Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Lawful killing, even though the jury accepted he was unarmed when shot. Seems odd...
Given the evidence, I thought an open verdict was pretty likely.
Given past history of this sort of thing
Could it be that the jury accept that he was unarmed but that the police didn't know that and still assumed him a threat? :/
Delightful. The jury doubtless will have been directed to deliver this - it's the Metropolitan Police and our out-dated justice system that needs to be blamed for this travesty.
of GG on a really poor day
it appears that despite accepting he didn't have a weapon, the fact that the police believed in good faith he did means it was a lawful killing?
trying to get my head round that.
But police marksman had reason to believe he was still armed
had no evidence to suggest he WASN'T still armed
Point at them with his fingers?
Why did they shoot if he wasn't armed and (I thus assume) made no show of looking like he was about to shoot someone (e.g. taking aim)?
the water cannon's gonna be pretty superfluous
but as she's not, I'll c+p it from her twitter:
re "lawful killing" - the defendant is judged on the facts as he honestly believes them to be. even if his belief is wrong and unreasonable and even if irrelevant or prejudiced opinions informed that "honest belief"
Good post. It's a subjective test of belief, not an objective one, that is, an honestly held ridiculous belief is what will be judged, not what the fictitious reasonable (police) man in the street would have believed instead.
Otherwise the 7/7 bombers would have been resolutely not guilty.
"even if his belief is wrong and unreasonable and even if irrelevant or prejudiced opinions informed that "honest belief"".
Covers most extremist acts really doesn't it?
And I see what you';re driving at I think. But I'm sorry, it's not a sound analogy. besides, to compare the english and US legal systems is apples/ pears territory.
not his 'motive'.
"even if his belief is wrong and unreasonable and even if irrelevant or prejudiced opinions informed that quote honest belief unquote"
That's enshrined in law is it? Or are you just applying your Star Wars morality to stuff again?
i wasnt aware of the severity of his involvement in criminal activity actually. id only read of the minor charges of theft and canabbis selling.
The crucial bit is:
"Of the three verdicts open to jurors, unlawful killing relied on them being certain Duggan was not holding a gun, and being certain V53 did not have an honest belief the suspect was brandishing a weapon. Lawful killing or an open verdict required them to reach a view on a lower standard of proof, namely on the balance of probabilities."
im just saying i hadnt read that originally.
not sure why youve quoted that in reply to me, but for interests sake then , do you think v53 did not have that honest belief and that the verdict should have been unlawful killing?
from the summary and (limited) other knowledge id have said an open verdict was probably a more reasonable conclusion than lawful killing.
especially seeing as though it was the story the Met put out repeatedly, and it was reported on just about every news outlet as a result.
it is surely a sensible precaution to assume they are *always* carrying a weapon? Even if you see them throw away a gun in their hand, you can't be certain they aren't carrying another concealed until you physically have control of the suspect. To this, in context, the police involved in the incident would (or should) have an 'honest belief' the suspect has a weapon, as it would be too risky not too.
Childhood me proper cried his eyes out when Brittas went under that water tank
even wept with joy when Brittas appeared from the destroyed leisure centre with them kids
as the law stands it was almost certainly correct - that's what I mean. The jury couldn't reasonably have given any other verdict based upon the evidence presented to them in the trial.
If I (as the police) approached a (suspected) weapons dealer, it is a sensible precaution to assume that they are *always* carrying a weapon. I probably wouldn't assume that they were brandishing one though, especially if I'd seen them throw away a gun in their hand.
1) The time to go from not brandishing a weapon, to brandishing and firing one can be be what 5 seconds or less? The fact that a suspect may not be brandishing a weapon at any particular second, does not mean that they can not or won't be the next second.
2) You've seen them throw away the gun that's in their hand, fine - but you know the suspect is active in the illegal gun trade. With that in mind, it's not unreasonable to expect, or at least proceed on the basis that, they may have further guns on their person - potentially ones that can be withdrawn and fired in a matter of seconds. Should the officers wait for the suspect to fire first (potentially killing a police offer/civilian)? The window of opportunity between knowing the suspect is going to shoot and them actually shooting is minute, literally a split second.
you're almost certainly not going to then attempt to shoot an officer with another gun.
As we've said, what the officer said was that his account demonstrated his 'honest belief'. He was wrong, and presumably every other armed police officer in the unit didn't share the same belief (otherwise they'd have shot him too).
Sounds like you obviously know a lot more about it than the people who work there.
Maybe get a job as England manager afterwards too?
They reek of "I definitely could have done better/wouldn't have done it wrong", when clearly that's bollocks.
Seems like just a projection of people's insecurities and personal issues onto an anonymised body
that if you don't want to be chased by armed police, you can lessen the risk by not being involved in gun crime.
the SAS shootings of the IRA members in Gibraltor c1988
He always tells the truth
i mean, it's either a suggestion that he somehow 'deserved' to be killed or it's using someone's death at the hands of the police to rile up some people on the internet
think theres a difference between trolling people crying about boris johnson and this. there has to be a line.
would you mind clarifying/explaining your original statement. cause it looks like terrible logic with potentially horrific consequences
He's happy he got a few to bite
yeah, pretty horrific
It read like you were saying his words could have 'horrific' consequences, not that you found the incident horrific.
it's fine if he gets killed cause he's a bit of a bad egg. really not that far from blaming someone for getting raped cause they're wearing a short skirt.
Duggan shouldn't have been shot, and the subsequent police cover up was unjustifiable. But shooting a known gang member in the midst of the transaction to illegally purchase a gun is absolutely NOT THE SAME as raping someone in a short skirt, ffs.
unreservedly. but the idea of shooting someone unarmed for having a previous record and (probably) being a dickhead to boot. is nothing like ok. i'm going to stop attempting to analogise because i'm rubbish at it
if you read through the report, it's a lot more complicated than that, and your simplification is just as bad as any perceived trolling from anyone else here in the other direction.
but the whole thing reeks. the met have previous in issues like this and given how much the details have changed from the earliest reports (that duggan shot first etc.) i think it's entirely fair to be pretty suspicious of their account
entirely fair to be suspicious of their account. it sounds like a huge fuck up.
but it's not fair to say they shot him 'for having a previous record and (probably) being a dickhead to boot'.
my last post is basically the first thing i've written in this thread that i don't entirely disagree with. was sounding like a big shouty reactionary wanker. but yeah, still murky as fuck
i basically only have an opinion on all of this because i'm putting off uni work.
