Tottenham and other disturbances / riots

[leicsmac]

It's your fault if you don't understand the law.

 

And now the penalty for this is death without due process? Do we really shoot people dead if we even suspect them of carrying a firearm? Whatever happened to shooting to disable, if it is really needed?

 

If the law in this country allows for that then the law is wrong.

[hackneyfox]

 Whatever happened to shooting to disable, if it is really needed?

To be fair to the police you only ever shoot to kill.

The problem here is that they shot an unarmed man, the jury believed him to be unarmed, quite how they then decide it is a lawful killing is what is beyond me.

[ADK]

The police do shoot to disable it's just that disabling someone by shooting hollow point bullets at their torso often results in death. The Lee Rigby killer survived being shot by police.

 

I can see why people don't trust the police, and like many recent police cases there appears to be some misinformation presented by the police. However, I don't think this case should have resulted in a prosecution for the killing. What bothers me more is the way the police interact with the press during these events.

[Itsthejoeker]

And now the penalty for this is death without due process? Do we really shoot people dead if we even suspect them of carrying a firearm? Whatever happened to shooting to disable, if it is really needed?

 

If the law in this country allows for that then the law is wrong.

 

If four firearm police all shoot at your torso to disable you, the chances are you're going to be pretty close death.

[Merging Cultures]

Don't trust the police?

 

Don't have a gun. Don't be a criminal. No reason to not trust the police.

 

Yes, he was unarmed when they shot. But that doesn't mean that I as a law abiding citizen shouldn't trust the police.

[hackneyfox]

Don't trust the police?

 

Don't have a gun. Don't be a criminal. No reason to not trust the police.

 

Yes, he was unarmed when they shot. But that doesn't mean that I as a law abiding citizen shouldn't trust the police.

Does the name John Charles De Menezes ring any bells?

What did he do wrong that lead to the police shooting him?

[Merging Cultures]

Does the name John Charles De Menezes ring any bells?

What did he do wrong that lead to the police shooting him?

 

Nope. Perhaps you mean Jean Charles de Menezes?

 

That was a very difficult situation, 2 weeks after bombings and the day after failed bombing attempts. 

 

I'll be controversial and say that to protect the majority, sometimes there is collateral damage.

 

Also, this wasn't just a spur of the moment shooting, indeed they made errors, but they had watched him come out of a location of a known suspect, followed him to a closed tube station, made a call and changed direction. At which point 'intelligence units' became very concerned and ordered code red.

 

There will be collateral damage, but it wasn't like the police just shoot people whenever they get a bit scared. They followed him. Observed his behaviour and got advice from HQ. 

 

Did they make a mistake, yes. Does it make me scared or untrusting of the police? No.

 

Cue that's just the official report, which is a big cover up for aliens...

[Itsthejoeker]

Nope. Perhaps you mean Jean Charles de Menezes?

 

That was a very difficult situation, 2 weeks after bombings and the day after failed bombing attempts. 

 

I'll be controversial and say that to protect the majority, sometimes there is collateral damage.

 

Also, this wasn't just a spur of the moment shooting, indeed they made errors, but they had watched him come out of a location of a known suspect, followed him to a closed tube station, made a call and changed direction. At which point 'intelligence units' became very concerned and ordered code red.

 

There will be collateral damage, but it wasn't like the police just shoot people whenever they get a bit scared. They followed him. Observed his behaviour and got advice from HQ. 

 

Did they make a mistake, yes. Does it make me scared or untrusting of the police? No.

 

Cue that's just the official report, which is a big cover up for aliens...

 

Exactly, if he had turned out to be a terrorist and police had tracked him and hadn't managed to stop him, heaven forbid the shitstorm that would be unleashed on the police for "not doing their jobs properly", as we hear everyday.  

[hackneyfox]

Exactly, if he had turned out to be a terrorist and police had tracked him and hadn't managed to stop him, heaven forbid the shitstorm that would be unleashed on the police for "not doing their jobs properly", as we hear everyday.  

Oh well that's okay then.

[bovril]

Nope. Perhaps you mean Jean Charles de Menezes?

 

That was a very difficult situation, 2 weeks after bombings and the day after failed bombing attempts. 

 

I'll be controversial and say that to protect the majority, sometimes there is collateral damage.

 

Also, this wasn't just a spur of the moment shooting, indeed they made errors, but they had watched him come out of a location of a known suspect, followed him to a closed tube station, made a call and changed direction. At which point 'intelligence units' became very concerned and ordered code red.

 

There will be collateral damage, but it wasn't like the police just shoot people whenever they get a bit scared. They followed him. Observed his behaviour and got advice from HQ. 

 

Did they make a mistake, yes. Does it make me scared or untrusting of the police? No.

 

Cue that's just the official report, which is a big cover up for aliens...

 

Should the people who made and exacerbated these mistakes be held accountable for the death of an innocent person? Yes.

