http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25657949



WTF?

While he was a very questionable character there do appear to be very significant problems with this. I question whether he actually had a gun. The taxi driver was threaten with being shot if he looked in the direction of Duggan. Sounds like they were planting a gun. The gun in question had none of his finger prints on IIRC. The police do not have a good record with stopping cars

It's very much worth reading the Jury's filing sheet, it's rather more insightful than the media:

http://t.co/dntWR70Rm3

Or they didn’t want any silent communications between the two (Nods, winks etc) which may be signals to run, fight, get another gun out.



I know it looks dodgy, but you’ve got someone who’s not the pillar of any community, who had one gun, and was on the run. At some point, the police had to make a very snap decision - is it likely that he had another weapon he could use? It’s not a situation any of us can put out heads in - but adrenalin would be pumping, and things likely happened very fast.

Det Ch Insp Mick Foote, from the Met's gang crime unit Trident described him as "one of the 48 most violent criminals in Europe, and in 2011 was one of the targets of a police operation called Dibri which was focussing on a spike in gun related incidents in London nightclubs."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25363828

I seriously doubt that. They could have easily done a vehicle check to see who the named driver was and if there was any connection as soon as he got in the cab. The person they were after had been shot a number of times without warning. They would have know if there was any previous association before they stopped the mini cab. This was to stop the person seeing the planting of evidence. A dead man will not be signalling silently or not.


Yes I am not claiming him to be a saint. Also I wonder if he actually had one gun. It was in a box with none of his finger prints on. In the US the guns are for hire for an hour or more. On an "If you fire it then you buy it" principle. That practice would happen here as well. I have no doubt that he was worth stopping but there is no definitive proof that he actually handled the gun in question. This has more trappings of an execution and cover up, than anything else. I agree about the adrenaline running but still not an excuse for an execution.

I would have thought that they were right to go armed, because of his previous criminal record, but no warnings were given and it looks more like a cover up along the lines of the Brazilian on the tube incident. The only shots fired were the police and as soon as one trigger happy soul started firing then the rest join in. That is more panic than training.

I would be more circumspect and not call it an unlawful killing, he had too much serious previous to allow that possibility, but had an open verdict rather than a lawful killing. If his prints were on the gun and he had fired then yes you would have no problems from me on that verdict. Too many unanswered questions.

Wow. You relly have got your tinfoil hat on today haven't you?

While the police (especially the met) have been shown to not be above scullduggery, I see absolutely no reason why they would just execute the bloke. If they found him in possession of a firearm (even in a box) they could put him away for a very long time given his reputation and the way juries usually treat people of his reputation.

What happened here was that we a had a bloke with a reputation for using firearms and a copper who let adrenaline and fear get the better of him. It's that simple. Whether the exact circumstances under which the shots that killed him were fired was actually 'legal' or not, we will never know. To that extent, you could describe this as a cover up. But the idea the police set out with the intent of killing him is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Apart from anything else if he was one of the most violent criminals in Europe, catching him and putting him in jail would give much better bragging rights to the Met Commissioner than killing him and as a result causing nationwide riots.

"one of the 48 most violent criminals in Europe"

That sounds like a load of utter bollocks to me. [LIFTED] hell, Scotland alone... And they said they had next to no worthwhile intelligence on him!

I will fully accept that it was a copper who was trigger happy, but if they do not have justifiable cause such as a gun in his hand then it has to be questioned. The police do seem to have a shoot first ask questions later policy and that is an execution policy. Also executions do not have to be planned and deliberate. You should have learned that from the Stockwell Tube shooting. If they were reacting to events and Duggan had at least waved the gun around then, combined with his reputation would have been legitimate. Though a gun at his feet well away from his hands, no finger prints on the weapon, and only the police firing does not make this legal for me. The verdict makes this a legal killing. How would you feel if a slightly dodgy member of your family had been killed in similar circumstances. Don't forget the police smeared the "terrorists" they caught in London and ended up paying huge damages to them for slander.

I'd imagine there are 48 more dangerous men than him in one pub in Belfast. Or Marseilles. or Naples.

Also dangerous to whom? I would not fear this person down the street. I am not involved in anything that would make him interested in me, no drugs so no competition or threat. Most of the drugs lords are most at risk from other drug lords rather than the police or you and I.

Yeah, Naples came to my mind when thinking a bit more international. It's just more of the usual smearing from the Met. every time they get accused of needless killing, or framing someone, or...

Here's the thing : 'justifiable cause' for an armed police officer has nothing to do with guns. It doesn't require the person being fired at to have a gun. It doesn't require them to have ever seen a gun. An armed police officer is allowed to open fire on someone if he believes that person is immediately likely to harm either the officer himself or a member of the public. That says nothing about firearms. It doesn't require proof. It doesn't require evidence. If the copper stands up and says 'I genuinely thought he was about to harm someone' then unless someone can prove otherwise (or it's obviously not the case) then that's where it stops. You still get a police investigation - you do every time a police firearm is used - but there was not a cat in hell's chance of the officers who shot Duggan ever being up on murder charges unless there was actual proof that they planned to kill him at the outset.

To be honest, anyone who ever thought the case was going to come up with anything other than 'lawful killing' was being epicly naive. Given the combination of the way we regulate police use of firearms and Duggan's existing reputation, justified or otherwise, it was always likely to drop that way.

Well there's the old joke 'there's a pub down that way where for £1,000 you can have someone killed. For £2,000 they'll even let you choose who it is'.

Bullets are notoriously bad at being safe unless they hit the person you want them to. They have a nasty habit of carrying on if you miss. If two drug lords decide to have a shoot out in an urban area with modern firearms, everyone near them is in danger, even if they're inside a building. The average gang member doesn't have the kind of firearms training to be able to only hit the person they're aiming for while driving past in a car for example. Police marksmen do - they train to hit what they aim at but they train even more to not hit what they're not aiming at.

I am not saying it is murder, because that involves premeditation and I do not think that is the case. His reputation should not be an issue. The police should go armed when dealing with an armed criminal though why not raid him at 4 am and catch him in bed like most sensible raids? Or has the overtime ban kicked that into touch?