Mark Duggan

coverage here

I don't know what to think about all this. I'm from Tottenham, had a husband in the Met so I'm looking at this with experience. On the one hand, Mark Duggan wasn't entirely innocent, he wasn't a victim of mistaken identity like that poor Brazilian, but did he deserve to be shot dead? And the police aren't angels and we shouldn't give them permission to shoot on our streets without accountability. As we've seen time and again they cover their backs and I'm not sure these cameras will provide clarity - evidence goes missing, doesn't it? Whatever the rules someone will always choose to ignore them and find a way to justify their actions. I don't think there is an answer to this one Jingle...

It is a hard one, just hope it does not kick off , and there is more trouble.!
Hmm

Some statistics given during the discussion about this on the Wright Stuff. Five people shot dead by police in the UK since 1920. The dispute about the gun won't be resolved. A gun was found a few yards away, the officer believed he would be killed, the video aopears to show Duggan was carrying a mobile phone when he was shot. All in a second or two and the officer had to decide whether to maim or shoot to kill. Did he have time to aim at the hand he thought was carrying the gun? We expect the police to keep our streets safe and only use weapons in rare circumstances. Tragic that a man has lost his life, and that we are so suspicious about police behaviour now. I hope that making armed police wear chest cameras will answer questions about their actions in future.

I think it's the right conclusion in the circumstances.

Unfortunately, the police as is often the case, didn't handle the immediate aftermath of the shooting in an honest and open manner.

They first claimed that there had been a shoot-out between them and Duggan; also all the officers refused to be interveiwed by the IPCC and only provided written statements - why are they allowed to do that?

The idea that you can shoot someone in the hand is just silly. I have spoken to marksmen in the past who tell me that to hit a person who is moving around and just "wing" them is nearly impossible - it is usual to aim for the body - and it is not a decision that is taken lightly, the marksman has to receive permission from a superior officer or believe that his/her or another person's life is in danger.

Nonu I hope that there is no backlash on this also,I think the Police have an awful job to do when confronted with "possible firearms" offences and do as good a job as they can,I hope wearing body camera's help by way of identifying people who use guns but a slpit second cannot always tell if a gun is present or not but camera's would help the Police if the need be.

Yes, sunseeker I agree. I have talked with tactical arms officers who take their role extremely seriously, and they cite the example of how long an Olympian shooter would have to set up a moving target, and still be inexact, which is many times longer than the split seconds the officers may be faced with. The notion of either maiming or shooting to kill can be discussed beforehand in training, and when permission is given to use weapons, but it's not going to be up for discussion in the moment, unless it's a hostage situation with negotiations taking place.

Having been in high risk meetings about dangerous offenders, I have observed the process by which the potential use of either tasers or guns are deemed necessary, and sanctioned at the highest level, recorded and circulated to relevant officials, and reviewed to decide whether the risk necessitating such action has reduced. These are very rare occurrences, usually involving terrorism, gang violence on the streets or armed bank raids, and each situation commands a range of highly organised responses that are practised ad infinitum in training.

Glam , fingers crossed, still with the cold weather that is supposed to sweeping in from the U.S. {wonder how Envious is coping ?] will probably put a lot off .

Thanks When, I didn't know the number of people shot dead by police since 1920 is 5. I'm relieved our police aren't routinely armed, as I am sure that would lead to more criminals being armed, and more police/others being shot.
I sympathise with the family of anyone who has died in the way that Mark Duggan did. I do wish though, that rather than shouting "murderer" and insisting that Mark D was "assassinated" they would find it in their hearts to acknowledge that if you carry a gun, you're more likely to be shot either by criminal associates, or by the police. I acknowledge the impact of Hillsborough for instance, on trust of the police. But, the Jury found that he did have a gun, and probably threw it out the taxi window when he realised he was to be stopped and searched. The officer told the Jury he believed he was about to be shot. The Jury believed the officer. The Jury heard all the evidence that's available. We ask such a lot of Jury members, and have to trust that this Jury gave this case the best attention and consideration that they could. Their conclusions have to be accepted. The officer who fired the fatal shot will live with this for the rest of his life. So will his family and loved ones, that he killed someone. It's a big ask isn't it, the requirements we have of ordinary folk who join the police.

It seems as though the police intelligence, that led to MD being followed, wasn't perfect. Given they get most of their intelligence from within the criminal fraternity, I suspect it rarely is.

No. I appreciate they couldn't have shot him conveniently in the hand. But wouldn't a couple of shots fired above his head have caused a reflex 'hands in the air' movement? Or even lying flat on the ground. Perhaps that is not part of the training.

An overview of the training for armed officers in the Met. Each police service has access to regional training colleges and specialist firearms training units. In Manchester, an officer was accidentally shot and killed by a colleague whilst they were undergoing their routine firearms training, a result of a fast reaction to a situation using live ammunition.

http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Firearms-Training/1400013622505/sco19

Sorry, didn't blue it

content.met.police.uk/Article/Firearms-Training/1400013622505/sco19

Here is a comment by a Tweeter which seems to sum up quite well

when FIVE people shot dead by the police since 1920 - where did you get that figure from?

I can think of more than that in London alone in the past 20 years.

But do you relly think you would shut up Bags? Aren't the police supposed to be the grownups?

A quick google reveals that police have shot dead 33 people since 1995, according to one source.

Yes, jings, I think I'd be ashamed enough of a gang member, gun owning son of mine to shut up.

If i hadn't disowned him first.

Once he was dead? Wiped out forever.

Ana just looked up the stats quoted on the Wright Stuff. Looks like it should have been five killed by Met officers (not in UK) since 1920.

Here's the section I found on DigitalSpy:

'There's been 16 people killed by law enforcement in GB since 1920
I think the 5 TWS referred to were those killed by the Met and only those killed by shooting.'

Riverwalk my first post referred to the stats being quoted on the Wright Stuff this morning.

when even the figures you quote of five by Met officers and 16 by GB officers is still absurdly low - it just can't be correct.

Yes, jingle. His being a dead gun owning gang member wouldn't make any difference to my shame at parenting such a person. Once a person is an adult I don't believe in unconditional love. I don't see what's different about disowning offspring you're ashamed of and the emotional 'walking away' from anyone who adds too much negativity to your life that soop and others recommend.

Are Duggan's parents ashamed of his gang membership and gun ownership? If not, why not?