John B Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-lawfully-killed-inquest So a man with no gun is shot lawfully by the Old Bill Seems a bit harsh to me Surely the police involved should be sacked because of complete incompetence They also want Water Canon as well http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/met-police-water-cannon-britain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 I think the lesson here is don't go and pick up a gun.... especially if you are under police supervision and have ties to criminal gangs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Maybe a bit harsh, but a gun-wielding criminal is not somebody I want walking the streets where my kids might find themselves. So I'm not devastated about this police error. Anyone that carries an illegal firearm is going to have to expect to be tackled by armed police and the danger of being shot for appearing to be an immediate threat. police get shot all the time, they have to make a very quick judgement about the situation and a jury decided this one fired for the right reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Um Bongo Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Hang on. He did have a gun. By the time the second shot was pulled, he didn't have the gun. Which means he threw it. The law states: Section 3 Criminal Law Act - A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large. Now play it in real time. Male with gun, followed by police, car gets stopped. Police officer stops, see's male get out of taxi with gun in hand. Police believes he's going to shoot, so fires two shots. Male at same time throws gun, hit by both shots, second shot unfortunately ends his life. Unarmed when second shot hits, but not unarmed. If you get what I mean. This whole thing happened in a matter of seconds, put yourself in the police's shoes - You see someone raising what you believe to be a gun towards you. What do you do? The officer has stated why he shot. Which is lawful. Armed or not. The jury are 10 members of the public. They aren't police. They aren't lawyers. Normal human beings who have said the shooting was lawful. Doesn't make it right, but lawful all the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Well... He was in a gang and had collected a gun which was found at the scene, perhaps they could have brought him down without a kill shot, perhsps they tried ? I find calls of incompetance to be very strong, firearms officers are highly trained and are only issued in cases like this one within which dangers are present. The police have already been clipped by countless PC trials of strong force being used and IMO this indirectly led to the riots escalating. I find it rediculous that the general public want to be protected as much as possible yet arent prepared to accept the methods used. As for the water cannon, I think its an option the forces should have. Personally I believe that if you are prepared to collect a gun or be involved in civil disobedience then you basically need to be prepared for the consequences. The fact that we are discussing this proves how limp wristed we have become as a society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 I believe that if you are prepared to collect a gun or be involved in civil disobedience then you basically need to be prepared for the consequences. The fact that we are discussing this proves how limp wristed we have become as a society. There's a balance to be struck. I'd never want us to become like the US where they are prepared to fire at cars with kids in them for failing to stop - but the endless inquiries and hand wringing about shootings involving armed criminal is plain stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 There's a balance to be struck. I'd never want us to become like the US where they are prepared to fire at cars with kids in them for failing to stop - but the endless inquiries and hand wringing about shootings involving armed criminal is plain stupid. Of course there is a balance, I fully agree with the second analogy. Though the US must be another place within which policing must be incredibly difficult considering the ease of gaining a firearm there. I suppose this means that those less trained would eventually be given firearms due to the dangers which has its own obvious issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 8 January, 2014 Author Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Lawful killing doesn't mean that he should have been killed. It means it was in the parameters of the law to use deadly force apparently Which seems OK but I still find it unacceptable that the Old Bill can Panic and shoot somebody like that Brazilian bloke years ago and get away with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Lawful killing doesn't mean that he should have been killed. It means it was in the parameters of the law to use deadly force apparently Which seems OK but I still find it unacceptable that the Old Bill can Panic and shoot somebody like that Brazilian bloke years ago and get away with it Again though they had evidence claiming he was a bomber and had viable evidence claiming an attack was very real, added to the fact that he ran from armed police and refused to stop on multiple occasions. It was tragic, but hardly unnacceptable, if you put thr shoe on the other foot and he got away and blew up 100s of people then there would be incredible public outcry to the incompetance of the force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swannymere Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 I'm finding it hard to feel any sympathy for them, can they say they didn't know what he was involved with? Did they try and get justice for the victims of his gang? Smacks of double standards to me, lets blame the Police because we let our son, brother and friend carry on with complete disregard for the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 just seen a member of his family giving a nazi style salute shouting "justice" nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedWillie Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 I'm finding it hard to feel any sympathy for them, can they say they didn't know what he was involved with? Did they try and get justice for the victims of his gang? Smacks of double standards to me, lets blame the Police because we let our son, brother and friend carry on with complete disregard for the law. I agree with all of the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedWillie Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Let's jump up and down and complain because we didn't get our own way. I have a children who do that ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 The verdict seems reasonable to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Colony Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 **** him, trying to act all hard and be a gangster, you can't out run a heckler and koch mp-5. Personally harder police action in London would stop a lot of the wannabe gangsters. Sometimes I think we are too free in our country and have gone too liberal. But then again I live in South Africa and these clowns would be getting shot or getting a necklaced by their next door neighbors who don't put up with **** in gangsters paradise, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 the only people who would know is the jury and they can only go by the evidence they were presented ,so i expect the verdict was right but it concerns me that no finger prints were found on the gun which is a bit strange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Again though they had evidence claiming he was a bomber and had viable evidence claiming an attack was very real, added to the fact that he ran from armed police and refused to stop on multiple occasions. It was tragic, but hardly unnacceptable, ..... Despite the eye-witness evidence of every other passenger on the Underground carriage who said that the Police fired without challenging de Menezes http://www.standard.co.uk/news/graphic-eyewitness-accounts-emerged-at-menezes-inquest-6845941.html "None recalled hearing the officers identify themselves as police, and several spoke of their panic that the gunmen who entered their carriage might have been terrorists." " While the train was waiting, Mr de Menezes, a 27-year-old Brazilian electrician on his way to a job in north London, got on and sat down directly opposite Ms Wilson. A minute or so later shouts came from outside the carriage and a group of stocky gun-wielding men rushed on board. They were wearing jeans and T-shirts, and the couple at first assumed they were playing a game - albeit one that was in very bad taste considering the previous day's events. It also occurred to Ms Wilson that they could be terrorists. Mr Livock recalled that one of the gunmen silently pointed a pistol at the man in a denim jacket sitting opposite his girlfriend, who would later turn out to be Mr de Menezes. The Brazilian did not appear frightened but seemed to be waiting for someone to tell him what was happening, he said. Then all of a sudden the gunman started firing at Mr de Menezes and Mr Livock ran for one of the doors of the carriage." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 I know of a case argued by Sir David Calcutt (Not sure it was his but he did do something on the case) whereby an IRA member was on a motorbike with a bomb packed and ready to be primed, on route to the bombing site the bike was pulled over by the RUC and charges were given, he argued what he carried was an offence not what he actually intended to do, I find it spurious but it could be argued that Duggan did indeed not have the gun so therefore there was no intention to kill, but its wishy washy never the less, he carried it so he had to carry the possible ramifications, I understand though this opens an absolute legal nightmare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Well... He was in a gang and had collected a gun which was found at the scene, perhaps they could have brought him down without a kill shot, perhsps they tried ? I find calls of incompetance to be very strong, firearms officers are highly trained and are only issued in cases like this one within which dangers are present. The police have already been clipped by countless PC trials of strong force being used and IMO this indirectly led to the riots escalating. I find it rediculous that the general public want to be protected as much as possible yet arent prepared to accept the methods used. As for the water cannon, I think its an option the forces should have. Personally I believe that if you are prepared to collect a gun or be involved in civil disobedience then you basically need to be prepared for the consequences. The fact that we are discussing this proves how limp wristed we have become as a society. You speak for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Lawful killing doesn't mean that he should have been killed. It means it was in the parameters of the law to use deadly force apparently Which seems OK but I still find it unacceptable that the Old Bill can Panic and shoot somebody like that Brazilian bloke years ago and get away with it The shooting of John de Menezes was a tragic series of events that no one should be held responsible for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 The verdict seems reasonable to me Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Live by the sword you die by the sword. Gun wielding Drug Barron shot dead. Can't see the problem to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Quite funny how my Twitter feed and this forum contrast so much. I must follow too many lefties who want to get outraged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Is it me or is one of the reasons that the family is so outraged is the verdict does not allow the family to sue the police for millions, or am I just being a cynic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 He had it easy. De Menezes didn't even have a Stanley knife and he took multiple point