On that basis, Duggan was guilty.
but I just wanted to say this Alan_Shearer post isn't by me... I used to occasionally log in as Alan_Shearer but this wasn't me. cause I don't think this is funny :(
instead of replying to a tweet, you make a tweet about the tweet
The Met says by April 2014, firearms officers will wear mini video cameras in the hope of clearly showing what happened and shorten investigation times.
how long have gopros been around now? can't believe they don't do this already. they'd have nothing to fear if they had nothing to hide.
confidence in the met to suppose this will solve evidential dilemmas in any potential future investigations. Footage can (obviously) be lost, re-sequenced, erased, recorded over, covered up, of insufficient quality etc.
He was clearly into some dodgy shit...the police have clearly fucked up at various points along the way.
One big block of fuck. Although, not sure why these facts wouldn't result in an open verdict.
his criminal record was possession of weed, minor assault and stolen goods. there will be DiSers with worse ffs.
I dunno, everyone but him came out of it pretty well in that they have not been shot dead
Man shot and killed who is unarmed an that is lawful? After all the facts kept changing too. At the beginning, when he was killed, he was armed and shot a policeman but it hit his radio or some shit.
Much like when Charles de Menezes was shot in the head at point blank range for doing nothing but apparently he ran away from the police after they told him to stop, he ran - with a bulky coat - over the barriers and down onto a carriage. Except he wasn't wearing a bulky coat, he didn't run, the police didn't ask him to stop and ALL THE CAMERAS IN STOCKWELL TUBE WEREN'T WORKING for the route he took.
I don't give a fuck if Duggen was a known criminal, they shot and killed a man who was unarmed. Fucked up yo.
and now he's dead. I'm ecstatically happy about that, regardless of the way it happened. The worlds a better place and thats great - dont moker yourself out about this
and if the police marksman's report is deemed true, then lawful killing is the right verdict.
Must be almost impossible to find unlawful killing against a police marksman though. I'd imagine there is always going to be some form of 'intelligence' suggesting past gun/crime involvement when the gun squad get called and then if the marksman says something along the lines of 'I believed he had a gun/saw a gun' given the level of stress, the expectation of what you will encounter in that situation (ie. someone with a gun)....gonna be hard to prove you're lying. As long as you don't say 'I just got shit scared I might die and completely forgot to assess the situation and shot him' the police are gonna keep that 100% innocent of any wrong-doing ever record
Does anyone know this? As in, did he reach inside his jacket looking like he was going to pull out a gun? Did he take aim with an empty hand? Did he shout "I've got a gun and I'm going to use it in 3, 2, 1..."
I don't see how they would have shot him if he was unarmed. Surely they should only shoot to kill when the suspect pulls a gun / aims for attack?
I don't know the details so if someone knows, can they explain?
'The officer who fired the shots, known only as V53, told the jury he was certain Duggan had a weapon in his hand and feared he was raising it to shoot. V53 said the suspect pivoted 180 degrees towards him: "It's like a freeze-frame moment," he said. "The only thing I was focusing on is the gun."
He said he was sure there was a gun in Duggan's hands. It was in a sock, but he could make out the barrel, handle and trigger guard. He said Duggan was holding it in his right arm across his stomach. "The next thing he does, he starts to move the gun away from his body. He's raised the weapon, moved it a couple of inches away from his body."
That, the jury heard, gave V53 "an honest belief" that Duggan was going to shoot. V53 said he decided he must open fire. He said the first shot struck Duggan in his chest, causing him to flinch. V53 said this caused the gun alleged to be in Duggan's hands to point directly at him, so he fired a second time, hitting Duggan in the biceps. He said Duggan fell backwards and other armed officers converged on him. "My focus is glued on the gun," the officer told the jury. V53 said he reassessed the situation but could no longer see the weapon.'
after the confusion / blatant lies about Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
what is there to discuss?
It's a hard call I understand but this is the shooting dead of an unarmed man.
If I shot dead an unarmed man in self defence then swore he had a gun in his hand, how do you think that would transpire?
except that they felt he had an 'honest belief' about it.
THAT is the crucial issue.
or could they not have tasered him?
you'd need to be fairly close to use a taser effectively. As in the maximum distance you could be would be around 10m.
wouldn't be a long-term winning strategy......
genuine question. never seen someone get tasered, don't know to what extent it incapacitates a target
It's not pain (well it is) but it's also paralysis.
including your fingers which may or may not have been on the trigger
because then he wouldn't be dead?
it would appear that the generally right wing orientated are quite happy in putting the blame fully in Duggan's lap, suggesting that he had whatever was potentially coming to him for carrying a gun in the first place.
the more broadly left leaning however seem to be in a state of extreme shock that an unarmed man could be shot in this supposedly free country, and horrified that this is turn could ever be described as a lawful killing.
i'm pretty suspicious of both of these stances, so i'm just going to sort of be floating around here in the middle of the two....feel free to join me.
It shouldn't be a party political mater. It's a matter of law and fact. If the police have intelligence that an illegal gun transaction is taking place, it does not take a massive leap for them to suspect that he might be armed, depending on what stage of the transaction they were at. If the policeman on the basis if the facts available and the circumstances at the time honestly thought that this was the necessary course of action, then the law supports that. If people don't like that, then blame the law, but don't blame the legal process which merely applied that law (correctly in my view).
There is of course the possibility that the policeman is lying about what he truly thought at the time, but the legal process has concluded that they believe that this was his honestly held belief. And that's that really.
"possibility" the policemen were lying.
The jury are basically deciding whether or not it *could* be reasonable for somebody whose job description includes shooting people to think they actually have to do just that, regardless of what informed that decision. I can't think of a single circumstance where a jury would come to the conclusion that it was an unlawful killing.
its hunting season
There is corruption at the heart of probably every police force in this country and any police officers on the front line will lie. Some as a matter of course.
Everybody knows this.
A jury, under direction of the judge, has decided that despite this generally held fact, this police officer is not lying. I find your glib retort quite offensive actually, but I am massively up myself and taking offence at silly things today, so you're probably ok.
Wow great typo . I meant MANY police officers will lie. Not ANY.
i just wish Jimmy McGovern would write a searing TV drama about the whole thing so i could watch it and be completely sure on what side i stood.
it is a party political matter. in that how the Met find themselves in this position:
'the facts available and the circumstances at the time [they] honestly thought that this was the necessary course of action'
is something they should be democratically accountable for. politicians should hold them to account for it.
