Never noticed this before but, erm... "Interpretor"?
So this guy that claims a cop threatened to shoot him needs an interpretor because, presumably, his grasp of the English language isn't all it might be?
Is it really beyond the realms of possibility that he didn't fully grasp what the cop said to him?
Personally, I suspect that the reason nobody attempted to refute what he said was that it wasn't particularly relevant to the case and that attempting to argue about it could either distract the jury from the real issues or, possibly, sway the jury away from the police if any of them felt sympathy for the cabbie.
In any case, the fact that the guy needs an interpretor in order to understand English properly certainly brings his statement into question IMO.
If you look at the start of the questioning, you'll find he understands a lot of English, but needs help on some of the finer points. I reckon he'd probably understand someone threatening to shoot him.
Don't forget he'd been chatting to Duggan about selling a car, immediately before the cab was hard stopped.
Yes - the testimony of the cab driver. In the absence of further cross examination, and especially in the absence of the officer concerned being cross examined, I'm going with what the cab driver said.
He was also handcuffed. He'd have probably found it difficult to grab and use a gun even if he had got one on him, especially with a cop already threatening to shoot him.
I'm still going with the theory that any threat he potentially posed was already 100% neutralised, and that they had already concluded such. Therefore he was "unarmed" as I said.
He was also handcuffed. He'd have probably found it difficult to grab and use a gun even if he had got one on him, especially with a cop already threatening to shoot him.
I'm still going with the theory that any threat he potentially posed was already 100% neutralised, and that they had already concluded such. Therefore he was "unarmed" as I said.
Nah,
All you're doing here is forming an opinion of what was necessary based on hindsight.
Do you think seatbelts are a good idea?
I mean, every day you drive places in your car and nothing happens which causes your seatbelt to fulfil it's role as a restraint device.
Does that lead you to think that it wasn't necessary to wear your seatbelt or do you accept that, on another day, everything might seem to be the same and yet you'll be involved in an accident where a seatbelt might save your life so the smart thing to do is wear it all the time?
It certainly is unpleasant being spoken to in an authoritative manner and that'll often make people hostile but there are times when it is, unfortunately, appropriate and a situation where policemen are involved in a lethal shoot-out is one such occasion.
Funny thing is, there's so much that's demonstrably flawed with this case, it seems a bit daft to focus on criticising something based on opinion rather than fact.
All you're doing here is forming an opinion of what was necessary based on hindsight.
Do you think seatbelts are a good idea?
I mean, every day you drive places in your car and nothing happens which causes your seatbelt to fulfil it's role as a restraint device.
Does that lead you to think that it wasn't necessary to wear your seatbelt or do you accept that, on another day, everything might seem to be the same and yet you'll be involved in an accident where a seatbelt might save your life so the smart thing to do is wear it all the time?
It certainly is unpleasant being spoken to in an authoritative manner and that'll often make people hostile but there are times when it is, unfortunately, appropriate and a situation where policemen are involved in a lethal shoot-out is one such occasion.
Funny thing is, there's so much that's demonstrably flawed with this case, it seems a bit daft to focus on criticising something based on opinion rather than fact.
Well you're entitled to your view, but I'm still going with the fact that being handcuffed and on the floor, he didn't represent any sort of threat. I mean Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris might be able to high kick their way out of trouble whilst handcuffed and against a man with a gun aimed at them - but that would be in an American fantasy movie, not real life.
As such, threatening to shoot him for looking the wrong way was crossing a red line in my view. Others can conclude for themselves why they would do that. Opinions will naturally vary.
Well you're entitled to your view, but I'm still going with the fact that being handcuffed and on the floor, he didn't represent any sort of threat. I mean Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris might be able to high kick their way out of trouble whilst handcuffed and against a man with a gun aimed at them - but that would be in an American fantasy movie, not real life.
As such, threatening to shoot him for looking the wrong way was crossing a red line in my view. Others can conclude for themselves why they would do that. Opinions will naturally vary.
Was he handcuffed at this point though? I honestly remember quite little from the taxi drivers account. Where does it say that he had already been handcuffed?
Just to point out too, there is a specific martial art out there centered around fighting and escape when in handcuffs (whether to front or rear). I don't for one second believe the taxi driver was able to do it, but don't go dismissing it as stuff of movies, because it isn't, albeit it's not a common occurrence either.
It's certainly a confusing scene. I'm not sure I saw anyone entering the taxi, it's not like there was no-one around to see them do it either. So I'm discounting the 'bent coppers' scenario.
