DS Forums

 
 

Lawful Killing - Mark Duggan BB1 8.30pm


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-12-2016, 22:30
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,595
TBH I have little time for the Police these days, but facing a firearm situation we can all be so clever after the event. And much of the "eye witness" evidence offered in this programme wasn't challenged.....
They spent some time on 'white t shirt'.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 05-12-2016, 22:32
harrypalmer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Les Pays-Bas
Posts: 1,468
people in the area were so sad about his death that they smashed the place up and robbed TV's
That's simplistic. There was a genuine protest about his death, it turned into a rampage. Not everyone stole TVs. Some people were just there for the ride.

It's like accusing the entire attendance of a football match when violence breaks out.
harrypalmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 22:32
Paulie Walnuts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,410
Good to know that "crews" aren't the same as "gangs". At least according to the "community leader".
Voice over just explained it a bit better perhaps. A "crew" is a group of friends. A "gang" is a group of people together for criminal reasons.
Interesting then that straight after Stafford Scott talked about Duggan's 'Crew', his sister referred to them as a gang.
Paulie Walnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 22:36
Paulie Walnuts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,410
Yes. He was no angel but I think they tried harder than they should have to to make the evidence warrant their actions which is worse than an error of judgement in my opinion.

Their 'intelligence' was spot on as well, who was that coming from and why weren't they after the big man?
They explained that. They had intelligence that Duggan would be coming into possession of a gun in order to shoot someone, but not from whom he was obtaining it.
Paulie Walnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 22:39
Paulie Walnuts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,410
I agree, and it seems it was the wrong call. They should have 'held their hands up' instead of trying to cover it up and allowing the media to misreport on the circumstances.
A split second call that could've ended up with an officer being shot by a dangerous criminal.

In what way did they cover it up, or 'allow the media to misreport the circumstances'?
Paulie Walnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 22:42
Inspiration
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 53,385
They explained that. They had intelligence that Duggan would be coming into possession of a gun in order to shoot someone, but not from whom he was obtaining it.
Sure but how did they know at that point in the day on that particular taxi journey that he was armed and had to be stopped with force by armed police?

That's the part they won't reveal as they seemingly didn't see the hand over yet were sure he had a gun in the taxi.

To me it felt like they were hinting at a source. Could be undercover. Could be an informant. Could be monitored calls. Who knows. They won't say.
Inspiration is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 22:43
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,595
They explained that. They had intelligence that Duggan would be coming into possession of a gun in order to shoot someone, but not from whom he was obtaining it.
They knew who he was getting it from,
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 22:44
Inspiration
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 53,385
In what way did they cover it up, or 'allow the media to misreport the circumstances'?
Wasn't the original version put forward that the police had been shot? Even if it wasn't intentional miscommunication it caused confusion and resulted in the initial reporting suggesting Mark had fired on police.
Inspiration is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 22:46
Paulie Walnuts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,410
That's simplistic. There was a genuine protest about his death, it turned into a rampage. Not everyone stole TVs. Some people were just there for the ride.

It's like accusing the entire attendance of a football match when violence breaks out.
You're right there, plenty of 'weave' went walkabout as well. A mile away they broke into Wood Green Shopping City as well, some having the audacity to help themselves at the soft ice-cream kiosk.
Paulie Walnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 22:48
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,595
A split second call that could've ended up with an officer being shot by a dangerous criminal.

In what way did they cover it up, or 'allow the media to misreport the circumstances'?
An officer was shot, but not by a dangerous criminal.

Did you watch it? It was all explained. 2 different officers reported 'finding' the gun, how does that happen? And they didn't correct the media report about exchanged shots.

Do you think they behaved appropriately in the aftermath?
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 22:50
DUHO
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 604
They spent some time on 'white t shirt'.
There was innuendo from the forensic scientist saying "he couldn't possibly comment about The police planting the gun-but he did anyway. Innuendo about white t shirt taking the gun from the taxi........Innuendo from "the one independent witness about Duggans manner...........
DUHO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 22:51
Paulie Walnuts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,410
Sure but how did they know at that point in the day on that particular taxi journey that he was armed and had to be stopped with force by armed police?

That's the part they won't reveal as they seemingly didn't see the hand over yet were sure he had a gun in the taxi.

To me it felt like they were hinting at a source. Could be undercover. Could be an informant. Could be monitored calls. Who knows. They won't say.
The programme and family conveniently forgot to mention that intelligence sources can be protected at court, and rightly so. The Police will have had to disclose any such evidence to the court 'ex-parte', i.e. without knowledge of the defence.
Paulie Walnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 22:55
Paulie Walnuts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,410
I agree, and it seems it was the wrong call. They should have 'held their hands up' instead of trying to cover it up and allowing the media to misreport on the circumstances.
A split second call that could've ended up with an officer being shot by a dangerous criminal.