Not the collective positoining of the Met, which I agree is open to political scrutiny.
and I'm finding it hard to separate the legal issues from everything else. mostly because it annoys me how much things like "we lawfully killed the unarmed civilian" are so totally mystifying and counter-intuitive to most people. which only strengthens the hold that those 'legal' types of rationality have over us. and i think it shuts down the very legitimate, democratic concerns people have about what has just happened. because people are effectively being told "no you are framing your claims wrong. this is the law we're talking about and the law is a higher truth".
nice seeing you guys.
only knows he was unarmed in retrospect and from the safety of your office desks.
I'm in bed naked mate.
forensics experts found it impossible to throw replica gun 10m over wall when attempted at a later date - presumably this is even harder to do with your last living breath, having just been shot. case is bent as fuck.
we can all sleep soundly, i guess, knowing that even if the police had been found guilty nothing would have been done about it.
sounds like a really shit carnival game
This is just mad. Precedent now set for armed police to lawfully shoot suspects based on an 'honest belief'. This belief can be informed by racial prejudice, or maybe bad eyesight, having a cold, feeling a bit grumpy etc.
you're right - the police HAVE been murdering people for years and getting away with it
"there are two main points to take from this: 1) the police have done nothing wrong, there was not and can not be justification for the riots. 2) COMMUNITY POLICING. ROBERT PEEL."
paraphrasing. wheyyy not gonna watch the news ever again.
was worse than this imo
but yeah, i'd say the reasons for the police's actions there were much weaker.
to name but a few, and ignoring the 1000+ deaths in police custody. it is not over-egging it to call the met a terrorist organisation
they routinely murder people, and in particular target specific communities e.g. the broadwater farm; the aim here is the same psychological effect as al qaeda i.e. your existence is unwelcome, your street does not belong to you.
you're a good lad and i've enjoyed your company when i've kept it so i'll leave you to it.
I don't phone up al qaeda if my house gets burgled.
They'd probably be more likely to catch the burglar
just another institution that's got massive problems caused by a lack of accountability
most of those organisations don't murder citizens as a matter of course, though
that eventually leads to criminal activity happening as a matter of course. just happens to be the case that journalists, bankers and politicians aren't required to carry guns
Mark Duggan's fingerprints were found on the shoebox that'd had the gun in it when he was in the car...but NOT on the gun itself, found 20 feet away, supposedly thrown by him as he was getting out of a car and being shot at. And the Key Forensic Services guy said when questioned that he couldn't comment on whether the police could have planted the gun, because The Independent Police Complaints Commission didn't ask him to consider that possibility. Hmmm.
Hs anyone actually read the case and the legal reasoning? It's irrelevant whether or not he touched the gun. If the policeman honestly thought he had it, then that's a defence. It's not hard.
but don't you think that how the police came to "honestly believe" Duggan had a gun (i.e. they saw it in his hand) doesn't make any sense (because it wasn't in his hand)? The policeman's "honest belief" seems to be as a result of some kind of hallucination.
I simply don't get it.
A: I saw the gun in his hand and he raised his hand, that is why I shot him
B: But he didn't have the gun in his hand, you couldn't have seen it.
A: No, I definitely, definitely saw it, I was looking at it the whole time.
B: You couldn't have, it was on the other side of a fence.
A: Oh was it? Well I honestly believed I saw the gun and it was definitely a gun because I described it in some detail earlier and I'm trained to recognise firearms.
B: Well, sorry he was unarmed.
A: Look, I don't care if it was a figment of my imagination, I honestly believed he had a gun.
B: Oh well if you honestly believe, I guess that's fine, better get yourself to specsavers though lol.
Worrying stuff PO.
The jury ruled it's ok because a man trained to identify firearms shot and killed an unarmed man because the officer said he thought he had a gun.
As I said before, imagine if I used that defence when shooting an unarmed man and killing him.
The more I read of the case, the more bizarre it gets. No officer saw the gun be thrown but it was a distance away. How? Duggen's DNA was not in the gun or sock at all. This makes no sense. Something is afoot.
Witness in the flats opposite also said Duggrn had no gun but a phone. It was shiny and thus defo not a gun in a sock.
What I don't get is why the court hasn't concerned itself at all with what actually happened with the gun and how it got over the wall.
the gun would have had to existed on the other side of the wall and in Duggan's hand simultaneously. Am I just being naive in thinking that it's odd that verdicts can be based on a moment that defies the laws of physics?
we're not trying a case, we're talking about what has happened.
which is neither necessary nor desirable.
They're infuriating and feckless. unless you're in the jury room, don't judge.
If the police honestly believed he had a gun, then they were lawful in what they did. My point is about what that gun was doing 20 foot away behind a hedge and how it got there given that no-one saw the guy throwing it.
The policeman said he saw the gun in Duggan's hand, wrapped in a sock. But it's very unlikely that he still had the gun when the police got to him, so what did they see in his hand which made them think he had a gun and posed a threat?
It's not like they said that they "thought" he had a gun either, they actually said they saw it and were "focussing" on it, but they couldn't have. None of them saw him throw it so it must have got over the fence before they got sight of him. I don't understand it.
but he shot at them first. which turned out to be bollocks. it's all very squirmy and murky and bad
He'd been on the phone to someone only seconds before. Long but useful article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mark-duggan-inquest-was-he-really-armed-were-the-police-under-threat-all-the-key-evidence-9046789.html
a lot of very murky conflicting reports there.
not that many conflicting reports though. the police colluded to lie about one thing, everything else supports a completely different story
Put yourself in his shoes for a minute and drop any entirely made up preconceptions about how the cop may or may not feel about class, race or 'playing the hero'.
Some guy - it seems to me - well known for running with gun gangs and having a disregard for the law gets out of a car not far from you, may or may not make threatening gestures, may or may not fumble in his pocket for a piece. You don't have the steely nerve of a cop in a country who encounters this kind of thing every day, and you're not particularly keen on you or those around you dying.
For a moment, it seems like you or him. Of course, if you were in his shoes you'd wait patiently to be staring down the barrel of a firearm before you'd even consider shouting 'oi, yer nicked'.
The same could be said for a lot of these cases, and unless you were standing right beside them while it happened you'll never know the truth, and even then you probably won't. It's a shame about the lies but the country's media doesn't allow people to flat out admit a mistake without people calling for rolling heads.
Personally I'd like to think blind panic on the officer's part is many times more likely than him wanting to cap some black kid just to save on some future paperwork.
you talk about him getting a bit carried away in his job as if he photocopied the office newsletter too many times. he's an armed police officer ffs, he killed someone.