Was he handcuffed at this point though? I honestly remember quite little from the taxi drivers account. Where does it say that he had already been handcuffed?
It's in the extract at post # 8014, which I posted in response to your post.
Just to point out too, there is a specific martial art out there centered around fighting and escape when in handcuffs (whether to front or rear). I don't for one second believe the taxi driver was able to do it, but don't go dismissing it as stuff of movies, because it isn't, albeit it's not a common occurrence either.
Yes - the testimony of the cab driver. In the absence of further cross examination, and especially in the absence of the officer concerned being cross examined, I'm going with what the cab driver said.
He was also handcuffed. He'd have probably found it difficult to grab and use a gun even if he had got one on him, especially with a cop already threatening to shoot him.
I'm still going with the theory that any threat he potentially posed was already 100% neutralised, and that they had already concluded such. Therefore he was "unarmed" as I said.
He wouldn't be cross examined, because they don't do that at Inquests, and what was said to him wouldn't be deemed too relevant, because all involved would understand the procedures.
He wasn't treated like that because of a specific threat by him, but because that is standard procedure in securing all in the incident. They cant take a risk, so all are treated that way.
You've made up a theory based on him being made to look in a specific way, and as usual are ignoring all explanations.
If you look at the start of the questioning, you'll find he understands a lot of English, but needs help on some of the finer points. I reckon he'd probably understand someone threatening to shoot him.
Don't forget he'd been chatting to Duggan about selling a car, immediately before the cab was hard stopped.
So it's unlikely he'd remember every single word said in such a volatile situation, and it's possible the Police said more to him in this exchange, such as "look at me".
So it's unlikely he'd remember every single word said in such a volatile situation, and it's possible the Police said more to him in this exchange, such as "look at me".
It's possible that he missed parts of the conversation. Indeed, very few can remember every single word exchanged in any conversation. But I don't think he'd have got someone threatening to shoot him, wrong. That would be extremely memorable to all.
Just curious DP, how is someone 'placed under control' with eye contact?
It's the whole thing of making sure they are concentrating on the person with the gun, and those giving the orders.
You don't want them looking away from the people in charge of controlling the scene, because you want them fully concentrated on what they're being told.
It's possible that he missed parts of the conversation. Indeed, very few can remember every single word exchanged in any conversation. But I don't think he'd have got someone threatening to shoot him, wrong. That would be extremely memorable to all.
I don't deny that, and never had. The point raised earlier was that you said he wasn't told where to look, because he didn't say. I'm saying he would have been told where to look.
He wouldn't be cross examined, because they don't do that at Inquests, and what was said to him wouldn't be deemed too relevant, because all involved would understand the procedures.
He wasn't treated like that because of a specific threat by him, but because that is standard procedure in securing all in the incident. They cant take a risk, so all are treated that way.
You've made up a theory based on him being made to look in a specific way, and as usual are ignoring all explanations.
What's to explain ? The guy was on the floor and handcuffed. How you can even pretend he might be a danger in such circumstances, I honestly don't know - seriously, not joking. I really can't see how he could any longer represent a viable threat.
That's not a made up theory it's hard fact.
So why was it necessary to threaten to shoot him when he was already subdued, on the floor and handcuffed ? Sorry, but "standard procedure" will not cut it.
I don't deny that, and never had. The point raised earlier was that you said he wasn't told where to look, because he didn't say. I'm saying he would have been told where to look.
This is what he said:-
3 A. No, they dragged me out, they might have said something
4 like "Get out of the car" but I'm not sure and then they
5 took me out of the car and put me on the floor with
6 handcuffs on. Maybe they might have said "Don't move".
7 They might have said "Don't move from your place" or
8 whatever.
9 Q. Once you were on the floor and looking over in the
10 direction of where Mark Duggan was; did they say
11 anything to you at that point?
12 A. They ordered me -- they ordered me not to look at --
13 towards Mr Duggan -- not to look at the victim and to
14 look away and the officer warned me that he's standing
15 next to me so I should be careful.
16 So then the second time when I looked towards him,
17 then they put me -- they shifted me from my position and
18 they put me with -- leaning on the car looking away from
19 the victim, at the rear tyre of my car. Then my face
20 was opposite side to Mr Duggan. Then I don't know what
21 happened after that.
