Police in the clear.

CosmoSmallpieceCosmoSmallpiece Posts: 227
Forum Member
The IPCC is due to present its ruling in the Mark Duggan case:-

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/02/mark-duggan-shooting-inquiry-evidence

A victory for justice, a defeat for those thugs who caused much damage in London and beyond. The usual suspects will cry, but law-abiding citizens will be thankful that the police carry out their duties in order to make this nation a safer place to live. x.
«134

Comments

  • Paulie WalnutsPaulie Walnuts Posts: 3,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    One less gun toting, drug dealing criminal off our streets.
  • Haribo76Haribo76 Posts: 2,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The IPCC is due to present its ruling in the Mark Duggan case:-

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/02/mark-duggan-shooting-inquiry-evidence

    A victory for justice, a defeat for those thugs who caused much damage in London and beyond. The usual suspects will cry, but law-abiding citizens will be thankful that the police carry out their duties in order to make this nation a safer place to live. x.

    Police are never found to be responsible for such shootings and never will be.

    The Grainger case will end the same way, despite no weapons being found at the scene and no evidence of any criminality from the victim that was shot.

    A thread like this to gloat about yet another whitewash is just poor taste in my opinion.
  • Haribo76Haribo76 Posts: 2,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    This is an enquiry?
    None of the 11 firearms officers at the scene of the Duggan shooting who were asked to attend interview have answered oral questions from the IPCC, instead supplying written answers. All initially refused to attend interview, and only the officer who shot him later attended. The officer, known as V53, declined to answer questions orally, instead submitting written answers two days later.

    V53 has said his substantive account of the shooting was compiled three days later, with he and his colleagues spending more than eight hours sitting in a room together writing their statements. He says he has "no doubt" Duggan had a gun and was preparing to open fire.

    :rolleyes:
  • Paulie WalnutsPaulie Walnuts Posts: 3,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Haribo76 wrote: »
    Police are never found to be responsible for such shootings and never will be.

    A thread like this to gloat about yet another whitewash is just poor taste in my opinion.

    It was established and admitted straight away that Duggan was shot by the Police, it has never been denied. He was tailed by the police who observed him picking up the gun, and the person who supplied him has been convicted.

    I'm glad that the police were able to stop him using the gun to kill someone else, aren't you?
  • Haribo76Haribo76 Posts: 2,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And wasn't this the case where police initially lied and pretended that Duggan had fired at them and a bullet had lodged in a police radio.

    That all turned out to be completely made up.
  • Haribo76Haribo76 Posts: 2,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It was established and admitted straight away that Duggan was shot by the Police, it has never been denied. He was tailed by the police who observed him picking up the gun, and the person who supplied him has been convicted.

    I'm glad that the police were able to stop him using the gun to kill someone else, aren't you?

    What evidence is there that he was going to use the gun at the time they shot him?

    It was found 14 feet away from him and his fingerprints or DNA have not been recovered from it.
  • Paulie WalnutsPaulie Walnuts Posts: 3,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Haribo76 wrote: »
    And wasn't this the case where police initially lied and pretended that Duggan had fired at them and a bullet had lodged in a police radio.

    That all turned out to be completely made up.

    Please provide a link to prove that they lied.
  • Haribo76Haribo76 Posts: 2,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Please provide a link to prove that they lied.
    The IPCC had to correct the initial information it released, which came from the Met but which it adopted, saying Duggan had fired and that a bullet had lodged in a radio worn by a police officer. The IPCC later admitted the bullet was in fact most likely a ricochet from one fired by a police officer.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/02/mark-duggan-shooting-inquiry-evidence
  • Paulie WalnutsPaulie Walnuts Posts: 3,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Haribo76 wrote: »
    What evidence is there that he was going to use the gun at the time they shot him?

    It was found 14 feet away from him and his fingerprints or DNA have not been recovered from it.

    There is no evidence available at the moment as the case has not been presented in court. 14ft away is a reasonable distance, just over twice the average body length, and an experienced criminal like Duggan would have made efforts to make sure that fingerprints & DNA were not left behind.
  • Paulie WalnutsPaulie Walnuts Posts: 3,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Haribo76 wrote: »
    And wasn't this the case where police initially lied and pretended that Duggan had fired at them and a bullet had lodged in a police radio.

    That all turned out to be completely made up.
    Please provide a link to prove that they lied.
    Haribo76 wrote: »

    You have provided a link to an article stating the the IPCC released an erroneous press release. You alleged that the Police lied. Big difference.
  • Haribo76Haribo76 Posts: 2,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    There is no evidence available at the moment as the case has not been presented in court. 14ft away is a reasonable distance, just over twice the average body length, and an experienced criminal like Duggan would have made efforts to make sure that fingerprints & DNA were not left behind.

