DS Forums

 
 

Lawful Killing - Mark Duggan BB1 8.30pm


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-12-2016, 00:02
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,666
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..
No the IPCC told reporters an officer had been shot not Police, that was admitted by the IPCC who did nothing about it and Police actually contacted the media to put the record straight, that was mentioned in the programme tonight and it was in the press that the IPCC admitted their error at the pre Inquest hearing . Whilst I am not saying the police are free from error the IPCC has gotten off very lightly over procedural errors in this whilst the Police have been blamed for many things post the shooting that they had no control over

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.
If he threw the gun from the car before they approached then they probably wouldn't have .

Police did make some errors re family but his partner and sister knew , whilst I am not saying it is their job why did neither of them tell his Mum ? And lets not forget it was being said outside Tottenham Police station that no one had spoken to the family when in fact the whole family had been with the IPCC and viewed the body that very day and when people got angry about that and also stated the police had blown Marks head off the community leaders who knew different did nothing to stop the rumour when they could have there and then

The officer sacked was for lieing about procedures he followed or lack of them in another case which could have meant the gun seller was caught sooner, so not the actual Duggan case

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.
Have you considered if they revealed publicly how they knew he was getting the gun that that informant might be dead within hours ?

The police do cover stuff up ,, look at Hillsborough.

If Duggen did have a gun then he only has himself to blame imo , if the police planted it there then i'm shocked at what goes on and the lengths they take to cover things up,, but it looks like we will never know for sure.
If they were going to plant a gun as was said you would plant it somewhere better , that raised more questions than it answered and the answer appears to be he threw it before he got out of the taxi.

people in the area were so sad about his death that they smashed the place up and robbed TV's
Yes I didn't see many branches of the Pound Shop or Lidl being looted , such anger can only be aimed at high end clothing and electricals ready for Ebay

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.
They did not allow the media to misreport, that was an IPCC cockup and did you not see it was the police who contacted the media to tell them that their info was incorrect
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 06-12-2016, 00:02
RichmondBlue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Richmond, Surrey.
Posts: 13,811
The thing I couldn't understand was why Trident appeared to ignore Hutchinson-Foster who they appeared to know was passing the gun to Duggan ? He was the more dangerous criminal having already been jailed at the Old Bailey in 2009 for possessing crack cocaine and heroin with intent to supply.
Practically everyone in the community appeared to be aware of Hutchinson-Foster, and regarded him as a dangerous character. Duggan seems to have been relatively small fry in comparison, so why concentrate their efforts on him ?
RichmondBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 00:06
CLL Dodge
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The Green Hills of Earth
Posts: 80,413
How is it possible that two police officers independently claim it was them who found the weapon?
More cock up than cover up.
CLL Dodge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 00:11
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,666
The thing I couldn't understand was why Trident appeared to ignore Hutchinson-Foster who they appeared to know was passing the gun to Duggan ? He was the more dangerous criminal having already been jailed at the Old Bailey in 2009 for possessing crack cocaine and heroin with intent to supply.
Practically everyone in the community appeared to be aware of Hutchinson-Foster, and regarded him as a dangerous character. Duggan seems to have been relatively small fry in comparison, so why concentrate their efforts on him ?
Follow the gun and arrest the seller later, they knew where he was and less chance of anyone being tipped off possibly and also keep him under surveillance.

Hutchinson-Foster had some things to say on Duggan

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...iding-gun.html
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 00:17
Brandy211
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 766
No the IPCC told reporters an officer had been shot not Police, that was admitted by the IPCC who did nothing about it and Police actually contacted the media to put the record straight, that was mentioned in the programme tonight and it was in the press that the IPCC admitted their error at the pre Inquest hearing . Whilst I am not saying the police are free from error the IPCC has gotten off very lightly over procedural errors in this whilst the Police have been blamed for many things post the shooting that they had no control over



If he threw the gun from the car before they approached then they probably wouldn't have .

Police did make some errors re family but his partner and sister knew



They did not allow the media to misreport, that was an IPCC cockup and did you not see it was the police who contacted the media to tell them that their info was incorrect
Police usually formally inform next of kin.
They failed to do that as his mother saw the news on tv.

The public got the impression that Mark was a violent gangster who shot a police officer & therefore deserved to be killed by them.
No forensic evidence/dna have been found on the gun.
No one saw the gun...
No one saw anyone handover a gun to him.
Many still think that as they are going by those first reports.