22 Q. Just going back to the time when they warned you not to
23 look at him, again I'm reading from your statement,
24 CS389, is it right one of the officers said to you:
25 "Do not move your head. Do not move. Do not look
37
1 there. If you move, I will shoot you."
2 A. Yes, I did say that, yes.
3 Q. Sorry, that was said to you by the police?
4 A. Yes, the one that was standing by my head said, next to
5 me, he had told me he would shoot me.
6 He had a gun in his hand.
7 Q. Did you see or hear any reason why they were so
8 concerned about you looking over to the area where
9 Mr Duggan was?
Nothing was said about him being told to look at the Officer, which you asserted earlier. Just not to look towards Duggan, and not to move his head.
Nothing was said about him being told to look at the Officer, which you asserted earlier. Just not to look towards Duggan, and not to move his head.
I notice this guy who needs a translator seems vague about a variety of fairly fundamental things, such as being told to get out of the taxi or being told what to do and yet he seems entirely certain of a comment regarding being shot.
I'd speculate that he was simply pissed off at the way he was treated and that threat was simply the one thing he particularly resented and his statement reflects that.
If the guy was suing the police for abuse then it would probably have been challenged but it's really just beside the point of this case so it was probably ignored.
OK sorry for being dumb and not following the thread, but I am somewhat confused.
Are people on here saying that the gun was taken from the taxi and put behind a wall??? Because if they are why would anyone do that, if the gun was found in the taxi the police had an even stronger case to shoot, in my opinion.
Or do i need to go back to school and learn to read?
OK sorry for being dumb and not following the thread, but I am somewhat confused.
Are people on here saying that the gun was taken from the taxi and put behind a wall??? Because if they are why would anyone do that, if the gun was found in the taxi the police had an even stronger case to shut, in my opinion.
Or do i need to go back to school and learn to read?
Nothing was said about him being told to look at the Officer, which you asserted earlier. Just not to look towards Duggan, and not to move his head.
It was not an important aspect of his evidence with regards to the Inquest. He was not clear in all he said, and I am certain he would have been told where to look, because that is what happens. I'm not sure why you cant understand that, or accept it is standard practice.
What's to explain ? The guy was on the floor and handcuffed. How you can even pretend he might be a danger in such circumstances, I honestly don't know - seriously, not joking. I really can't see how he could any longer represent a viable threat.
That's not a made up theory it's hard fact.
So why was it necessary to threaten to shoot him when he was already subdued, on the floor and handcuffed ? Sorry, but "standard procedure" will not cut it.
Well standard procedure is what happens. They train, and use methods that work.
The suspect is the priority, but anyone with him will be placed under control as quickly as possible. Niceties go out of the window, ask the SAS.
He will be placed on the floor, and cuffed as quickly as possible, and searched. Whilst this is happening, someone else will be telling him where to look, in order to maintain eye contact, communication, and control.
You don't like it. You don't like anything the Police do, but this is real life, dangerous stuff, and armed forces do not pussyfoot about.
Comments
Is there any reason to assume it didn't?
If you look at the start of the questioning, you'll find he understands a lot of English, but needs help on some of the finer points. I reckon he'd probably understand someone threatening to shoot him.
Don't forget he'd been chatting to Duggan about selling a car, immediately before the cab was hard stopped.
Yes - the testimony of the cab driver. In the absence of further cross examination, and especially in the absence of the officer concerned being cross examined, I'm going with what the cab driver said.
He was also handcuffed. He'd have probably found it difficult to grab and use a gun even if he had got one on him, especially with a cop already threatening to shoot him.
I'm still going with the theory that any threat he potentially posed was already 100% neutralised, and that they had already concluded such. Therefore he was "unarmed" as I said.
Nah,
All you're doing here is forming an opinion of what was necessary based on hindsight.
Do you think seatbelts are a good idea?
I mean, every day you drive places in your car and nothing happens which causes your seatbelt to fulfil it's role as a restraint device.
Does that lead you to think that it wasn't necessary to wear your seatbelt or do you accept that, on another day, everything might seem to be the same and yet you'll be involved in an accident where a seatbelt might save your life so the smart thing to do is wear it all the time?
It certainly is unpleasant being spoken to in an authoritative manner and that'll often make people hostile but there are times when it is, unfortunately, appropriate and a situation where policemen are involved in a lethal shoot-out is one such occasion.
Funny thing is, there's so much that's demonstrably flawed with this case, it seems a bit daft to focus on criticising something based on opinion rather than fact.