Like you're staggered those two things could ever go together. It's life or death, people do rash things, even with the best training.
not my point at all.
you can't talk about trained individuals of this sort having "blind panic" and so it's ok, or whatever, when their job is killing members of the public. your language trivialises the situation completely and seems to suggest that distinguishing between a mobile phone and a gun wouldn't be a central part of the, presumably large amount of, training these people undergo.
as i've noted above, there's a long, long history of the MET murdering citizens, predominantly black working class, in cold blood. no one's suggesting that the officer(s) themselves went out on the day purposefully to shoot a black person, but there is clear institutional racism at hand.
hundreds of people have now been killed by the MET police in dubious circumstances, and not a single time has a policeperson been found guilty.
Taking into account that the officer is working on the basis that they are apprehending a suspect who has just purchased/is in the possession of a gun.
i.e. by pulling out a gun and raising it
He didn't do this, so no one should have opened fire.
But, assuming the cop never set out to intentionally kill someone, he would've only had a split second to make a decision in an unusual and fraught situation. He might be a crack shot but he's not James Bond. If you think a *known gun smuggler* is raising a gun to shoot at you, even if mistaken, I can sympathise with thinking of your wife and kids and just pulling the trigger rather than trying to pull off some kind of kneecap trick shot. I'm not discounting the possibility that it was all a set-up but let's not pretend we all know what it's really like from our prime vantage point in a comfy leather armchair in our local Costa clutching a copy of The Guardian. This is a lot more relateable than kettling newsagents or biblically executing Afghan insurgents.
how many Police murders is acceptable collateral damage in the fight against crime? 1 a year ? 5? 20 ? 50 ?
and because things like this inevitably happen does that mean that officers should be unaccountable and not face consequences?
Have unarmed officers (facing armed criminals)?
Had the officers in question who apprehended Duggan *not* had guns, what would the outcome have been? The criminal (who was being stopped specifically because he had a gun illegally) would have had the upper hand. The officers would have been the effectively powerless to protect the rest of the population, as is their duty.
If it's taken that officers 'have to' have guns to do their job within the spectrum of crimes they deal with, sometimes people will get shot. It's not ideal, but then I don't see an alternative.
where there's been obvious fuckups on their part? That'd be one alternative.
one might be to answer the questions I asked instead of ignoring them and swerving the conversation into a nonsense strawman area - I'm not saying officers should not have guns. No one is saying that.
how many Police murders ('lawful killings' - mostly not involving guns) is acceptable collateral damage in the fight against crime? 1 a year ? 5? 20 ? 50 ?
However many people are willing to use deadly violence towards local law enforcement. And no, they shouldn't be accountable if given no other option but to take someone down (not saying that's what definitely happened here). Otherwise you've got this situation where criminals are pointing guns at cops who can't do anything about it until they pull the trigger, at which point it's too late.
Sometimes you've just got to say, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. Let's not pretend that Duggan had any other objective in mind when he acquired the gun than using it to at least maim his rivals. Having one purely for 'protection' sort of loses its meaning once two people have them pointed at each other.
Your first sentence is psychopathic, and what do you know about Duggan's intentions to maim his rivals?
If a hardened criminal pointed a loaded gun at you or one of your colleagues? Reach for your truncheon?
And what do you expect Duggan wanted with the gun? To stick some posies on the end and put it on the mantelpiece?
most of the opprobrium is due to the way the police respond to situations like this, the PR offensive and closing of ranks that happens every single time there's a police involved death. people maybe focus too much on the operational details of high profile cases but that's a fairly natural reaction & it comes from a place of deep, well-founded mistrust.
the put yourself in their shoes idea isn't a goodun, they're really well-trained professionals and have to be held responsible for their actions.
You see it all the time in coverage of politics; modern politicians reduced to soundboards as one out-of-turn phrase becomes class warfare, so I can sympathise with that a little, especially when so many seem to be on the side of a potentially dangerous criminal in this case and I doubt the bloke on the ground who fucked up has anything to do with the high-level corruption in the police force.
can't really sympathise with people being corrupt because it's easier then not being corrupt.
i think people being "on the side of a potentially dangerous criminal" is in reality people not trusting the police to give an accurate account after something like this has happened.
agreed on the last bit obvs, don't feel any animosity towards the guy who shot him, can only imagine how difficult a job it is, probably just fucked up.
then I'm sure the result would be that person is thrown to the wolves rather than the whole operation that put him in that position in the first place. It shouldn't be, but I wouldn't trust the left wing media to not vilify him more than I trust the right wing media to not vilify Duggan, even if the officer was genuinely putting his safety and that of his colleagues first.
'Lawful killing' is a fucking fudge, a get out of jail free card.
But what would I do in a similar situation? Shoot but then, y'know, most likely get into a fuck load of trouble, because that's what happens to normal people when someone dies at their hand.
and get released early.
but I also certainly think that there's grounds for misconduct, negligence and corruption investigations based upon the subsequent police behavior, in terms of their collusion on statements, evidence and the briefings they gave to the public.
Don't forget that the family found out about Mark Duggan's death via the news, and don't forget the Met and their complicit allies in the press's attempts to smear him afterwards.
I hold no real issue with the verdict in the context of both the inquest and the fact that I'm accepting that police officers will occasionally make split second errors of judgement. Few have as tragic consequences as this, I'd never dispute that.
But the inquest really has shone a shoddy light on the police's behaviour after the incident, in which untruths were left publically aired and the processes governing their freedom to collude on statements etc highlight a very lop-sided route to justice. That's where the issue lies for me. A police force staffed by humans will always make tragic mistakes. Like CG, I don't see what the alternative is. But, once again, the way these things are dealt with internally suggests operations above the law are fair game. Public trust and faith in transparency in the police are vital. Shit like this makes your ordinary citizen roll their eyes once more and lose that little bit more faith.
That's kinda why it's so terrifying to any right-minded person.
'you can't legislate for every circumstance'? Well, that's kind of why we have the common law too. Legislatoin is open to interpretatoin and is malleable, so this is the area where judges bend laws and turn the jigsaw pieces of a case on their side, upsoide down, whastever they can do to prevent an anopmaly.
In this case the law is clear. There is no malleability. the law was applied studiously and the jurors decided the facts 9as is the well established legal system in this country, like it or lump it)./ On the basis of those facts as decided, there was only really this verdict.
It feels wrong in my gut, bhut it's worth noting that this does happen now and again. The right result feels unfair, absurd. but the law isn't perfect and, well, you cannot legislate for every circumstance. this law exists to protect the civil liberties of a person who has an honest belief as to the extreme likelihiood of danger and harm.