He had two minor convictions.
They were for handling stolen goods and possession of cannabis, none for violence.
Brandy211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 00:33
skp20040
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Central London
Posts: 43,666
Police usually formally inform next of kin.
They failed to do that as his mother saw the news on tv.

The public got the impression that Mark was a violent gangster who shot a police officer & therefore deserved to be killed by them.
No forensic evidence/dna have been found on the gun.
No one saw the gun...
No one saw anyone handover a gun to him.
Many still think that as they are going by those first reports.

He had two minor convictions.
They were for handling stolen goods and possession of cannabis, none for violence.
There was no DNA on the gun but the gun had been in the box and he had the box and his fingerprints were all over the box the gun had been in .

The IPCC put out the report that there had been an exchange of gunfire and an officer shot not the Police the IPCC have admitted that and taken responsibility for that. Even people in Tottenham have said in the newspapers it was the IPCC who briefed the press on that

With regard to previous offences , the media will print what they want but they spoke to people and got stories, I have not seen any paper sued yet for any of their stories over Duggan . And whether he was violent or not we do not actually know , but just because someone is not arrested and found guilty does not mean they are innocent either, it doesn't mean they are guilty but neither does it mean they are not involved in crime many criminals go through life never charged .
skp20040 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 00:42
james_lndsay
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 328
Duggan was evil scum, known drug dealer, wannabe gangster and abuser, do I fee sad at his passing? An emphatic no I'm afraid. He was n saint not even a lovable rogue type he was the epitome of a vile excuse for a human being.

Think of the lives saved because he is dead,he is no longer selling drugs, threatening and using violence on other being abusive to ex's, only a fellow scumbag weeps at his passing, I do however have great empathy for the officer that had to shoot him, his colleagues who lives were perceived to be at risk if he had got gun in hand and started firing. Every Met officer that day did an outstanding job on that call.

Was it a lawful killing of course it was not matter what his deluded mother and family and friend say otherwise, this drama doc offered nothing new it just rehashed the proven facts we all knew.

There was no cover up

The moron would still be alive if he did not carry a gun which he did use to threaten others before the final hour of his sad worthless life.
james_lndsay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 00:42
Brandy211
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 766
There was no DNA on the gun but the gun had been in the box and he had the box and his fingerprints were all over the box the gun had been in .

The IPCC put out the report that there had been an exchange of gunfire and an officer shot not the Police the IPCC have admitted that and taken responsibility for that. Even people in Tottenham have said in the newspapers it was the IPCC who briefed the press on that

With regard to previous offences , the media will print what they want but they spoke to people and got stories, I have not seen any paper sued yet for any of their stories over Duggan . And whether he was violent or not we do not actually know , but just because someone is not arrested and found guilty does not mean they are innocent either, it doesn't mean they are guilty but neither does it mean they are not involved in crime many criminals go through life never charged .
As no one saw any handover of a gun and no one even saw a gun, who knows what was in the box? A pair of trainers?
Its down as fact that he had a gun, when the fact is, no one saw him collect or be in possession of a gun.
What the police and public do now know, is that the "gun" police said he was holding, was found to be his Blackberry mobile phone...

It wasn't until 12th August that the IPPC admitted it has misled journalists into believing that Mark Duggan had shot at officers.
The damage had already been done, with the daily headlines that HE had fired the first shots & the public believing it until this day...

There,s been lies and cover ups all around. Unfortunately no CCTV footage of events, just one word against another.

Two separate police officers both giving separate statements that one of them found the gun?
Now that's dodgy in itself!
Brandy211 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 08:31
Jelakins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NW London
Posts: 1,726
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.
That made me smile - even with the evidence that the police are very much to blame you call it "spin".... similar to the Walter Scott case in the USA you can actually see what happened yet you still appear to blindly support a murderer....
Jelakins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 08:54
Jelakins
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NW London
Posts: 1,726
Duggan was evil scum, known drug dealer, wannabe gangster and abuser, do I fee sad at his passing? An emphatic no I'm afraid. He was n saint not even a lovable rogue type he was the epitome of a vile excuse for a human being.

Think of the lives saved because he is dead,he is no longer selling drugs, threatening and using violence on other being abusive to ex's, only a fellow scumbag weeps at his passing, I do however have great empathy for the officer that had to shoot him, his colleagues who lives were perceived to be at risk if he had got gun in hand and started firing. Every Met officer that day did an outstanding job on that call.