    So he wiped his prints off after they shot him and then threw it 14 feet away?
  • Haribo76Haribo76 Posts: 2,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You have provided a link to an article stating the the IPCC released an erroneous press release. You alleged that the Police lied. Big difference.

    The police told the IPCC that Duggan had fired a bullet which lodged in a police radio.

    They knew this could not be true, hence they lied.

    The link I gave clearly states that the Met passed that info to the IPCC.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 32,379
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Haribo76 wrote: »
    Police are never found to be responsible for such shootings and never will be.

    The Grainger case will end the same way, despite no weapons being found at the scene and no evidence of any criminality from the victim that was shot.

    A thread like this to gloat about yet another whitewash is just poor taste in my opinion.

    What about this case. Unlawfully killed. So it does happen.

    http://news.sky.com/story/1111904/azelle-rodney-unlawfully-killed-by-police
  • Paulie WalnutsPaulie Walnuts Posts: 3,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Haribo76 wrote: »
    So he wiped his prints off after they shot him and then threw it 14 feet away?

    I'd suggest that he was careful to never put his prints on the gun in the first place.

    Having said that, I could just be falling into your carefully laid out trap. Do you have some evidence that has so far been unavailable to the IPCC and Duggans lawyers?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 32,379
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
  • exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    I had a feeling that somebody would come along and dispute this, it seems that the IPCC is only of worth when the result favours that of the disputer.
  • Paulie WalnutsPaulie Walnuts Posts: 3,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Haribo76 wrote: »
    The police told the IPCC that Duggan had fired a bullet which lodged in a police radio.

    They knew this could not be true, hence they lied.

    The link I gave clearly states that the Met passed that info to the IPCC.

    In the initial confusion after the incident it does seem that an officer may have had a bullet hit the radio in his chest, and that messages may have become confused by some party relaying this as the bullet coming from Duggan

    That does not make it a lie at all. In high adrenaline combat situations such as this, everything that has happened may not become clear until later.
  • Haribo76Haribo76 Posts: 2,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    In the initial confusion after the incident it does seem that an officer may have had a bullet hit the radio in his chest, and that messages may have become confused by some party relaying this as the bullet coming from Duggan

    That does not make it a lie at all. In high adrenaline combat situations such as this, everything that has happened may not become clear until later.

    No they definitely told the IPCC that Duggan had fired at the officers.

    They were covering up the fact they shot an unarmed man.

    It is blatantly obvious what happened here. Duggan had a gun in a sock. Police stopped the car he was in. Duggan did the right thing and threw the gun away. But the police shot him anyway.

    I wonder if they said "Sweet as, sweet as" when they shot him, like they did when they unlawfully executed Azele Rodney.
  • Paulie WalnutsPaulie Walnuts Posts: 3,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do you think he had the gun?
  • Haribo76Haribo76 Posts: 2,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do you think he had the gun?

    Makes no difference.

    If he wasn't about to use it and he had indeed thrown it to comply with the police then the police would be in the wrong.

    Possession of a firearm is not a capital offence.
  • Paulie WalnutsPaulie Walnuts Posts: 3,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Haribo76 wrote: »
    No they definitely told the IPCC that Duggan had fired at the officers.

    They were covering up the fact they shot an unarmed man.

    It is blatantly obvious what happened here. Duggan had a gun in a sock. Police stopped the car he was in. Duggan did the right thing and threw the gun away. But the police shot him anyway.

    I wonder if they said "Sweet as, sweet as" when they shot him, like they did when they unlawfully executed Azele Rodney.

    Then why were you asking previously if they had found DNA and prints when all along you 'knew' he had it in a sock. Do you have some sort of agenda here to protect gun toting criminals?
  • Paulie WalnutsPaulie Walnuts Posts: 3,059
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why do you think he had the gun?
    Haribo76 wrote: »
    Makes no difference.

    If he wasn't about to use it and he had indeed thrown it to comply with the police then the police would be in the wrong.

    Possession of a firearm is not a capital offence.

    Answer my question, why do you think he had the gun?
  • CrazyLoopCrazyLoop Posts: 31,148
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I still haven't forgotten the awful riots caused by that man. Was a scary few days in England that's for sure..
  • Haribo76Haribo76 Posts: 2,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Answer my question, why do you think he had the gun?

    I have no idea and it has no bearing on this.

    The only way the police could lawfully shoot him is if he posed a danger with it. If he had thrown it then they were wrong to shoot him.

    Carrying a gun is a crime, but it doesn't carry a sentence of summary execution.
  • Haribo76Haribo76 Posts: 2,090
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Then why were you asking previously if they had found DNA and prints when all along you 'knew' he had it in a sock. Do you have some sort of agenda here to protect gun toting criminals?

    I asked nothing of the kind.

    I have read the link in the OP, I suggest you do the same.
Sign In or Register to comment.