blank caps to the dome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 The shooting of John de Menezes was a tragic series of events that no one should be held responsible for. Armed officer shoots an unarmed man in a packed train carriage without issuing a warning - the officer was responsible. However, armed officer shoots armed man after issuing a warning and seemingly being ignored - the officer was justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 I know of a case argued by Sir David Calcutt (Not sure it was his but he did do something on the case) whereby an IRA member was on a motorbike with a bomb packed and ready to be primed, on route to the bombing site the bike was pulled over by the RUC and charges were given, he argued what he carried was an offence not what he actually intended to do, I find it spurious but it could be argued that Duggan did indeed not have the gun so therefore there was no intention to kill, but its wishy washy never the less, he carried it so he had to carry the possible ramifications, I understand though this opens an absolute legal nightmare. "Common Purpose" (or Joint Criminal Enterprise) apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Again though they had evidence claiming he was a bomber and had viable evidence claiming an attack was very real, added to the fact that he ran from armed police and refused to stop on multiple occasions. It was tragic, but hardly unnacceptable, if you put thr shoe on the other foot and he got away and blew up 100s of people then there would be incredible public outcry to the incompetance of the force. You have been highly misinformed by the media and the boys in blue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Armed officer shoots an unarmed man in a packed train carriage without issuing a warning - the officer was responsible. However, armed officer shoots armed man after issuing a warning and seemingly being ignored - the officer was justified. ROE allows you to open fire without giving a warning IF you believe doing so would cause danger to human life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Armed officer shoots an unarmed man in a packed train carriage without issuing a warning - the officer was responsible. However, armed officer shoots armed man after issuing a warning and seemingly being ignored - the officer was justified. You are aware of the timing and area of the shooting? I am not suggesting it was the right thing, I am saying its tragic none moreso than obviously him and his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 "Common Purpose" (or Joint Criminal Enterprise) apparently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_purpose Yes, cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Whilst I have no sympathy at all for the fella in question, experience has taught me to never, ever, trust the OBs version of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Colony Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 The shooting of John de Menezes was a tragic series of events that no one should be held responsible for. Agree with Baz, all the bombs had been going off and if some dude doesnt stop for the police then I'm ok with them putting him down, survival of the fittest. Anyway we seem to be a bit more indignant about some known gangster than some soldier out for a pizza who had 2 guys try and saw his head off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 (edited) ROE allows you to open fire without giving a warning IF you believe doing so would cause danger to human life There were massive errors of Police intelligence ( omymoron ? ) and in the top level decision making by the team led by Cressida D!ck - the Police action was fuelled by natural concern in the wake of the preceding events, but nontheless they overreacted. Their training is supposed to ensure mistakes aren't made. There was case in Chorley a couple of years ago where an officer tasered an "armed" suspect after a warning was ignored - the offender was a partially deaf man who's weapon was the white stick he used due to being almost blind. Edited 8 January, 2014 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Agree with Baz, all the bombs had been going off and if some dude doesnt stop for the police then I'm ok with them putting him down, survival of the fittest. Anyway we seem to be a bit more indignant about some known gangster than some soldier out for a pizza who had 2 guys try and saw his head off. You need to leave off the crystal meth mush if you think that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Agree with Baz, all the bombs had been going off and if some dude doesnt stop for the police then I'm ok with them putting him down, survival of the fittest. Anyway we seem to be a bit more indignant about some known gangster than some soldier out for a pizza who had 2 guys try and saw his head off. FFS this is sheer ignorance, he didn't get any warnings from the police and was never asked to stop. The facts are well established if you can be bothered to do a bit of reading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 The shooting of John de Menezes was a tragic series of events that no one should be held responsible for. Not in a criminal sense but certainly in a professional sense - the whole operation was racked by incompetence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Colony Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 FFS this is sheer ignorance, he didn't get any warnings from the police and was never asked to stop. The facts are well established if you can be bothered to do a bit of reading. Sorry having been out of the country for the last 10yrs I've had to rely on the news, but if he was ok how come he was the only one shot rather than everyone else there ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Again though they had evidence claiming he was a bomber and had viable evidence claiming an attack was very real, added to the fact that he ran from armed police and refused to stop on multiple occasions. It was