Was it a lawful killing of course it was not matter what his deluded mother and family and friend say otherwise, this drama doc offered nothing new it just rehashed the proven facts we all knew.

There was no cover up

The moron would still be alive if he did not carry a gun which he did use to threaten others before the final hour of his sad worthless life.
As no one saw any handover of a gun and no one even saw a gun, who knows what was in the box? A pair of trainers?
Its down as fact that he had a gun, when the fact is, no one saw him collect or be in possession of a gun.
What the police and public do now know, is that the "gun" police said he was holding, was found to be his Blackberry mobile phone...

It wasn't until 12th August that the IPPC admitted it has misled journalists into believing that Mark Duggan had shot at officers.
The damage had already been done, with the daily headlines that HE had fired the first shots & the public believing it until this day...

There,s been lies and cover ups all around. Unfortunately no CCTV footage of events, just one word against another.

Two separate police officers both giving separate statements that one of them found the gun?
Now that's dodgy in itself!

BIB - and thats exactly why people like james_lndsay comments the way he does (or at least thats what I chose to think as the alternative reasons leave a bad taste in my mouth)
Jelakins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 09:17
testcard
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Middle England
Posts: 990
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.
I believe it was Stafford Scott, the "community leader" in the programme, who defined the term "crew". Yet in this profile of Scott from the Huffington Post, the term seems to have a somewhat different meaning:
"“I don’t even know if he was a dealer, but he was low level... he was on the fringes rather than in any front line crew.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b011978b131e84
testcard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 12:29
Dippydolly
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,060
There are a few stand out moments in this documentary for me:

1) The eye witness who swore MD's hands were up in surrender, which was proved to be factually incorrect

2) 2 Police officers both, independently, claimed to have found the gun

3) Mark Duggan would still be alive IF he had followed Police instructions and not being fumbling around inside his jacket.
Dippydolly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 13:38
Mark1974
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,891
Duggan was evil scum, known drug dealer, wannabe gangster and abuser, do I fee sad at his passing? An emphatic no I'm afraid. He was n saint not even a lovable rogue type he was the epitome of a vile excuse for a human being.

Think of the lives saved because he is dead,he is no longer selling drugs, threatening and using violence on other being abusive to ex's, only a fellow scumbag weeps at his passing, I do however have great empathy for the officer that had to shoot him, his colleagues who lives were perceived to be at risk if he had got gun in hand and started firing. Every Met officer that day did an outstanding job on that call.

Was it a lawful killing of course it was not matter what his deluded mother and family and friend say otherwise, this drama doc offered nothing new it just rehashed the proven facts we all knew.

There was no cover up

The moron would still be alive if he did not carry a gun which he did use to threaten others before the final hour of his sad worthless life.

Totally agree with all of this.
Mark1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 14:59
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,594
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.
You've gone from denial that it happened at all to justification here.

There was no need for forensics, the police did not see a gun and did not think he had shot at them. 'Waiting for the dust to settle' is exactly what they did in some sort of attempt to paint their victim as the instigator of a shootout, they didn't do that with innocence they did it with malice.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:06
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,594

They did not allow the media to misreport, that was an IPCC cockup and did you not see it was the police who contacted the media to tell them that their info was incorrect
The IPCC weren't at the scene at the time of the shooting, do they just make stories up without speaking to the officers that were there? The police informed the media there was an exchange of fire and I would assume were also involved in any conclusion the IPCC came to but regardless of that, they should have corrected any inaccuracies immediately.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:09
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,594
As no one saw any handover of a gun and no one even saw a gun, who knows what was in the box? A pair of trainers?
Its down as fact that he had a gun, when the fact is, no one saw him collect or be in possession of a gun.
What the police and public do now know, is that the "gun" police said he was holding, was found to be his Blackberry mobile phone...

It wasn't until 12th August that the IPPC admitted it has misled journalists into believing that Mark Duggan had shot at officers.
The damage had already been done, with the daily headlines that HE had fired the first shots & the public believing it until this day...

There,s been lies and cover ups all around. Unfortunately no CCTV footage of events, just one word against another.