In what way did they cover it up, or 'allow the media to misreport the circumstances'?
Wasn't the original version put forward that the police had been shot? Even if it wasn't intentional miscommunication it caused confusion and resulted in the initial reporting suggesting Mark had fired on police.
That information came from the IPCC though, not from the Police. It was on our TV's less than an hour ago and already people on here are trying to spin things and blame the Police as usual.
Paulie Walnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 23:02
Inspiration
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 53,385
That information came from the IPCC though, not from the Police. It was on our TV's less than an hour ago and already people on here are trying to spin things and blame the Police as usual.
Well as the police were there and they talked to the IPCC I assumed the police were the ones who could have been more clear that the shot police officer was due to friendly fire. But I accept that probably wasn't intentional as my original post stated.
Inspiration is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 23:05
End-Em-All
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,202
That information came from the IPCC though, not from the Police. It was on our TV's less than an hour ago and already people on here are trying to spin things and blame the Police as usual.
Channel 4's Simon Israel says he personally spoke to a Met press officer and was told there had been an exchange of fire.
End-Em-All is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 23:11
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,595
There was innuendo from the forensic scientist saying "he couldn't possibly comment about The police planting the gun-but he did anyway. Innuendo about white t shirt taking the gun from the taxi........Innuendo from "the one independent witness about Duggans manner...........
They presented the police statements as a challenge to Duggans demeanour.

And the evidence about white tshirt wasn't innuendo it was factual, it was one of the things that was caught on video and partly corroborated the witness statement and the forensic guy couldn't rule out that the gun was planted.

I don't remember the innuendo from forensic except to say he couldn't have thrown the gun after being shot and could not rule out the planting of the gun which is fact.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 23:13
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,595
That information came from the IPCC though, not from the Police. It was on our TV's less than an hour ago and already people on here are trying to spin things and blame the Police as usual.
And the same programme explained the the police failed to correct that false report despite knowing the facts. Thats not spin.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 23:15
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,595
Channel 4's Simon Israel says he personally spoke to a Met press officer and was told there had been an exchange of fire.
And would have no reason to lie.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 23:22
End-Em-All
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,202
And would have no reason to lie.
Simon Israel is one of about half a dozen British journalists I still trust.
End-Em-All is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 23:23
End-Em-All
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,202
How is it possible that two police officers independently claim it was them who found the weapon?
End-Em-All is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 23:24
DUHO
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 604
They presented the police statements as a challenge to Duggans demeanour.

And the evidence about white tshirt wasn't innuendo it was factual, it was one of the things that was caught on video and partly corroborated the witness statement and the forensic guy couldn't rule out that the gun was planted.

I don't remember the innuendo from forensic except to say he couldn't have thrown the gun after being shot and could not rule out the planting of the gun which is fact.
there was no proof white tee shirt took the gun and the scientist said "there was allegations about police planting the weapon" "that's outside my area I cant comment on that".......... But his opening sentence offers a comment on that very matter............

but I think we will have to differ in our opinions. It was IMHO the usual BBC fare
DUHO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 23:29
End-Em-All
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,202
there was no proof white tee shirt took the gun and the scientist said "there was allegations about police planting the weapon" "that's outside my area I cant comment on that".......... But his opening sentence offers a comment on that very matter............

but I think we will have to differ in our opinions. It was IMHO the usual BBC fare
The forensic scientist suggested that based on the evidence, Duggan either threw the gun over the fence before he exited the car or the police planted the gun. In his opinion, it was not possible Duggan threw the gun when confronted by police based on the gunshot wounds.
End-Em-All is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 23:30
Paulie Walnuts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,410
And the same programme explained the the police failed to correct that false report despite knowing the facts. Thats not spin.
I'm pretty sure they had a few more important things to deal with at the time though. It certainly wouldn't be top of their to do list and no doubt some thought it better to wait for the dust to settle rather than making statements that could yet have been later found to be mistaken. No forensics had been carried out at this stage.
Paulie Walnuts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 23:36
Brandy211
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 766
An officer was shot, but not by a dangerous criminal.

Did you watch it? It was all explained. 2 different officers reported 'finding' the gun, how does that happen? And they didn't correct the media report about exchanged shots.

Do you think they behaved appropriately in the aftermath?
Also, 11 police officers present at the time & no one saw him throw a gun.

Police never informed his family of his death.

At the end, it said an officer was sacked for gross misconduct this year, for lying.

http://socialistworker.co.uk/art/371...of+mark+duggan

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36112643
Brandy211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2016, 23:48
Brandy211
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 766
Wasn't the original version put forward that the police had been shot? Even if it wasn't intentional miscommunication it caused confusion and resulted in the initial reporting suggesting Mark had fired on police.
Yes, they told reporters on two separate occasions, that there was an exchange of gunshots a that a police officer was in hospital, to make it seem as if Mark Duggan had shot the police officer.

The pathologist said that only thing in Marks pocket, was his mobile phone which he seemed to be fumbling for before he was shot..
Brandy211 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:35.