tragic, but hardly unnacceptable, if you put thr shoe on the other foot and he got away and blew up 100s of people then there would be incredible public outcry to the incompetance of the force. This is patently untrue on so many levels, quite an achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 FFS this is sheer ignorance, he didn't get any warnings from the police and was never asked to stop. The facts are well established if you can be bothered to do a bit of reading. Exactly, lies and misreporting as usual. He was just rushing to get to work if I remember rightly. Stupid rozzer who had been spying on a suspect went for a p*ss and then they followed the wrong bloke to the tube. Morons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 It wasn't as if duggan was a law abiding citizen now was he . Surely If you have illegal access to a gun then you would be using either to hurt someone else or to protect yourself . He was part of the gangster society , who knows what illegal activities he and his gang mates have got up to in the past . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Sorry having been out of the country for the last 10yrs I've had to rely on the news, but if he was ok how come he was the only one shot rather than everyone else there ? Fair enough, apologies if I was a bit forthright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes He lived in block of flats that were being watch by Police and was mistaken for a terrorist due to a highly flawed Police operation. The Met then deliberately leaked out false information to cover their incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 (edited) Sorry having been out of the country for the last 10yrs I've had to rely on the news, but if he was ok how come he was the only one shot rather than everyone else there ? The Police spotted a man allegedly wearing a padded coat. They reckoned the weather was too warm for him to be wearing it and for some reason they thought it might be a bomb vest, - one of them claimed to see wires sticking out of it. They then claimed he jumped over the ticket barriers at Stockwell Tube Station - which the CCTV proved to be false, and they followed him onto the carriage where one of them pulled out his gun, pointed it at the suspect, and fired. None of the witnesses in the carriage supported the officers' claim that a shouted warning had been ignored, it also seems that none of them supported the assertion that the gunmen, in an assortment of plain clothes, had identified themselves as armed Police officers. Edited 8 January, 2014 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Colony Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 The Police spotted a man allegedly wearing a padded coat. They reckoned the weather was too warm for him to be wearing it and for some reason they thought it might be a bomb vest, - one of them claimed to see wires sticking out of it. They then claimed he jumped over the ticket barriers at Stockwell Tube Station - which the CCTV proved to be false, and they followed him onto the carriage where one of them pulled out his gun, pointed it at the suspect, and fired. None of the witnesses in the carriage supported the offiecers' claim that a shouted warning had been ignored, it also seems that none of them supported the assertion that the gunmen had identified themselves as armed Police officers. Bummer but I can sort of understand the police's nervousness as bombs were going off everywhere weren't they. Doesn't help his mum poor ****er but I do agree there are some dodgy ****s in the police, they **** up and then lie through their arse. Have a easier time feeling sorry for this dude going to work than a known north London gangster whose mum said he was shy. It's a bit like Chris browns mum saying he had a way with the ladies, utter bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Not in a criminal sense but certainly in a professional sense - the whole operation was racked by incompetence I wholeheartedly agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stardustonmyfeet Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 FFS this is sheer ignorance, he didn't get any warnings from the police and was never asked to stop. The facts are well established if you can be bothered to do a bit of reading. This. So many people are unaware of what happened. What happened to de Menezes was chilling as it could have happened to any commuter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Pursuit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Colony Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Just checked out the news bits and I would say though that there is a lot of sensationalism, "shoot to kill", don't think that possible based on my experience, you just shoot, kill or being wounded is not pre determined action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Tone Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Quite funny how my Twitter feed and this forum contrast so much. I must follow too many lefties who want to get outraged. I'm a bit of a leftie, but I think Duggan got what he deserved. Man of violence died by violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 Just checked out the news bits and I would say though that there is a lot of sensationalism, "shoot to kill", don't think that possible based on my experience, you just shoot, kill or being wounded is not pre determined action. Shoot to kill is deemed as self defence in many cases, it is highly emotive as such as this case demonstrates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 8 January, 2014 Share Posted 8 January, 2014 This. So many people are unaware of what happened. What happened to de Menezes was chilling as it could have happened to any commuter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Pursuit And none of the cameras on the platform or the train were working, mmm not fishy at all http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes#Missing_CCTV_footage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now