I think what lot of people are saying is that this should be a 'reasonable belief', ie an objective test.
It's too early in the morning for an essay on the matter, and this is already tl;dr, but there is extensive jursiprudential writing as to why this would be unsound. Obviously this was an inquest and not a trial, but Self defence and other similar doctrines must be looked at in the context of the facts and circumstances as the parites thought they were, not as they actually were, or as they ought to have thought them to be. Panic, adrenalin and fear can heighten and sometimes skew awareness and perception and the law recognises this and doesn't convict people because they failed to react perfectly to taht environment.
what makes this feel nasty is the fact this- preusmably well trinaed- police officer should, in my view, have a higher standard applied as to his perception of risk, and fear, and how to channnel adrenalin. That's not what the law says, although I would hope that there will be separate reviews into why this policema neffectively shat his pants that night.
presumably his credibility has to be highly questionable given both;
a) the disinformation spread by Police following the incident
b) his vested interest in saving his arse
Did he wear his uniform in court do we know? Does he usually wear a uniform in his day-to-day job?
Also, why is his identity protected? On what legal basis I mean?
to the owner of the finger that happened to be on the trigger at the time (although I do think there should be harsher questions asked of him as an individual, too) and more concerned about the organisation behind him.
is separate fomr the questoins of law and fact that people are debating thoiugh. The suggested cover up is an entirely separate issue. (although, thinking about this, maybe i compartmentalise too much- i can see why you'd conflate the two actually.) this is prbably a terrible thread for a lawyer to be in. because quite rightly te genaeral public don;t really care about the tevhnical rights and wrongs and I appreciate that's not what's being generally discussed here.
if he was an unarmed bloke, just minding his own business then that is obviously utterly unacceptable. But someone they knew had a gun, was involved in criminal activity and they had reason to believe he still had a gun so shot him? It was wrong, but I can't help feeling that he lived by the sword so died by the sword in a way.
Don't get involved with guns, kids.
killing people is wrong, unless they happen to be working class and involved in criminal activity, in which case people will mutter that they probably had it coming anyway.
I don't care what "class" he is (whatever that even means these days), or if he was a habitual criminal. I just find it hard to be angry and outraged when he did actually physically have a gun which they knew about, the problem is he happened to throw it away which they (apparently) didn't know about. The Police got it wrong, I just don't share the local community's outrage tis all.
and apparently 'lived' by a mobile phone.
idk why so much of the focus in on how much of a piece of shit Duggan was, or whether or not it is 'right' or understandable that the officer fired there and then in the moment when it should be about the complete fucking lack of accountability on the part of any alleged authority figures in the time since.
Doesn't it worry people that the shoddiest, shittest, most inaccurate intelligence is apparently a sound basis to shoot someone, so long as the finger on the trigger is hooked up to a brain that 'honestly' believes the bollocks intelligence?
in theory could the police get away with shooting anyone they wish just because they genuinely felt they were a danger? That is how people with table legs and running Brazilians get shot. Luckily this is very rare. They need to sort out the accountability though, even if it is very uncommon.
extrapolating that now all police will kill everyone at will seems a little far-fetched. If anything, the outcry is more likely to have Met gunmen being more cautious next time rather than leading to some dystopian future I'd have thought.
you odious Daily Mail sub wannabe.
God, I hate you so much.
since Hutchinson-Foster has been found guilty of supplying a gun to the deceased.
but what *should* they have done?
People are talking about a lack of accountability, but I think what they really mean is that they're upset jury's decision didn't fit their pre-determined anti-police bias. Accountability or 'justice' in this instance means an outcome that suits your prejudices - and that's the same for left and right.
because the law pointed the jury to a verdict that allowed too much weight to be given to subjective evidence (the officer's "honest belief") than it did to objective evidence (where the gun actually was at the time of the killing).
never heard the word "belief" used before to justify a state execution..Oops except for Jean-Charles Menezes eh?
according to the law, a policeman has the same right (or propensity) to act in self-defence as you or I. The difference is I would have a very difficult time explaining what I was doing pursuing someone, who I believed to be armed, and then shooting him dead. The police just seem to be good at getting themselves into situations where they're shit scared for no real reason and then overreact.
where they're shit scared for no real reason".
You've jumped the trolling shark here.
''The difference is I would have a very difficult time explaining what I was doing pursuing someone, who I believed to be armed''
Because it isn't your job to do so?
The reason the police are able to argue self-defence so easily is because they're so often in situations where their own personal safety is genuinely under threat and they are often the target eg. police Raoul Moat shot - who ended up hanging himself - or the two policewomen Dale Cregan killed in cold blood, or the policewoman who had her hand blown up in Leeds recently. All of those situations involved police who weren't directly involved in armed operations, they were just called out to disturbances or in the first guy's case just sitting in his car. But the fact is we (or the police command or the state or whoever you want the buck to stop with) requires certain police officers to be put in these 'dangerous' positions and to be trained in dealing with the possibility of being attacked or shot.
That they so often get it wrong, target the wrong people, and that faith and trust in the honesty and decency of the police as an institution is so low, is the problem.
but what is the alternative to them being put in these situations?
Especially when we're talking about people in communities where there is like 0% mutual trust between the police and citizens. which yesterday's verdict has exacerbated. The only real viable alternative, imo, is a completely different relationship between the police and the communities they are 'policing'. Its never going to be exactly amicable but for a huge and complex array of reasons, there is a really damaging approach to dealing with certain groups of poeple. groups of people who certain sections of the media and certainly the police would understand as some sort of 'criminal underclass' but are equally marginalised, socially excluded, racialised and fare very badly in economic distribution.
You're asking me to basically argue what I think should have happened in this case or similar ones. When I don't have access to the workings of the police unit responsible. I'm not convinced that within their current constrains and the culture at the Met and targets imposed by the government, that they could actually have acted drastically differently in the run-up to his death. The officer could, of course, have spent 2 more seconds considering what was going on and gathering his nerves, and we might not be having this conversation. But the pursuit of Dugan and the intelligence gathering leading up to it seems pretty in keeping with how the police are 'meant' to be operating. Which to me and a lot of other people, seems quite fucked up.
That could have been long enough for Duggan to shoot someone. Either with the gun the officer thought he had in his hand, or with another he could quite conceivably have been concealing. When a 'split second' decision needs to be made, 2 seconds is a pretty long time.
