You get the chance to empty your magazine a few times in Yarkshire Gunman fired 34 times before police shot him, inquest told - Halifax Courier
From: Duggan verdict: police can't take a life, mislead the public and just move on | Hugh Muir | Comment is free | theguardian.com "The independent police complaints commission – briefed by the police – told the media that Duggan had fired at police officers. He hadn't." "The officer told the inquest that he fired because he could see a gun in Duggan's hand. The jury says there wasn't one." "Police accounts of what transpired conflicted sharply with those of independent witnesses, and didn't even tally with the evidence provided by the cab driver, the unwilling recipient of a front-row seat to gruesome history." and a final quote from that article which sums up the whole issue in the Duggan case for me: "What would be truly ruinous would be a situation where the taking of Duggan's life was treated as a less serious matter for society than anyone else's, and when we strip away the hyperbole about who he was and what he might have done, there is an essential truth. Whatever he was, whatever transpired, the police cannot take life, even in error, mislead the public as to how it occurred – as has been proved – and move on without satisfactory explanation or repercussion." From: This perverse Mark Duggan verdict will ruin our relations with the police | Stafford Scott | Comment is free | The Guardian "Firstly the family is struggling to understand how the shooting of an unarmed man can still be deemed a lawful act. The "safety net" for police officers in such circumstances is that the killing is lawful if the officer has an "honestly held belief" that he or others are in imminent danger. But in this case the jury themselves stated it was their belief that Duggan had thrown the gun before being fatally shot, so where was the immediate, clear and present danger?" "At the inquest, V53 – the officer who fired the fatal shots – said that he definitely saw the sock-covered gun and was even able to describe seeing the barrel of the gun sticking out of the hole in the sock. ... He further justified the need for shooting Duggan twice by describing how the first shot spun Duggan around so that the gun was pointing directly at him when he shot him the second time." "In fact there were no witnesses who saw the gun being thrown. A few police officers inferred that it was possible, but none of the 11 highly trained officers claimed to see Duggan making any movement that could have resembled him throwing away the firearm." "... evidence of Witness B, the only independent witness to see the shooting. ... He had filmed the aftermath of the shooting; the footage was later sold to the BBC. He has no historical links to Tottenham and no links to Duggan or his family. He was adamant that Duggan had a BlackBerry in one hand, and that both of his hands were held above head height in a gesture of surrender as he was gunned down." "During the inquest the IPCC's mishandling of the crime scene was revealed, including the fact that it gave permission for the mini-cab to be removed before investigating officers had even looked at it or had it forensically searched for evidence." "The IPCC has chosen not to explore the possibility that the gun was planted at the spot it was found, even though it was 7m from his body and two independent witness gave the IPCC statements – and later testified – that they had seen an officer remove a gun from the mini-cab some minutes after Duggan had been killed." "... <IPCC> lead investigator, Colin Sparrow, revealed to the inquest that he knew Duggan had not fired any gun long before the IPCC began briefing the media that he had shot at police first. " -- Now, I might not be the most cleverest person on this forum, but there seems to be a lot of conflicting evidence in all of those statements above - all of which have been printed in the press and are all based on facts and not just hearsay - so I have a good reason to believe that a few porkies might have been told by some of the policemen involved in this particular event, but feel free to persuade me otherwise!
"printed in the press"…..and are "all based on fact"…….ffs doesn't really go hand in glove does it …your so guardian, next week the telegraph or even the mail? how many of the people involved in your list of newspaper articles were cops? and as for v53 can you say what he knew and then saw…thats just a version of events not lies get real…..or is he guilty of perjury? and can i respectfully request you revisit the definition of hearsay…obviously from the comfort of your armchair expert position...
Ok then Andy, let's start with a simple one: "... <IPCC> lead investigator, Colin Sparrow, revealed to the inquest that he knew Duggan had not fired any gun long before the IPCC began briefing the media that he had shot at police first. " If the lead investigator of the IPCC knew that Duggan hadn't fired a gun but briefed the media that Duggan had fired a gun, how would you describe this if it should not be described as a lie?
Antonye post 226 hits the nail on the head for me and the vast majority of people im speaking to about this Duggan incident. For me in order to trust the police you have to feel confident that they give a honest account of what happened and why.Even if they are mistaken and could possibly loose there job/demoted or face prosecution. The Jean Charles de Menedez incident along with Mark Duggan incident has done nothing for trust and honesty in the police imho. Example - He (JCDM) jumped the railings/barrier and acted suspiciously BULLSHIT Example - I could clearly see the weapon under the sock. BULLSHIT Example - Mark Duggan fired at officers BULLSHIT FFS just tell the truth and people will at least have confidence that even the worst fuck ups will be dealt with fairly and maybe new guidelines or training for armed police if there is found to be a problem with rules.But if things are covered up or bullshit accounts are given then people will just think they are dishonest and even more worrying these dishonest people carry guns and have authority to use them with lethal results. Another case on BBC news today. BBC News - Greater Manchester Police chief faces shooting charges
Some posters on this forum like to bullshit and bluster, but as soon as they are asked a clear-cut, straightforward, relevant question they clam up. A good simple question, as you rightly say - so don't expect to get a straight answer. Ever.
pete at least have the balls to name who you are talking about……and whilst we are taking about straight answers i think you should on more than several occasions go to the front of the cue. Ant you said the Police lie………is the IPCC the Police…..what does the I stand for? where has v53 lied? heres and interesting tact... Calm down, judge tells Left-wing QC Michael Mansfield: Barrister told off after jury complain about questioning of policeman at Mark Duggan inquest
I am referring to several different posters on this forum, actually, one of whom is obviously you. What have "balls" got to do with anything?
