Shine166 - you say that the three points you mentioned 'are the changes in Police story from day 1 to now' but where do you get that from? The first public mention that Duggan fired came from a spokesperson for the IPCC, not the police. This was subsequently retracted by the IPCC. The officer who fired always maintained that Duggan had a gun. A gun was found 20 feet from Duggan's body (not 20 yards as you posted). I don't recall the police ever claiming he probably threw it from the taxi.
You are entitled to your opinion but you seem to be mixing up different accounts by different individuals and coming up with the less than incisive conclusion that 'it just all stinks to me'.
I am always reminded of any game at the Valley where everyone is focussed on the action and even then there are many, many different views as to what took place.
The IPCC certainly didn't help matters with that statement.
The witness accounts don't tally with the police either.
It just all stinks to me. First off he was shot after he shot a police man (the bullet that finished in the Police mans radio was actually a bullet that hit Duggan), next he pulled a gun on them and now the apparent story is the gun was 20 yards from the body and probably thrown from the taxi.
Duggan may have been a criminal, but he should be facing that same great British justice system that the 2 blokes from Woolwich are getting.
The gun was between 10-20ft from the body, but don't let the facts get in the way.
My whole comment was about the 'facts' changing... So you can hardly call me out on the same thing
Shine166 - you say that the three points you mentioned 'are the changes in Police story from day 1 to now' but where do you get that from? The first public mention that Duggan fired came from a spokesperson for the IPCC, not the police. This was subsequently retracted by the IPCC. The officer who fired always maintained that Duggan had a gun. A gun was found 20 feet from Duggan's body (not 20 yards as you posted). I don't recall the police ever claiming he probably threw it from the taxi.
You are entitled to your opinion but you seem to be mixing up different accounts by different individuals and coming up with the less than incisive conclusion that 'it just all stinks to me'.
I am always reminded of any game at the Valley where everyone is focussed on the action and even then there are many, many different views as to what took place.
It just all stinks to me. First off he was shot after he shot a police man (the bullet that finished in the Police mans radio was actually a bullet that hit Duggan), next he pulled a gun on them and now the apparent story is the gun was 20 yards from the body and probably thrown from the taxi.
Duggan may have been a criminal, but he should be facing that same great British justice system that the 2 blokes from Woolwich are getting.
The gun was between 10-20ft from the body, but don't let the facts get in the way.
My whole comment was about the 'facts' changing... So you can hardly call me out on the same thing
The facts from the police haven't changed though have they?
You're taking so called "facts" from different sources.
There are some questions that I haven't seen answered though; is how all the police involved were allowed to get together to compose their statements without any independent body there, why does a witness swear he was holding a phone, yet the police say it was a gun etc.
It just all stinks to me. First off he was shot after he shot a police man (the bullet that finished in the Police mans radio was actually a bullet that hit Duggan), next he pulled a gun on them and now the apparent story is the gun was 20 yards from the body and probably thrown from the taxi.
Duggan may have been a criminal, but he should be facing that same great British justice system that the 2 blokes from Woolwich are getting.
The gun was between 10-20ft from the body, but don't let the facts get in the way.
My whole comment was about the 'facts' changing... So you can hardly call me out on the same thing
It just all stinks to me. First off he was shot after he shot a police man (the bullet that finished in the Police mans radio was actually a bullet that hit Duggan), next he pulled a gun on them and now the apparent story is the gun was 20 yards from the body and probably thrown from the taxi.
Duggan may have been a criminal, but he should be facing that same great British justice system that the 2 blokes from Woolwich are getting.
The gun was between 10-20ft from the body, but don't let the facts get in the way.
My whole comment was about the 'facts' changing... So you can hardly call me out on the same thing
How did they change?
Read my posts, am getting bored of having to repeat myself
It just all stinks to me. First off he was shot after he shot a police man (the bullet that finished in the Police mans radio was actually a bullet that hit Duggan), next he pulled a gun on them and now the apparent story is the gun was 20 yards from the body and probably thrown from the taxi.
Duggan may have been a criminal, but he should be facing that same great British justice system that the 2 blokes from Woolwich are getting.
The gun was between 10-20ft from the body, but don't let the facts get in the way.
My whole comment was about the 'facts' changing... So you can hardly call me out on the same thing
How did they change?
Read my posts, am getting bored of having to repeat myself
It just all stinks to me. First off he was shot after he shot a police man (the bullet that finished in the Police mans radio was actually a bullet that hit Duggan), next he pulled a gun on them and now the apparent story is the gun was 20 yards from the body and probably thrown from the taxi.
Duggan may have been a criminal, but he should be facing that same great British justice system that the 2 blokes from Woolwich are getting.
The gun was between 10-20ft from the body, but don't let the facts get in the way.
