Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gringo

Police state or the state of policing

Recommended Posts

Maybe he had a personal vendetta against one or both of those girls ?

Only if you can request which two specific police officers attend a routine burglary enquiry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guess he just sounds mental.

Probably high when he pulled the trigger

[/shrug]Is there a point at which you engage your brain before pressing submit?[/shrug]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Snowy - the updated report shows the police are claiming he was holding a gun.

I am reminded that they also claimed he fired a gun at one of their officers and this is why they shot him, but they later agreed that the policeman had in fact been shot by another policeman. A bit reminiscent of the claims about Jean Charles de Menezes, perhaps. Or the guy with a dining table leg in a plastic bag, which they said was a gun. Harry Stanley. They shot him dead, too, and again gave a false account of the facts.

Looking back at previous accounts, I see one from last year which says

The investigation into the death of Mark Duggan has found no forensic evidence that he was carrying a gun when he was shot dead by police on 4 August, the Guardian has learned.

A gun collected by Duggan earlier in the day was recovered 10 to 14 feet away, on the other side of a low fence from his body. He was killed outside the vehicle he was travelling in, after a police marksman fired twice.

The new details raise questions about the official version of events. The shooting triggered some of the worst riots in modern British history, which began in Tottenham, north London, in response to the treatment of the Duggan family. The investigation into Duggan's death is being carried out by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), but the Guardian has learned new details of the shooting, and a much more complex picture than first revealed is emerging.

On the day Duggan was shot, there is overwhelming evidence he had obtained a firearm, and there is video supporting that. But the investigation is considering whether Duggan had a weapon in his possession when he was shot dead by the police....

All the accounts I've seen say he had collected a gun that day (and therefore presumably touched it, opened the box to check what he was getting, etc).

But the evidence mentioned in today's quoted article,

Brown said a River Island shoe box in the back of the taxi had contained the gun, and had Duggan's prints on it. His fingerprints were on the inside of the base of the box and "thus is consistent with having opened the box to get to the gun", Brown said.

The crown alleges that Duggan and Hutchinson-Foster exchanged four phone calls in the hour before the weapon was collected. During a four-minute stop in Leyton, Duggan was seen being handed the shoe box, the crown says.

does not go beyond showing that he had touched the gun (which as far as I can see is not disputed). It does not show that he was holding a gun when shot dead, and in particular it does not contradict the assertion from last year that there is "no forensic evidence that he was carrying a gun when he was shot dead".

No doubt more will come to light during the trial.

Today's news from Manchester underlines that policing is a difficult and sometimes deadly job, and we all need to recognise that. At the same time, we need to have truthful accounts of what happens when the police kill people, as well as when they are killed. We don't always get that, when the Hillsborough herd mentality kicks in.

We now know we didn't get an accurate account when Duggan was shot, with regard to him shooting a police officer. Now the area of dispute seems to be whether he was holding a gun or not. Hopefully the current court case will give a more honest picture than the first press briefings at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today's news from Manchester underlines that policing is a difficult and sometimes deadly job, and we all need to recognise that. At the same time, we need to have truthful accounts of what happens when the police kill people, as well as when they are killed.

I think that's not only right but ought to be at the heart of the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Snowy - the updated report shows the police are claiming he was holding a gun.

And more today from 'W70' - here.

It will be interesting to see if there are any accounts of the events other than from the firearms officers (one would imagine there's a fair bit more evidence than their statements and accounts if the 'complexity' claim of the IPCC is correct).

Also, from that article:

The officer also told the court he omitted the fact Mr Duggan was armed from his initial statement after meeting lawyers and Police Federation representatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The officer also told the court he omitted the fact Mr Duggan was armed from his initial statement after meeting lawyers and Police Federation representatives.

Oh I'm really looking forward to hearing the logic of that choice. I knew he was armed but didn't put it in my original statement because I was told to by my union and their lawyers.

Are policemen really that ignorant of what constitutes a good defence? Are their unions lawyers really that stupid?

We shot this bloke but it was decided if we said he had a gun it would make us look bad...we now realise the errors of that approach, he had a gun.

It's a real Clegg's Apology of a defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was in possesion of a Gun though wasn't he ?

That was considered highly dubious at the time, the story seems to have shifted somewhat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems very hard to follow what went on, partly because so many people seem intent on not saying. Some things which do seem to have been established and which are notable include these.

The IPCC stated at first that Duggan had fired at police before he was shot. This was untrue, as the IPCC accepted within days of the shooting. It is unclear whether this statement was a result of briefing from police, or knowing that a police officer had been shot and concluding that only Duggan would have shot him, or some other reason. Here.

The police moved the taxi Duggan was shot in away from the scene, and as a result the IPCC was unable to inspect it there. The IPCC are reported to have sanctioned its removal before they even arrived at the scene. They failed to advise their officer in charge that they had done so. As a result of both this and the IPCC mistake above, two of the three members of the "community reference group" set up by the IPCC stood down, saying that they lacked confidence in the IPCC. Here.

The IPCC is reported to have said that

in investigating the shooting, it has unearthed such sensitive material over police decision-making that it is unable to reveal it, even to the inquest coroner.
Here.

The police have refused to be interviewed by the IPCC in the investigation of the death. Here.

This is despite IPCC investigators having powers equivalent to police officers, including that of arrest, when conducting investigations - powers they seem to use rarely. Here.

It seems that many of the IPCC investigators are ex-police. Two thirds, in the view of Mrs Duggan. Here.