[Itsthejoeker]

Oh well that's okay then.

 

When did I say it was okay? I would rather not have innocent people shot by the police.

[Samilktray]

Do people actually have faith in the police? Genuine question...

[Merging Cultures]

Should the people who made and exacerbated these mistakes be held accountable for the death of an innocent person? Yes.

 

Totally disagree. Unfortunately, suicide bombers and the like do not tell the police what they are doing. So, please have to do surveillance and make educated guesses. The police did the best they could with the information they had. 

 

Fortunately for us, the average person is pretty easy to identify and track. So, I am not concerned.

 

However, for people that are in the UK under dubious circumstances there will be less information and they will be harder to identify. So, unfortunately there is a risk of people who in the UK under dubious circumstances being mistaken for terrorists etc.

 

Perhaps we can ask the terrorists to identify themselves so that the police do not make such mistakes in the future...

[Dan]

Bloody hell I remember the riots. Shame they weren't all shot.

[Merging Cultures]

Do people actually have faith in the police? Genuine question...

 

Yes. Why not? What are you worried about?

 

If you don't, then I assume if you were broken in to or attacked you'd call your personal security team?

 

No, that's right, you'd call the police. And they would obviously then shoot you or steal your stuff and right up a report that you attacked them first...

 

Tottenham happened because a criminal had a gun.

 

Jean Charles de Menezes happened because there was a high risk of a terrorist bomb and unfortunately in protecting the majority there will be collateral damage.

 

I will stop hijacking [pun intended] this thread.

[leicsmac]

Totally disagree. Unfortunately, suicide bombers and the like do not tell the police what they are doing. So, please have to do surveillance and make educated guesses. The police did the best they could with the information they had. 

 

Fortunately for us, the average person is pretty easy to identify and track. So, I am not concerned.

 

However, for people that are in the UK under dubious circumstances there will be less information and they will be harder to identify. So, unfortunately there is a risk of people who in the UK under dubious circumstances being mistaken for terrorists etc.

 

Perhaps we can ask the terrorists to identify themselves so that the police do not make such mistakes in the future...

 

That they did, but an innocent man still died because of it and someone should answer for that. Incompetence due to lack of information that leads to a criminal act is not an excuse for being punished in other walks of life, so why should it be here?

 

I should add that (sorry about this BB) I think 'collateral damage' is one of the most disgusting terms used in the world today. If an innocent person dies due to acts by our own enforcement agencies (whether they be domestic or military) on account of preventing this nebulous 'terrorist' threat then they died a heinous and perhaps even meaningless death (which should be defined as such), and those responsible should be punished under full penalty of law.

[Dan]

Yes. Why not? What are you worried about?

 

If you don't, then I assume if you were broken in to or attacked you'd call your personal security team?

 

No, that's right, you'd call the police. And they would obviously then shoot you or steal your stuff and right up a report that you attacked them first...

 

Tottenham happened because a criminal had a gun.

 

Jean Charles de Menezes happened because there was a high risk of a terrorist bomb and unfortunately in protecting the majority there will be collateral damage.

 

I will stop hijacking [pun intended] this thread.

 

Definitely trust the police more than I do gangsters.

 

The whole thing was probably an all-time low for English society in my lifetime that I remember. 99% of them using one shooting as an excuse to nab a few goods on the cheap.

[Merging Cultures]

That they did, but an innocent man still died because of it and someone should answer for that. Incompetence due to lack of information that leads to a criminal act is not an excuse for being punished in other walks of life, so why should it be here?

 

I should add that (sorry about this BB) I think 'collateral damage' is one of the most disgusting terms used in the world today. If an innocent person dies due to acts by our own enforcement agencies (whether they be domestic or military) on account of preventing this nebulous 'terrorist' threat then they died a heinous and perhaps even meaningless death (which should be defined as such), and those responsible should be punished under full penalty of law.

 

Fully understand your point. And I agree. We should definitely avoid taking any innocent lives unnecessarily and strive to have the best information available.

 

It is my belief that this was the case in this situation. Information gathering continues to improve, while people will complain about freedoms being diminished and a big brother state, I disagree. More information available to the intelligence and security forces makes us safer and reduces the chances of other unfortunate situations like that one. However, unless we disarm the armed police and security forces there will always be some chance of such things happening again.

 

I do not believe that a crime was committed by the police. They were operating under the statutes set out by the government. Which is a different discussion as to whether you agree with those.

[DennisNedry]

The police are a shambolic institution (public sector, what do you expect?) but Duggan got what he deserved.

 

He managed to breed 6 times though, so in a decade or so they'll be 6 more scumbags in London, as if London needed more.

[Guest]

That they did, but an innocent man still died because of it and someone should answer for that. Incompetence due to lack of information that leads to a criminal act is not an excuse for being punished in other walks of life, so why should it be here?