Have I answered what? I am not aware you have asked a question - so if you claim you have, what was it?
In the knob end thread you said.. People get arrested for nothing. People get beaten to death in police custody, and no action is taken against those responsible. People get fitted up for offences they did not commit, and sent to prison for years. These things happen all the time, in the UK, and have affected great numbers of people. In the scheme of things, being spoken to rudely and being ordered about by some dickhead cop is very small beer indeed. The OP should think himself lucky he is still alive, and at liberty, after his little encounter with the police. then in this thread you said... these lying dishonest cops you have taken the moral stance on (again)……well which moral is it? …..or is it a case of i have morals and if you don't like them i have others...
So 53% of Britons surveyed believe cops cover up their own wrong doing, guess it depends who you ask, any of you lot take part in the survey? . I can see both sides of this and having been indoctrinated and then broken free I guess I'm free to add my two pence worth. The police are a slice of the society they represent, good bad and indifferent. They do close ranks irrespective of your belief system I have witnessed it with my own eyes, and in recent high profile cases this has been shown to be the case, the bigger the shit pot the more the ranks close. The higher up the potential heads that might role the more determined they are to be waterproof. So leaving aside 'gaffers' and in my career decent ones were few and far between, (they are political animals building empires and reinventing the wheel). That leaves the rank and file, most coppers join to make a difference to society not all are tin pot uniform wearing power slags, most care and when you care and you care about your standing and when your used to taking shite from all slices of society it's harder to be dispassionate and objective. You take the slagging a as a reflection on you , your oppos and mates and it's hard to let it go. So we find ourselves in a downwards spiral, with those judging and criticising getting more and more animated and those serving finding it hard to be dispassionate about the criticism. which is exactly how the job would want it, you have it drummed into you, even by the very nature and language of the job eg; civvies for any non warranted staff member or the general public. Therefore this argument can slide all agreeing to disagree or buttons can continue to be pushed knowing full well neither side is backing down.
Who briefed the IPCC? Go back and read the quotes. Let me quote another couple of facts for you: 1. "...evidence of Witness B, the only independent witness to see the shooting...He was adamant that Duggan had a BlackBerry in one hand, and that both of his hands were held above head height in a gesture of surrender as he was gunned down." 2. "At the inquest, V53 – the officer who fired the fatal shots – said that he definitely saw the sock-covered gun and was even able to describe seeing the barrel of the gun sticking out of the hole in the sock." Now, as I said before, I'm not the cleverest person here but statement (1) and statement (2) are opposing views, and that means that either "Witness B" or "V53" were lying. Or maybe we could try this one: 1. "...two independent witness gave the IPCC statements – and later testified – that they had seen an officer remove a gun from the mini-cab some minutes after Duggan had been killed." 2. "At the inquest, V53 – the officer who fired the fatal shots – said that he definitely saw the sock-covered gun and was even able to describe seeing the barrel of the gun sticking out of the hole in the sock." I'm not quite sure how the gun would get back in the mini-cab if Duggan had been pointing it at "V53" when he was fatally shot. Maybe someone was lying? Or what about this one: 1. "In fact there were no witnesses who saw the gun being thrown. A few police officers inferred that it was possible, but none of the 11 highly trained officers claimed to see Duggan making any movement that could have resembled him throwing away the firearm." 2. "At the inquest, V53 – the officer who fired the fatal shots – said that he definitely saw the sock-covered gun and was even able to describe seeing the barrel of the gun sticking out of the hole in the sock." ...and yet they found the gun 7 metres from the body after Duggan was fatally shot by "V53". This is not a pop at you Andy, and this is not even a pop at your profession. There are some seriously conflicting views that were given during the inquest and not all of them can be true, so therefore someone is lying. As the article so eloquently states: "Whatever he was, whatever transpired, the police cannot take life, even in error, mislead the public as to how it occurred – as has been proved – and move on without satisfactory explanation or repercussion."
conflicting views, adamant definitely saw, mislead…………..when did you last give evidence in a court let alone a crown court with a vindictive crusader shouting the questions?……….you need to understand that there is no one single way things occur………there will always be differences even extreme differences once you involve perception amongst different witnesses. so i ask again taking these differences into account……where is the lie? who was lying? and where is your evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that that person was lying…because there was a jury that were a lot closer to the situation than you who spent a lot longer listening to the evidence than you, were directed by a more eminent person than you………….and look at their decision…..