The IPCC have declined to hand over evidence to the coroner, to the point where they are threatened with legal action Same as last link.

It seems that part of the reluctance to supply information relates to UK legislation about evidence acquired through phone tapping. Here.

But there also seems to be a reluctance to give information about things like trajectory of the bullets (which could show where each party was at the moment of shooting) and so on.

The riots started not because this man was killed, but because a deputation to the police station two days later asking for information was rebuffed and treated with contempt. We don't seem to have got that bit right yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was in possesion of a Gun though wasn't he ?

Who knows?

It seems the only account that the police involved (and probably beyond) want the public to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw a statement today from Officer w70 that said Duggan went for a gun !!! Which may or may not have actually been in the boot of the taxi :confused:

All I can assume is the police had this bloke under surveillance and thus knew about the gun and therfore when they moved in on him there were a few nervous police officers who appear to have decided to shoot first ask questions later ... Or the Uk police watched minority report at training school and have decided that executing people before they carry out a crime is the way forward ??

The taxi driver presumably will have something to say at some point , hes been silenced so far for whatever reason !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More detail reported in court today, here.

There is some interesting information about how the police compiled their statements.

...Questioned by Stuart Denney QC for the defence, V53 said he was taken away from the scene in a car which contained colleagues and a representative from the police federation.

Three days after the shooting V53 and 10 colleagues were shown into a room, where they made written statements.

V53 said by this stage he had already given two short accounts.

On 7 August, V53 said, before he and his colleagues entered the room, they were reminded by a manager about the rules on conferring.

The officers entered the room at midday and finished at 8.40pm.

V53 said the officers had followed the rules on making statements after a shooting, which had been agreed by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

V53 said: "One of the things we were not allowed to discuss was why I opened fire. That was my decision and my decision alone. "

He said this was to be the "biggest" statement he had ever made and he wanted to get it right.

V53 said he and the 10 other officers would discuss events, broken down into sections, then write that part down in their statement: "We would discuss it and keep writing as we went along."...

Guidance to police on conferring was changed in 2008. Previously, they could confer at will on what they said. Now, ACPO guidance says they can't confer on their belief that a situation required them to open fire, but it seems that conferring on details of what happened is still accepted. More detail here. Since someone else's belief is not a matter of fact and is unknowable anyway, I don't see in what sense this is actually a restriction - it's not as though any police officer could state what was in another officer's mind, with or without conferring.

Some of the comments on the Mitchell case have suggested that the police officers in question may have conferred on the facts of what Mitchell said to them. I suppose most people assume that the police are meant not to confer when drawing up their statements, and would be surprised that in fact it seems to be accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Canadian couple run into trouble at the US border:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-i5sDOdoFqg

I can't think how to sum it up, but this little clip has a lot to say about human rights, authority figures and the danger that authority can pose even to ordinary innocent people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting clip. Is it a re-enactment? Surely they would have found the recording device and wiped it? If genuine, the police seem keen to look for justifications to escalate a confrontation, as though they want to punish him for what they see as an unacceptable attitude. It seems all about demonstrating to him that they have power over him, and not at all to do with the purpose for which they have been granted that power. It suggests that the selection and training processes leave a lot to be desired.

I like the claim by one officer that they catch three terrorists a day coming from Canada through Buffalo alone. I expect that means there's, ooh, about a zillion terrorists a year heading to the US, all told. Scary stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it a re-enactment?

I wondered that myself.

I was more interested in the links from that page to the Homeland security checkpoints in Texas than the difficulties one nationality had entering another country and the overly officious border guards involved (especially as they're US ones).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Snowy - the updated report shows the police are claiming he was holding a gun.

I am reminded that they also claimed he fired a gun at one of their officers and this is why they shot him, but they later agreed that the policeman had in fact been shot by another policeman. A bit reminiscent of the claims about Jean Charles de Menezes, perhaps. Or the guy with a dining table leg in a plastic bag, which they said was a gun. Harry Stanley. They shot him dead, too, and again gave a false account of the facts.

Looking back at previous accounts, I see one from last year which says

All the accounts I've seen say he had collected a gun that day (and therefore presumably touched it, opened the box to check what he was getting, etc).

But the evidence mentioned in today's quoted article,

does not go beyond showing that he had touched the gun (which as far as I can see is not disputed). It does not show that he was holding a gun when shot dead, and in particular it does not contradict the assertion from last year that there is "no forensic evidence that he was carrying a gun when he was shot dead".

No doubt more will come to light during the trial.

Today's news from Manchester underlines that policing is a difficult and sometimes deadly job, and we all need to recognise that. At the same time, we need to have truthful accounts of what happens when the police kill people, as well as when they are killed. We don't always get that, when the Hillsborough herd mentality kicks in.

We now know we didn't get an accurate account when Duggan was shot, with regard to him shooting a police officer. Now the area of dispute seems to be whether he was holding a gun or not. Hopefully the current court case will give a more honest picture than the first press briefings at the time.

I thought the Mitchell case had proved beyond any doubt that the police don't lie ..I'm puzzled how you can now suggest otherwise ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the Mitchell case had proved beyond any doubt that the police don't lie ..I'm puzzled how you can now suggest otherwise ....

Yes indeed, it's been troubling me all day.

If the police in the Mitchell case are telling the truth, then the police tell the truth.

If the police in the Duggan case and others were lying, then the police don't tell the truth.

It's really been hurting my head. I just can't see which one could be right. Can anyone else help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...
Â