Well you're entitled to your view, but I'm still going with the fact that being handcuffed and on the floor, he didn't represent any sort of threat. I mean Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris might be able to high kick their way out of trouble whilst handcuffed and against a man with a gun aimed at them - but that would be in an American fantasy movie, not real life.
As such, threatening to shoot him for looking the wrong way was crossing a red line in my view. Others can conclude for themselves why they would do that. Opinions will naturally vary.
Was he handcuffed at this point though? I honestly remember quite little from the taxi drivers account. Where does it say that he had already been handcuffed?
Just to point out too, there is a specific martial art out there centered around fighting and escape when in handcuffs (whether to front or rear). I don't for one second believe the taxi driver was able to do it, but don't go dismissing it as stuff of movies, because it isn't, albeit it's not a common occurrence either.
Thanks very much, that's very interesting.
It's certainly a confusing scene. I'm not sure I saw anyone entering the taxi, it's not like there was no-one around to see them do it either. So I'm discounting the 'bent coppers' scenario.
It's in the extract at post # 8014, which I posted in response to your post.
Extremely rare I'd imagine.
He wouldn't be cross examined, because they don't do that at Inquests, and what was said to him wouldn't be deemed too relevant, because all involved would understand the procedures.
He wasn't treated like that because of a specific threat by him, but because that is standard procedure in securing all in the incident. They cant take a risk, so all are treated that way.
You've made up a theory based on him being made to look in a specific way, and as usual are ignoring all explanations.
So it's unlikely he'd remember every single word said in such a volatile situation, and it's possible the Police said more to him in this exchange, such as "look at me".
I'm a 100% more certain that it is more likely than your theories, because it is standard practice, something you ignore.
It's possible that he missed parts of the conversation. Indeed, very few can remember every single word exchanged in any conversation. But I don't think he'd have got someone threatening to shoot him, wrong. That would be extremely memorable to all.
It's the whole thing of making sure they are concentrating on the person with the gun, and those giving the orders.
You don't want them looking away from the people in charge of controlling the scene, because you want them fully concentrated on what they're being told.
I don't deny that, and never had. The point raised earlier was that you said he wasn't told where to look, because he didn't say. I'm saying he would have been told where to look.
What's to explain ? The guy was on the floor and handcuffed. How you can even pretend he might be a danger in such circumstances, I honestly don't know - seriously, not joking. I really can't see how he could any longer represent a viable threat.
That's not a made up theory it's hard fact.
So why was it necessary to threaten to shoot him when he was already subdued, on the floor and handcuffed ? Sorry, but "standard procedure" will not cut it.
This is what he said:-
Nothing was said about him being told to look at the Officer, which you asserted earlier. Just not to look towards Duggan, and not to move his head.
brazilian man on underground...innocent shot
Innocent passer by killed...tomlinson case
duggan...despicable
When they gonna shoot the guilty? Muppets
Duggan is hardly the same as JCdM or Tomlinson, is it?
I notice this guy who needs a translator seems vague about a variety of fairly fundamental things, such as being told to get out of the taxi or being told what to do and yet he seems entirely certain of a comment regarding being shot.
I'd speculate that he was simply pissed off at the way he was treated and that threat was simply the one thing he particularly resented and his statement reflects that.
If the guy was suing the police for abuse then it would probably have been challenged but it's really just beside the point of this case so it was probably ignored.
Cops, eh?
Going around shooting innocent people all the time and never catching criminals.
Bastards! >:(
Are people on here saying that the gun was taken from the taxi and put behind a wall??? Because if they are why would anyone do that, if the gun was found in the taxi the police had an even stronger case to shoot, in my opinion.
Or do i need to go back to school and learn to read?
Nope, you're pretty much spot on.
It was not an important aspect of his evidence with regards to the Inquest. He was not clear in all he said, and I am certain he would have been told where to look, because that is what happens. I'm not sure why you cant understand that, or accept it is standard practice.
Thanks for joining the forum. You will be asset with insight such as this.
Well standard procedure is what happens. They train, and use methods that work.
The suspect is the priority, but anyone with him will be placed under control as quickly as possible. Niceties go out of the window, ask the SAS.
He will be placed on the floor, and cuffed as quickly as possible, and searched. Whilst this is happening, someone else will be telling him where to look, in order to maintain eye contact, communication, and control.
You don't like it. You don't like anything the Police do, but this is real life, dangerous stuff, and armed forces do not pussyfoot about.