My whole comment was about the 'facts' changing... So you can hardly call me out on the same thing
The facts from the police haven't changed though have they?
You're taking so called "facts" from different sources.
There are some questions that I haven't seen answered though; is how all the police involved were allowed to get together to compose their statements without any independent body there, why does a witness swear he was holding a phone, yet the police say it was a gun etc.
'The police watchdog body investigating the shooting of Mark Duggan, the man whose death sparked riots in north London, admitted yesterday that it may have "inadvertently" briefed journalists incorrectly that the father-of-four fired on officers before he was killed.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said that, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting of Mr Duggan, it was possible that it told reporters he died in an exchange of fire with officers from Scotland Yard's firearms unit, CO19.
Initial newspaper reports of Mr Duggan's death, as he travelled in a taxi in Tottenham, suggested he had shot at officers who returned fire. The impression that the 29-year-old had used a gun on police was not formally dismissed until five days after his death when ballistics tests confirmed a bullet lodged in the radio of a marksman had been fired from a police weapon'
It just all stinks to me. First off he was shot after he shot a police man (the bullet that finished in the Police mans radio was actually a bullet that hit Duggan), next he pulled a gun on them and now the apparent story is the gun was 20 yards from the body and probably thrown from the taxi.
Duggan may have been a criminal, but he should be facing that same great British justice system that the 2 blokes from Woolwich are getting.
The gun was between 10-20ft from the body, but don't let the facts get in the way.
My whole comment was about the 'facts' changing... So you can hardly call me out on the same thing
The facts from the police haven't changed though have they?
You're taking so called "facts" from different sources.
There are some questions that I haven't seen answered though; is how all the police involved were allowed to get together to compose their statements without any independent body there, why does a witness swear he was holding a phone, yet the police say it was a gun etc.
None of your business is it?
If members of the public are dying at the hands of OUR police force and there are questions as to the way the police have acted either during or after the incidents, then of course it is our business. Or do you wish the police to be able to close ranks and protect themselves from justice?
I initially wondered how shooting an unarmed man was a lawful killing, but if he was reaching for a phone when told to put his hands up then there really isn't much debate.
The no justice no peace rallying call was concerning!
This ! again il repeat that my questions are not trying to defend Duggan as a person.. I just think justice should be exactly that or the Police just become another gang doing what they want.
It just all stinks to me. First off he was shot after he shot a police man (the bullet that finished in the Police mans radio was actually a bullet that hit Duggan), next he pulled a gun on them and now the apparent story is the gun was 20 yards from the body and probably thrown from the taxi.
Duggan may have been a criminal, but he should be facing that same great British justice system that the 2 blokes from Woolwich are getting.
The gun was between 10-20ft from the body, but don't let the facts get in the way.
My whole comment was about the 'facts' changing... So you can hardly call me out on the same thing
The facts from the police haven't changed though have they?
You're taking so called "facts" from different sources.
There are some questions that I haven't seen answered though; is how all the police involved were allowed to get together to compose their statements without any independent body there, why does a witness swear he was holding a phone, yet the police say it was a gun etc.
None of your business is it?
If members of the public are dying at the hands of OUR police force and there are questions as to the way the police have acted either during or after the incidents, then of course it is our business. Or do you wish the police to be able to close ranks and protect themselves from justice?
How different would the police scrutiny have been if they never shot him when they had the chance and this gun holding fool was then to shoot at rivals and hit an innocent kid instead? Police don't have time to ponder on the whys and wherefores they are meant to protect and serve, if shooting a man they believe at that point in time to be armed and dangerous and he is non compliant, he reaches for something, split second to act no time to think, do or die? Shoot or be shot? Ffs I would have shot, who can wholeheartedly say they wouldn't if they were that officer ?
I initially wondered how shooting an unarmed man was a lawful killing, but if he was reaching for a phone when told to put his hands up then there really isn't much debate.
No the now justice no peace rallying call was concerning!
A witness said he didn't reach for his phone, he had his hands up with a phone in his hand...
People are surprised that his family would try to paint him in a good light? Might not have even known about his activity outside the house.
I think you're being a bit naive if you really think his little family didn't know he was one of the biggest players in one of the biggest London gangs, especially as he's been in the frame for murders and letting off shots in club car parks. While on the subject of his family bless em, I really felt for his aunt chanting no justice, no peace while flanked in other family members and friend with hoods up and scarves over their faces. Sums up everything wrong with Britain that family imo
How different would the police scrutiny have been if they never shot him when they had the chance and this gun holding fool was then to shoot at rivals and hit an innocent kid instead? Police don't have time to ponder on the whys and wherefores they are meant to protect and serve, if shooting a man they believe at that point in time to be armed and dangerous and he is non compliant, he reaches for something, split second to act no time to think, do or die? Shoot or be shot? Ffs I would have shot, who can wholeheartedly say they wouldn't if they were that officer ?