It's very easy for you and others to say these things from the comfort of the internet, but they're ridiculous.
all the other armed officers who were there at the time rather than commenting on the internet years later refraining from firing their weapons?
it would normally only take 2 seconds to establish that someone wasn't holding a gun. True, the officer may have felt he didn't have 2 seconds to spare for risk of being shot. But why was he in a "split second decision" at all? There was no immediate or severe risk to the public.
I've pretty obviously been talking about the Met as a whole and not the thought processes or culpability of this individual officer. Forgot how bad your reading comprehension is ;)
Do they? And what is the `it` they're getting so frequently wrong?
...I've got numerous issues with certain police protocol (especially anything to do with race etc.) and the way they appear to get exonerated beyond what I class as `fair` for some of their mistakes (including this case) but tragic fuck ups on this scale are incredibly rare by my observation.
The issue is that they get so wrong SO RARELY that should be commended
And that's from spending about three minutes on Google.
sounds quite rare to me, but I'm no stats expert
1 in 1983
2 in 1996
1 in 1998
1 in 1999
1 in 2001
1 in 2005
1 in 2007
1 in 2011
1 in 2013
And you've got 9 in 17 years. Feels too high to me - might not to you.
with the numbers of SCO19 callouts over that time period. I've not been able to find those stats anywhere on the internet, but I heard someone on Radio 4 Today this morning say 30 callouts a year on average (not sure if that is just London, does sound low)
But even without those figures and removing the 1983 one, 1 every 1.88 years is still rare in my eyes
My question was in response to DD who claimed this all happens `so often`, but she hasn't provided much of a context to back her claim up so far...
Of course the term `often` is all subjective, though.
Must be remembered that list above isn't comprehensive - there are likely to be more. And those cases are likely to split opinion in the same way that this one has.
I'll be amazed if the stats to SCO19 callouts/shootings/deaths etc isn't available somewhere online for the past 10-15 years
Knowing the number of SCO19 callouts is vital though
Every police killing is going to split opinion. And it should as well, owing to the significance of the act because every instance of it needs to be thoroughly investigated.
What I think needs to be considered also here is the amount of work that the police does, using intelligence and other pre-emptive policing methods, to ensure that criminals are adequately monitored/arrested before these gunpoint situations arise.
Again, I don't know the figures, but my hunch is that the police's pre-emptive stifling of a significant amount of violent crime is worthy of praise and our respect. It's only an opinion, sure, but at least I'm going to lengths to not position my opinion as fact.
and that certain people (disproportionately black guys) are like this sacrificial price worth paying. cause it has to be someone, right. Like fuck off if you think people should be praising the police for only *occasionally* shooting people by mistake.
More generally, if you're not clear that the police "get it wrong" wrt targeting suspected criminals for other stuff then just look at the stop and search stats, which are widely reported and demonstrate institutional racism.
I'm saying that the relatively low numbers of mistaken shootings compared to the number of SCO19 callouts is reason to praise the police for not killing/hurting more innocent people
Do you expect there never to be any mistakes in policing?
I agree with you regarding racial profiling of suspects
would the De Menezes case have been any less 'wrong' if he had just been seriously hurt? i'm not sure.
The Duggan case? Less clear
it isn't just deaths you'd have to consider if you were looking at how often the police 'got it wrong'
DD would have a hard time explaining it, a police officer wouldn't.
(i.e. in the news reports)
I'd genuinely be interested to hear the opinions of military personnel who have been in combat situations on the Duggan shooting.
As the firing officer said himself when being examined, no situation someone in his line of work could ever find themselves in is comparable to a combat situation where there's no need to justify every single shot fired.
than a bunch of DiSsers.
I think in some modern arenas of war there is an increasing need to be able to justify many of the shots fired.
But I don't think the answer is "None" in the latter case.
If you're happy to think that a DiSser is on a par here with someone who has had experience of, say, looking down their crosshairs at someone who they aren't sure is a civilian or an enemy and had to make a split-second decision as to whether the person is a threat to their life or not, then go right ahead.
then go right ahead.
Is it not a bit bad that the first shot effectively missed, going through Duggans arm and hitting another officer? If the bullet hadn't been stopped by their radio it could have been much worse. Shouldn't a police marksman be a better shot and shouldn't the other officers know not to stand in the line of fire?
the operation they undertook typically stuns the criminal and they don't attempt to escape as quickly as Duggan did. either way we're probably talking a window of seconds from him exiting the vehicle and the shots being fired.
Some many assumptions taken and hyperbolic reactionary crap
Although I posted up thread several times before it got all conspiracy and "fuck the police"
Simple truths are: No one here heard all the evidence or was in the jury room. On the reported face of it, this verdict seems odd. But we have to trust in a jury system otherwise what other options are there?
By and large, people accept that it was correct according to the law.
But I agree some appear to agree
My point was a more general one about twitter/facebook reactions when things like this happen
The law being wrong?
would probably lead any jury to a verdict of lawful killing in a situation where an armed police officer has killed someone.
Some are upset at the conduct of those in authority in the aftermath, and the apparent lack of accountability regarding that conduct.
It's all in the thread up there.
(or should look like).
We've never seen it before
we've already seen.
It's others in this thread who have questioned a 'lack of accountability'.
but the way the officer arrived at his "honest belief" seems odd because it's been established that Duggan was unarmed and that the officer described in detail something he couldn't have seen until after the shooting. I'm not saying it's impossible for the officer to have honestly believed Duggan was about to shoot, but his reasons for doing so don't make any sense when looking at established facts about the case.
that the officer honestly believed that Duggan was armed, it seems.
I'd be interested to know.
I understand that the initial reporting and alleged cover up in the aftermath of the shooting didn't cover the Met in glory, but a 6 month inquiry in front of a jury found that the shooting was lawful according to the laws and guidance provided.
Now I can understand if people think the definitions of lawful/open/unlawful are a little too loose, and perhaps the law needs some revision in this area. But I'm thankful that there are officers that do an extremely difficult job in very difficult circumstances , and that this country only utilises armed police on very rare occasions
at the time of shooting, he was unarmed. and if it's not with impunity, please, tell me, what is happening to the police? I think it's really unsettling how quick people are to say BUT IT WAS WITHIN THE LAW as if like me and other people who're annoyed about this don't understand that and that it makes whatever happened automatically ok. like ffs obviously what people are saying here is that the law is an ass and only seems to protect the powerful when this sort of shit happens.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
If the officer was so focussed on Duggan's hand that he saw a gun, how come he didn't notice Duggan was unarmed? It's physically impossible for the officer to have seen the gun so it's his fictitious hindsight which has led to a lawful killing verdict.
officer thought he did), it is only with hindsight that we know he had no other guns on his person. It would have been/is a sensible precaution to assume he had other weapons him - he was a gun smuggler after all - regardless of what may have been in his hand at any particular second.