I should add that (sorry about this BB) I think 'collateral damage' is one of the most disgusting terms used in the world today. If an innocent person dies due to acts by our own enforcement agencies (whether they be domestic or military) on account of preventing this nebulous 'terrorist' threat then they died a heinous and perhaps even meaningless death (which should be defined as such), and those responsible should be punished under full penalty of law.

Out of curiosity you say someone should answer for it but who should that be? What would be satisfactory in this case? A senior police figure stepping down won't change the law related to police defending themselves when they perceive a threat to themselves or others around a particular area. Or would a change in that law be considered a decent outcome of all this?

I'm not criticising your opinion I'm just curious as to what you and others would see as an okay outcome from all this.

[Babylon]

Should the people who made and exacerbated these mistakes be held accountable for the death of an innocent person? Yes.

 

Innocent? The jury said he didn't have it on him when shot. But he did have one just before. Someone is already in prison for supplying the weapon in question, that person is the man Duggan visited minutes before the shooting, and came away with the shoe box. The gun found at the scene had the DNA of the person Duggan had just visited. He had already broken the law, and a fairly serious law at that, so he was anything but innocent.

[Merging Cultures]

Innocent? The jury said he didn't have it on him when shot. But he did have one just before. Someone is already in prison for supplying the weapon in question, that person is the man Duggan visited minutes before the shooting, and came away with the shoe box. The gun found at the scene had the DNA of the person Duggan had just visited. He had already broken the law, and a fairly serious law at that, so he was anything but innocent.

 

I think Bovril was responding to the comments about Jean Charles de Menezes which someone brought up to say that the police go around killing innocent people and we shouldn't trust them.

[Captain...]

If a jury has been correctly instructed in the law, and given the full details of the case, then we have to assume justice has been done, but there are some very unpleasant facts in this case, such as the fact an unarmed man got shot to death, and the reports that a policeman lied about Duggan shooting at him. But I think there is something wrong with the law, when the jury can conclude he had got rid of the gun, and was unarmed when he was killed, was lawful killing. It doesn't seem like they were asked if they believed the Met officer who shot him thought he was armed or not. Surely that is the crux of the argument, not whether or not he had a gun, but that the Met officer was right in pulling the trigger.

 

 

1 In the period between midday 3 August and when state Amber was called at 6pm on 4 August 2011, did the Metropolitan police and Serious Organised Crime Agency do the best they realistically could have done to gather and react to intelligence about the possibility of Mark Duggan collecting a gun from Kevin Hutchinson Foster? No.

2 Was the stop conducted in a location and in a way which minimised to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force? Yes.

3 Did Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the stop? Yes.

4 How did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found? The jury members, by 9-1, concluded that Duggan threw the firearm on to the grass. Of the nine, eight have concluded that it is more likely than not that Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement. One concluded that Duggan threw the firearm while on the pavement and in the process of evading the police. One juror was not convinced of any supposition that Mark Duggan threw the firearm from the vehicle or from the pavement because no witnesses gave evidence to this effect.

5 When Duggan received the fatal shot, did he have the gun in his hand? Eight jurors concluded they were sure he did not have a gun in his hand. One concluded it was more likely than not he did have a gun in his hand. One concluded it was more likely than not he did not have a gun in his hand.

6 Conclusion of the jury as to the death: Lawful killing: eight jurors. Open conclusion: two jurors.

 

 

I've just seen something saying that armed police will start wearing cameras to record any incidents like this so there can be no question over what happened in a fatality.

[Zingari]

If a jury has been correctly instructed in the law, and given the full details of the case, then we have to assume justice has been done, but there are some very unpleasant facts in this case, such as the fact an unarmed man got shot to death, and the reports that a policeman lied about Duggan shooting at him. But I think there is something wrong with the law, when the jury can conclude he had got rid of the gun, and was unarmed when he was killed, was lawful killing. It doesn't seem like they were asked if they believed the Met officer who shot him thought he was armed or not. Surely that is the crux of the argument, not whether or not he had a gun, but that the Met officer was right in pulling the trigger.

 

 

I've just seen something saying that armed police will start wearing cameras to record any incidents like this so there can be no question over what happened in a fatality.

what's the betting they'll miraculously fail to record good enough quality images at very convenient times ?  

[Babylon]

and the reports that a policeman lied about Duggan shooting at him.

To be fair to the policeman, he ended up with a bullet lodged in his radio. Your first reaction would probably be that the person you think has a gun shot you, rather than it being a fluke ricochet from another officer. The error was releasing the information before doing the correct ballistics tests etc.

what's the betting they'll miraculously fail to record good enough quality images at very convenient times ?  

Well lets be honest, not good enough images hasn't stopped you from coming to conclusions before has it.

I think Bovril was responding to the comments about Jean Charles de Menezes which someone brought up to say that the police go around killing innocent people and we shouldn't trust them.

Fair enough.