Two separate police officers both giving separate statements that one of them found the gun?
Now that's dodgy in itself!
Was this supposed to have happened when the 'tail' had been lost. Didn't they also say the taxi took a route which the driver denied AND his satnav proved to be lies from the police?
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:12
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,594
There are a few stand out moments in this documentary for me:

1) The eye witness who swore MD's hands were up in surrender, which was proved to be factually incorrect

2) 2 Police officers both, independently, claimed to have found the gun

3) Mark Duggan would still be alive IF he had followed Police instructions and not being fumbling around inside his jacket.
We only have their word that he was fumbling around for anything and going on the lies we know they did tell and the IMMEDIATE attempts to act secretively about his person (by threatening to shoot the taxi driver if he looked) I don't put a lot of faith in their word.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:13
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,594
Duggan was evil scum, known drug dealer, wannabe gangster and abuser, do I fee sad at his passing? An emphatic no I'm afraid. He was n saint not even a lovable rogue type he was the epitome of a vile excuse for a human being.

Think of the lives saved because he is dead,he is no longer selling drugs, threatening and using violence on other being abusive to ex's, only a fellow scumbag weeps at his passing, I do however have great empathy for the officer that had to shoot him, his colleagues who lives were perceived to be at risk if he had got gun in hand and started firing. Every Met officer that day did an outstanding job on that call.

Was it a lawful killing of course it was not matter what his deluded mother and family and friend say otherwise, this drama doc offered nothing new it just rehashed the proven facts we all knew.

There was no cover up

The moron would still be alive if he did not carry a gun which he did use to threaten others before the final hour of his sad worthless life.
Who did he threaten with it?
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:14
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
You're a pleasant sole aren't you?
I'm with cavelli on this. I wasn't even prepared to waste my electricity bill on this entertainment. Bleeding heart brigade, don't you love em.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:15
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
Duggan was evil scum, known drug dealer, wannabe gangster and abuser, do I fee sad at his passing? An emphatic no I'm afraid. He was n saint not even a lovable rogue type he was the epitome of a vile excuse for a human being.

Think of the lives saved because he is dead,he is no longer selling drugs, threatening and using violence on other being abusive to ex's, only a fellow scumbag weeps at his passing, I do however have great empathy for the officer that had to shoot him, his colleagues who lives were perceived to be at risk if he had got gun in hand and started firing. Every Met officer that day did an outstanding job on that call.

Was it a lawful killing of course it was not matter what his deluded mother and family and friend say otherwise, this drama doc offered nothing new it just rehashed the proven facts we all knew.

There was no cover up

The moron would still be alive if he did not carry a gun which he did use to threaten others before the final hour of his sad worthless life.
Best post in thread award - top marks.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:28
David_Herfrel
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 54
Trident seemed to have an extraordinary amount of intelligence about Duggan's planned movements that evening and knowing he was picking a gun up.

Who was the informant? The gun provider?
David_Herfrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:33
David_Herfrel
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 54
Channel 4's Simon Israel says he personally spoke to a Met press officer and was told there had been an exchange of fire.
Why does it seem that Channel 4 News do not routinely audio record incoming and outgoing calls?
David_Herfrel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:38
EvieJ
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 3,594
Trident seemed to have an extraordinary amount of intelligence about Duggan's planned movements that evening and knowing he was picking a gun up.

Who was the informant? The gun provider?
Well they claim to have lost Duggan at the point of handover so no proof of the providers (who they chose not to pursue despite knowing he had the gun) involvement, their version of the taxis movements have been proven false and they were very time specific to the point of starting work early because the pick up was earlier than expected. Their informant was very well informed.
EvieJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 15:50
Faust
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 8,097
Well they claim to have lost Duggan at the point of handover so no proof of the providers (who they chose not to pursue despite knowing he had the gun) involvement, their version of the taxis movements have been proven false and they were very time specific to the point of starting work early because the pick up was earlier than expected. Their informant was very well informed.
Does it matter? Why all the navel gazing? It happened, and it appears a 'loveable rogue' was taken off the streets in what has been officially called classed as a 'proper police action'.

It also provided the excuse for more 'lovable rogues' to bag themselves plenty more stolen goods in the riots that followed.
Faust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 16:21
Dippydolly
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,060
We only have their word that he was fumbling around for anything and going on the lies we know they did tell and the IMMEDIATE attempts to act secretively about his person (by threatening to shoot the taxi driver if he looked) I don't put a lot of faith in their word.
No we have the autopsy report and the trajectory of the bullets telling us exactly what he was doing at the time he was shot
Dippydolly is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.