To this end, the fact he didn't have a gun in his hand at any moment in time does not mean it was impossible for him to have one, and fire it, within a second or two.
that the police would be within their rights to fire on anyone suspected of possessing a firearm as they could always argue that the suspect could draw and shoot the weapon within a few seconds; what's in their hand at the time would be irrelevant.
if an armed copper was pointing a gun at you and you moved in a way that might suggest you were pulling out a weapon then I guess you can't really blame them for shooting especially given how intense and fast those situations must be. Always happens in films, usually they're just pulling out a photo of their baby daughter from their inside pocket.
but that even if Duggan's hand had been empty he was still correct in firing as it's reasonable to assume he had other guns on him and could still shoot in seconds.
So the fact he could've had another one on him is moot. I read the transcript and the officer never once said that he thought Duggan had other weapons on him he was "focussed on the gun" and that's what made him shoot.
re: armed/unarmed. At the moment of the shooting, the officer BELIEVED he was armed. The retrospective fact that he wasn't is irrelevant. The fact he'd got rid of one weapon doesn't preclude the fact that he may have had another. The officers were acting in response to intelligence that a known gangster had acquired a gun and moved to apprehend him.
The inquest was set up to inquire if the shooting was lawful or not, therefore holding the police to account. The fact that is was found to be lawful and this is not the verdict a lot of people expected does not mean that the police are above the law and act with impunity.
It is of course not ok that someone died because of a mistake, but the fatalities involved in SCO19 incidents is so low compared to the number of callouts
Or generally? Because given the reaction in court and on twitter yesterday, I'd argue that it wasn't
Duggan's family, friends and associates may have hoped for a different outcome and voiced disapproval, but I'd happily wager that the vast majority of people following the case fully expected the killing to be found lawful.
Up to you. A large number of people are following the case on twitter, hence my suggestion to take a look at the hashtag and see what their opinions are and if it matches your wager
Still, at least you know about the law and stuff
I don't know much about the law, but I do try and read judgements and attempt a balanced view
A large number of people following the case on twitter yesterday tweeted their shock/outrage/horror at the judgement yesterday, using the hashtag #duggan. Since it's fairly difficult to ask "the vast majority" of their opinion, maybe have a look there
It's not just brainless "fuck da police #duggan" stuff, a lot of legal bloggers etc were surprised
I WAS THE FIRST ONE TO MAKE THE POINT that it was his 'honest belief' under consideration. like marckee subtweeted it.
'The retrospective fact that he wasn't is irrelevant' - no it's not. stop talking to people as if you're directing a jury or something.
It is not my intention at all: I may have not read every single post in this massive thread so sorry if I have missed one of yours
I still believe that the fact that in hindsight he was found to be unarmed to be irrelevant to the finding the inquiry, as guided by the law.
Now I'm happy to agree that the law is probably too vague here and needs some rework
without mentioning who you were tweeting about?
so even if the verdict was unlawful killing, the shooting officer wouldn't be charged with anything and the result couldn't be used against him in an actual trial. it's just to find out which phrase to write on some reports and certificates. just wondering if people get this because the way it's being reported, it's like the police officer is the defendant and duggan's family have lost.
it is really upsetting and scary to read that there's basically no way for the jury to have found this to be unlawful killing, despite what is sounds like. there's always some handwave-y reason. but there's no new precedent here or anything, it's just another case of the met being a bit shit and further reason not to trust them.
The legal dcotrines applied are the same though, which is what people are discussing, but yes, many seemed to have missed the point- that this was an inquest into a death. not a trial.
and there was none of the animalistic anger and violence that the news media were clearly clamouring for. wankers.
live by the sword (that someone imagined you holding)
die by the sword (that was actually a gun)
"That's funny, didn't know you could play Angry Birds on a gun grip"
you really had to be there, with the shooters pov, to be able to judge with the certainty and vehemance that many people are using for comments
That is what the proceedings at the inquest will have tried to recreate as best they could for the benefit of the jury and the judge. even then, it's still not the same.
There are always plenty of armchair jurists who will believe they know better than the jury who have seen all the evidence.
effectively makes it irrelevant what the evidence actually was
and that's one of the reasons to still be pissed off at this
You have to convince a jury it was your honestly held belief. You can't just say 'I thought x' and it is taken as gospel. if he had been unable to demonstrate that he genuinely thought this, then it would have been unlawful killing.
which was strong enough to convince the jury that the officer was telling the truth about seeing the gun in Duggan's hand but at the same time wasn't strong enough to convince them it wasn't on the other side of the fence.
It wouild be interesting to see the evidence.
I've had a look at most of it, and even as a lawyer, it is largey meaningless without being presented in context by counsel.
It's almost as if you needed to have been at the inquest to form an educated opinion
if Duggan had survived, what would have likely have been convicted of?
Possession of a firearm, presuming they found the 'thrown' gun nearby. Depending on the police intelligence, conspiracy to murder? Not sure.
There was no trace of Duggan on the gun they found
but if they had intelligence that he had a gun, searched him and found him to be unarmed, they would presumably search the local area in case he had chucked it.
of selling Duggan the gun,m it doesn't take a genius to work out that duggan would probably have gone down for buying the gun (it doesn't have to be on your person for it to amount to 'possession').
Duggan was under surveillance and the sting was to intercept this gun deal. At least a couple of summaries I've read have said that Duggan was seen collecting a shoebox from Hutchinson-Foster. Duggan and Hutchinson-Foster's fingerprints were on the shoebox and it's believed the gun was in it. The gun was found 5m from the car, covered by a sock with a hole for the barrel, with Hutchinson-Foster's DNA on it but not Duggan's.
You need somebody who knows what they're talking about to interpret that. I'm just paraphrasing various newspaper articles.
You've summed it up perfectly.
and I think that all the talk about this verdict, which, seemingly makes sense from a legal standpoint, glosses over the almost comically inept handling of the event itself and the police's grossly overzealous tactics on a day-to-day basis. Not really sure how much of the stuff I have read ITT is trolling but the argument that he 'could' have had another concealed weapon so the officer had no choice doesn't really hold water, surely. Surprised no one has brought up the fact that the evidence suggests the shot that killed him appears to have been fired as he was falling if not when he was on the floor. If anyone's interested I also helped promote this film about the riots late last year and it's just been put up online for free:
is it not forseeable that someone known to have access to firearms and known to be carrying a firearm when the operation began carried more than one firearm?
i don't think it glosses over the handling either. i think the majority (not saying it is a vast majority or EVERYONE) of people are saying that although the verdict reached was understandable the police's handling of the situation was horrific.