Well the Police say it was a gun, non Police witnesses say he was holding a mobile phone
How different would the police scrutiny have been if they never shot him when they had the chance and this gun holding fool was then to shoot at rivals and hit an innocent kid instead? Police don't have time to ponder on the whys and wherefores they are meant to protect and serve, if shooting a man they believe at that point in time to be armed and dangerous and he is non compliant, he reaches for something, split second to act no time to think, do or die? Shoot or be shot? Ffs I would have shot, who can wholeheartedly say they wouldn't if they were that officer ?
Well the Police say it was a gun, non Police witnesses say he was holding a mobile phone
It don't mather that it wasn't a gun @shine166 ffs. The facts are that he had a gun at some point and the copper thought, rightly or wrongly that he still had it and was a threat at that point. The jury believed that the copper was correct, as they've had better access to the evidence than you or I, so found in his favour. Whatever was said in the media or by anyone else doesn't effect ant of this.
Is it witnesses or just one witness out of interest?
There were several witnesses but quite a lot of them contradicted each other - one was sure they saw a phone, another a gun (I think.) Some think he had a gun when shot, some said he didn't. The jury were essentially trying to work out the truth from a bunch of differing and confused stories which is why it took so long to decide,
I initially wondered how shooting an unarmed man was a lawful killing, but if he was reaching for a phone when told to put his hands up then there really isn't much debate.
The no justice no peace rallying call was concerning!
A witness said he didn't reach for his phone, he had his hands up with a phone in his hand...
Isn't there video footage? If so, were his hands up or not?
I initially wondered how shooting an unarmed man was a lawful killing, but if he was reaching for a phone when told to put his hands up then there really isn't much debate.
The no justice no peace rallying call was concerning!
A witness said he didn't reach for his phone, he had his hands up with a phone in his hand...
Isn't there video footage? If so, were his hands up or not?
I've only seen footage of the chest compressions, not the actual shooting, if anyone was filming that at the time.
You'd think if there was footage of that bit it would be open & shut. Trying to pick through the media reports and none are that comprehensive on the evidence. The jury are the best placed to judge and many of the overreactions seem to ignore what the jury was asked.
It's just that yet again it appears poorly handled in the aftermath and questions can be raised on how the police reacted post shooting.
The reactions of Diane Abbott and Lee Jasper don't do anyone any favours and I wish they'd show more composure and tact to help dampen the hostility.
If only there were some way of discerning what actually happened. Like, having everyone who witnessed the event explain what they saw and what they knew. And, maybe they could be asked to swear an oath that they were telling the truth. Actually, not just the truth, but the whole truth. And nothing but the truth. Then we could ask a bunch of people - say, ten - to consider all the evidence and decide between them what actually happened.
That would be good. And it would end all the idle speculation. Probably.
Comments
The witness accounts don't tally with the police either.
Ok I got feet and yards mixed up, sorry for doing such a rediculous thing.
You're taking so called "facts" from different sources.
There are some questions that I haven't seen answered though; is how all the police involved were allowed to get together to compose their statements without any independent body there, why does a witness swear he was holding a phone, yet the police say it was a gun etc.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said that, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting of Mr Duggan, it was possible that it told reporters he died in an exchange of fire with officers from Scotland Yard's firearms unit, CO19.
Initial newspaper reports of Mr Duggan's death, as he travelled in a taxi in Tottenham, suggested he had shot at officers who returned fire. The impression that the 29-year-old had used a gun on police was not formally dismissed until five days after his death when ballistics tests confirmed a bullet lodged in the radio of a marksman had been fired from a police weapon'
your a big man if you carry a gun
really no your a dead man if you carry a gun and that's the way it should be
there is so much black on black gun crime in this country that daily young men and women are dying because pieces of filth carry guns
why you getting your knickers in a twist that this fellas dead
I initially wondered how shooting an unarmed man was a lawful killing, but if he was reaching for a phone when told to put his hands up then there really isn't much debate.
The no justice no peace rallying call was concerning!
This ! again il repeat that my questions are not trying to defend Duggan as a person.. I just think justice should be exactly that or the Police just become another gang doing what they want.
A consequence of that decision is getting shot.
You'd think if there was footage of that bit it would be open & shut. Trying to pick through the media reports and none are that comprehensive on the evidence. The jury are the best placed to judge and many of the overreactions seem to ignore what the jury was asked.
It's just that yet again it appears poorly handled in the aftermath and questions can be raised on how the police reacted post shooting.
The reactions of Diane Abbott and Lee Jasper don't do anyone any favours and I wish they'd show more composure and tact to help dampen the hostility.
That would be good. And it would end all the idle speculation. Probably.