implies there is still doubt. //

By definition, these incidents are so fast, that it's difficult for everyone involved, including those directly concerned, to recall in detail what actually happened.

For the firearms office, a moment of heart-stopping terror and the need for a split-second life-or-death decision which he then tries to recall when called to court to explain his actions.

For any witnesses, there is the additional shock and horror of what they are seeing, which may distort their memories to give false images which they genuinely believe to be true.

Add in mischief-makers with axes to grind, who will simply make up a scenario that exonerates their friend, and you have a massively complex situation which takes years to unravel.

But a conclusion has been reached.

Those in favour will be happy, those not will not, but a line has to be drawn here, hopefully without recourse to more civil disturbance.

[Barsel]

If someone isn't actually pointing a gun at the police,why do they shoot to kill?

[Peter Pedant]

// why does this keep coming up? //

like Hillsborough which came up for 25 y ( even Maggie showed fatigue at this ) and Birmingham non-bombers ( came up for 16 y, Maggie T showing more fatigue ) George Davis ( came up for ten - you're too young to recollect ) - some people think justice have not been done
and in a few cases - they are right

Why did the person who had video'd the latter part of the shooting release it on you - tube before giving it into the authorities ?
because he thought it would be filed...

[retrocop]

You could also ask why does a known drug dealer with a violent past carry an illegal firearm?
It is not the Wild West.Police are not trained to do fancy tricks like shooting firearms out of gunmen's hands or shooting their hats off etc. or even fire warning shots. A challenge is verbally given then a double tap to ensure the suspect goes down and stays down.Those are the tactics to ensure a wounded suspect cannot still cause harm or injury to the innocent.

[Gromit]

The 'official' version of how Duggan was killed has had more re-writes than 'Gone with the Wind'. I still have my doubts that we have a final truthful version. This latest verdict leaves more questions unanswered.

// Violent gangster Mark Duggan – whose death sparked the 2011 riots – was holding a gun when a police marksman opened fire, a report concluded yesterday. //

So how did the gun end up 14 feet away from his dead body after a marksman had shot him twice in the chest? Is the official version that he was able to hurl the gun over a wall after he was shot but before police bundled him to the ground? That does not seem plausible and contradicts many witnesses.

[Peter Pedant]

// If someone isn't actually pointing a gun at the police,why do they shoot to kill?//

because the law is clear on this point Barsel - since Steven Waldorf ( good wiki article on this ) that all the police need is to say they thought "the suspect was armed".

This has been shown to lead to 'Chinese Parliaments' where they go into a huddle and agree on a unified story before they write their reports

and also inquests such as the Gibraltar inquests where evidence was given that the dead IRA had gone for guns in their pockets and a lawyer asked "who knew they werent armed ?"
and the SAS this time said - no one, we all thought they were armed !
( and shot them 19 times )
and the lawyer said: .No - they did. They knew they werent armed so why did they go for arms they knew they didnt have ?

Witness W ( for it was he ) er er er

and no I dont think people will riot over this one

[Peter Pedant]

and has it ever happened that the Police have shouted:

"he's got a gun!" - blam blam blam

when he hasnt ?

See the film Animal Kingdom - Oz film based on fact !
and also that case in Florida a few months ago....

[Peter Pedant]

jno - that decision complies with the known law after Steven Waldorf

you CAN'T be implying the judges have got their law wrong ?

[Bazile]

Let's hope it doesn't turn out years down the line that there was more to this than , what we know at the present time

[Baldric]

Naval, is this the "throwing away" you referred to?

///Commission said the gangster was holding the gun and was ‘in the process of throwing it to his right as he was shot’///

[RATTER15]

He may have been throwing away the gun!! Im, sorry, but if I have a gun trained on an armed person that is likely to shoot me, if he makes any sudden movement I will shoot!, you dont get time to see what that action is going to be, its got to be a split second decision, no second chances. I think I am correct, all shots fired by the police are shots to kill! a wounded person can still shoot a gun, and it ist easy to shoot to wound, these targets would be much smaller, and if they have a gun ready to fire then they know what the likely out come will be. I certainly wouldn't be giving second chances!!

[RATTER15]

//So how did it end up 14 foot away and he had 2 holes in his chest?// 14 ft is no distance, a guy that has just been shot, he could easily do that as he fell, it could slide that far on a hard surface.