Are people seriously suggesting that the police should shoot and kill people who are not visibly armed on the basis that they might have one down the back of their jeans or something? I assumed CG was just on the wind-up.
"Again, you can make out the shape outline of it, the handle of it, the barrel, you could make out the trigger guard, not visually, but again if you image it going as a L-shape, the sock, there's like a little bit of give in it, so that's where the trigger guard would have been, and obviously the size of the object was similar size to my side arm."
His evidence is clearly confused, which explains why the verdict was duggan didn't have the gun, but the officer "thought" he did
Was the event really that traumatic that a firearms officer who sees guns every day managed to confuse a mobile phone for a quite vividly described gun in a sock?
"quite clearly lying"
"my focus is just glued on the gun and what that gun is going to do to me."
If he had said he "thought" he saw a gun then that would be more acceptable. But he's described the gun in detail, repeatedly said he was focusing on the gun and nothing else and then said the gun disappeared "in a split second". What he's talking about isn't a phone, he's clearly created a fictitious account to make himself sound less incompetent.
For me, the biggest problem with his testimony is that to justify shooting he has to have been certain he saw a gun – so he describes very clearly a gun pointed at him and a finger on the trigger. He says how clear his sight of it was and how that was the only thing he was focused on.
But to justify the shooting of an apparently unarmed man, he has to then have no idea of where that gun went, supposedly in that very same second, even though it travelled quite some distance.
I completely understand how a nervous, scared man, even a trained police marksman, could make mistakes, but it’s the clumsy impression of a post-incident cover-up from so many disparate cases – this one, Tomlinson, de Menezes, etc – that leads to people becoming seriously distrustful. Occasionally, once in a while, a policeman might actually have to be guilty of something for some trust to return…
His response to questioning regarding the number of shots fired is particularly elucidating, even if you weren't an attending juror/a lawyer on DiS.
It's being suggested that he could have another weapon that he could have accessed and fired in a couple of seconds, which is reason enough to pre-emptively shoot him (unless I'm seriously misreading some of the posts).
As far as I know, the police officer hasn't suggested he mistook a mobile phone for a gun.
your phrasing also makes it sound like you are referring to a random person on the street and not someone known to have access to firearms and known to be carrying a firearm when the operation began.
My meaning is that I don't believe that suspicion of firearm possession is enough to justify shooting and killing a suspect.
was that the police were sent to intercept a transaction they have found out about which was about to take place. That transaction was the deceased buying a gun from a party who has since been found guilty in a criminal court of law (where the standard is Beyond Reasonable Doubt) of selling the deceased a gun.
Whilst with hindsight, of course a phone doesn't look like a gun, if somebody lifts their arms and waves something black at you in the middle of a raided gun purchase, it's not completely crazy for you to shit yourself and thing, Fuck, that's a gun. I've already said, whether or not a trained officer wshould have done so is another matter, and a matter for internal disciplinary.
When I was referring to a concealed gun, I wasn't meaning the mobile phone - I was more referring to statements like CGs in this thread where he's said: " You've seen them throw away the 2) You've seen them throw away the gun that's in their hand, fine - but gun that's in their hand, fine - but you know the suspect is active in the you know the suspect is active in the illegal gun trade. With that in mind, illegal gun trade. With that in mind, it's not unreasonable to expect, or at it's not unreasonable to expect, or at least proceed on the basis that, they least proceed on the basis that, they may have further guns on their may have further guns on their person - potentially ones that can be person - potentially ones that can be withdrawn and fired in a matter of withdrawn and fired in a matter of seconds. Should the officers wait for seconds. Should the officers wait for the suspect to fire first (potentially the suspect to fire first (potentially killing a police offer/civilian)? The killing a police offer/civilian)? The window of opportunity between window of opportunity between knowing the suspect is going to shoot knowing the suspect is going to shoot and them actually shooting is minute, and them actually shooting is minute, literally a split second."
That, to me, suggests firing on a suspect based on the suspicion that they may have a weapon. I don't think that's reasonable. This is what I thought other people were talking about regarding concealed weapons - I don't mean mistaking one thing for another, I mean shooting to kill without seeing anything.
Its the behaviour of the police and the IPCC after the event that should be debated. If they'd done their job properly then only the usual conspiracy theorists would be talking about how far guns can be thrown and how much the look like phones.
I didn't mean there's no reason to suspect he 'could' have had another weapon, just that that suspicion isn't justification for shooting someone on the floor.
The argument that he 'could' have had a secondary, concealed weapon is 'irrelevant' and nonsensical bullshit that it's mildly distressing to see anyone but the resident wind-up merchant bring up because at absolutely no point has the firing officer mentioned it as part of his assessment of the situation.
He shot Duggan because he imagined him to have a gun in his hand, not because he was concerned he had another one hidden somewhere.
previously involved in gun crime, what exactly does that mean in this case? what is 'gun crime'?
that kind of thing?
more just dealing in them illegally, rather than waving them at people?
'gun crime' is so unhelpful and uninformative, and I would be wanting to establish whether the operation to intercept him had established whether he was a likely user of the item or probably just a conveyer of it.
If he had had previous of using one, even if only threatening someone, then I for one, would feel a lot more trigger happy, if I had had to face him, than if i had heard that he merely only ever 'dealt' in them. And I was wondering if the people on the operation on the ground were fully briefed on this?
once you've 'capped someone.
And Hacksaw Jim Duggan came charging out of a taxi cab holding a plank of wood above his head and screaming 'HOOOO!!' what would you do?
it's the only way...
Chief: Why did you shoot Hacksaw Jim Duggan?
Me: He charged at me with a bazooka sir.
Chief: No he didn't it was a plank of wood.
Me: A plank of wood with a shoulder rest, triggers, sights and a big rocket pointing out the end? I think not chief, it was a bazooka.
Chief: Well alright then. You're a loose cannon, Kincaid, your ego's writing cheques your body can't cash, but you're the best goddamn armed police officer on the force and I suppose I should cut you some slack seeing as you're marrying my daughter at the weekend.
Me: She's a great gal chief.
but was always found not guilty.
The 5-0 thought he was going to get away with it again and murdered him.
They said he shot at them which was a lie, then they said he pointed a gun at them which was a lie and the non police witness said he was executed.