Maltaran Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 The defence that, 'the police believed he had a gun' is extremely weak. He didn't have a gun, so they were wrong to shoot him, end of story. Suggesting that the police were justified in killing him because they thought he might be armed sets a hazardous and extraordinarily dangerous precedent. The police now know that they can gun people down with impunity whilst claiming, "Well, I thought he had a gun; turns out he didn't! Still, what can you do? Pub?" This case isn't setting a precedent, they've always been able to do that (see for example Jean Charles de Menezes). If the police believe that the guy is an imminent threat, they're allowed to shoot him, even if it turns out after the fact that he wasn't. And it's not quite with impunity, they would have to be able to justify their suspicions to the subsequent investigation and the inquest jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 With self-defence there's a twofold test: - Did the person subjectively perceive a threat? This is where the police's honest belief came into play.- Given the subjective threat, was the use of force in self-defence appropriate? This is defined objectively. That is, what the reasonable person would think was the appropriate way to deal with the threat. There's also the fact that the prosecution then has to meet the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard in dismissing any self defence arguments. There's no precedent here, and nor does it just apply to the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 The defence that, 'the police believed he had a gun' is extremely weak. He didn't have a gun, so they were wrong to shoot him, end of story. Suggesting that the police were justified in killing him because they thought he might be armed sets a hazardous and extraordinarily dangerous precedent. The police now know that they can gun people down with impunity whilst claiming, "Well, I thought he had a gun; turns out he didn't! Still, what can you do? Pub?" On the other hand, the fact that the guy actually did have a gun in his possession until a matter of seconds before the shooting has to be taken into account here. A gun the police had actually witnessed him buying shortly before the incident, in fact. This does tend to lend a prima facie reasonableness to the claim that they believed Duggan was armed. The issue is how they failed to realise that he'd disposed of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 13, 2014 Author Share Posted January 13, 2014 The issue is how they failed to realise that he'd disposed of it. Given the distance it was found from where he was shot, he'd have needed to have thrown it with some considerable force. It's definitely a question as to how all of those police officers in three vehicles (two of which definitely, 100% had eyelines to him, as shown in the video camera footage) managed to miss it. However, it was clear that when he got out of the vehicle he was not carrying a gun at all. The police should have realised that before firing. Firing when they did suggests a panicked response, which is itself quite worrying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Given the distance it was found from where he was shot, he'd have needed to have thrown it with some considerable force. It's definitely a question as to how all of those police officers in three vehicles (two of which definitely, 100% had eyelines to him, as shown in the video camera footage) managed to miss it. Well, I understood that the belief of the inquest jury was that he did not throw it from where he was shot. I'd note that it was apparently wrapped in a sock, which would suggest that it would be almost impossible for anyone who did see him throw it to be sure that the object was the gun. They might have assumed that it was, but that doesn't strike me as a very safe sort of assumption to make when tracking a suspect known to be armed. However, it was clear that when he got out of the vehicle he was not carrying a gun at all. The evidence on this point is far from unanimous and in fact, it's the point on which a jury were unable to reach a clear conclusion: they were instructed by the judge that 'If you are sure that he did not have a gun in his hand, then tick the box 'unlawful killing"', which only two of ten did. So by 'it was clear' I assume you mean 'it was not clear', at least to eight of the men and women of the jury, who heard a great deal more evidence about this case than we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 13, 2014 Author Share Posted January 13, 2014 It is clear because the gun was not in his hand, it was over a wall and fence 20-odd feet away. And if he didn't throw it from where he was shot or from the vehicle just before, when did he throw it? The first he knew what the hell was going on was when the police vehicles surrounded his taxi, which then couldn't move. So he either threw it from the taxi (at which point there was a police car right behind him and right in front of him; I'll assume the one boxing him in from the side couldn't see due to the taxi being in the way) or threw it as he was getting out, by which time the police were also exiting their vehicles and seemed to have a good view of what was going on. They weren't 200 feet away or something. Exactly why the jurors didn't take that line, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Of course it was clear based on what we know now, but that was never the question, the question was "was it clear to the police on the scene that he was not carrying a gun?". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 It is clear because the gun was not in his hand, it was over a wall and fence 20-odd feet away. As Iceman points out, 'it is clear' is a very different thing than 'it was clear', which is what you said at first. The first is absolutely true, the second is absolutely not. And if he didn't throw it from where he was shot or from the vehicle just before, when did he throw it? A very fair question, and possibly the biggest unanswered question in all of this (along with some of the details about what happened when he got out of the vehicle). On that we agree. Exactly why the jurors didn't take that line, I don't know. But they didn't, and we must assume that's because they considered all of the evidence, as they were charged to do. I agree that there are major unanswered questions in this case. But the idea that it establishes any kind of carte blanche for armed officers to shoot just any unarmed person on the grounds that they might be armed is just not true. I repeat: the police in this case were dealing with someone who had, shortly before, obtained an illegal firearm and we must conclude was, whatever actually happened, in possession of it moments before he was shot. Maybe there were some shenanigans on the part of the police here, but the verdict hasn't ushered in a complete 'open season' for armed officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 I hadn't heard of this before. Basically, from March all GP surgeries will be required to surrender their confidential patient records to a government database. This will not be for medical reasons, but for rather vague and unclear purposes of sharing information because of something or the other. Or, in short, it's opening up your private medical information to possible data-mining. You can opt-out of the service via information at the link, but if you don't it will be automatically assumed that you are consenting to it. Of course, it's hard for people to opt-out of something that they've never heard of ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derfel Cadarn Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 It'll be great! You go to your GP with erectile dysfunction and by the time you're home your inbox is filled with viagra adverts.Got the shits? Learn about great offers from Andrex! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A wilding Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Basically, from March all GP surgeries will be required to surrender their confidential patient records to a government database. This will not be for medical reasons, but for rather vague and unclear purposes of sharing information because of something or the other. Or, in short, it's opening up your private medical information to possible data-mining. This is absolutely true, and I have been waiting with interest to see whether we actually get the promised mailshot or are just quietly enrolled. My professional advice is that everyone should definitely opt out. If you don't, your medical data will almost certainly end up in dodgy hands. (Though if you do, there is still a risk of it IMO.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 Assessment of the success of Thatcher's right-to-buy scheme. Thirty years on from Thatcher's policy, more than a third of ex-council homes sold off to help the families living in them are now owned by private landlords. Some of these landlords own scores of the things, with 40 alone owned by the family of Thatcher's former Housing Minister, Ian Gow. This is interesting, showing how Britain is starting to slide into a country of home-renters rather than owners and how people are profiting from that and from naked manipulations of the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 The defence that, 'the police believed he had a gun' is extremely weak. He didn't have a gun, so they were wrong to shoot him, end of story. Suggesting that the police were justified in killing him because they thought he might be armed sets a hazardous and extraordinarily dangerous precedent. The police now know that they can gun people down with impunity whilst claiming, "Well, I thought he had a gun; turns out he didn't! Still, what can you do? Pub?" It sets no new precedent. It's entirely consistent with the existing law on self defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talleyrand 2.0 Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Assessment of the success of Thatcher's right-to-buy scheme. Thirty years on from Thatcher's policy, more than a third of ex-council homes sold off to help the families living in them are now owned by private landlords. Some of these landlords own scores of the things, with 40 alone owned by the family of Thatcher's former Housing Minister, Ian Gow. This is interesting, showing how Britain is starting to slide into a country of home-renters rather than owners and how people are profiting from that and from naked manipulations of the market. I did some side work a few months ago going door to door for the ECO & Green schemes and I can across plently of landlords who had several dozen properties. In fact I think I came across at least equal amounts or more landlords (and this is landlords not housing companies) who had a large number of properties than those who held only a handful and even smaller were people who outright owned their own home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Assessment of the success of Thatcher's right-to-buy scheme. Depressing but not surprising. The same has happened to lots of 'social housing' projects in recent years. They're built and sold to low-income families, then shortly after, sold to landlords and rented to low-income families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Werthead Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 It sets no new precedent. It's entirely consistent with the existing law on self defence. Yes, sorry, that was naive of me. We already live in a nation where the police can kill people and get away with it (unless they're caught on camera doing it, in which case they'll simply lose their job), and that's been the case for years. I think I'll retain the apparently controversial position that that's not a good thing, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lummel Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Well the purpose of right to buy combined with housing benefit and the ban on council house building was to shrink the size of the state, increase the size of the private sector with the intention of creating a enlarged class of property owners. Two out of three isn't bad, if you support those objectives. Personally I think that so many properties have ended up in the hands of private landlords is small beer - and really who else was going to buy ex-council stock, old council houses still sell room for room at a discount to non ex-council housing stock even if the council property had been built to meet Parker-Morris and the private one hadn't. The policy was from the point of view of providing an adequate housing stock for the UK population a disaster. Government money was used to heavily subsidise the sale of properties either bought or built with government money. Had government money been used to build houses that were then given away at least we'd have been spared the administration costs. Apparently Singapore, bastion of the free market, has most of its housing stock in state ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Yes, sorry, that was naive of me. We already live in a nation where the police can kill people and get away with it (unless they're caught on camera doing it, in which case they'll simply lose their job), and that's been the case for years. I think I'll retain the apparently controversial position that that's not a good thing, thanks.In fairness, deaths at the hands of the police in the UK are very rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeanF Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Well the purpose of right to buy combined with housing benefit and the ban on council house building was to shrink the size of the state, increase the size of the private sector with the intention of creating a enlarged class of property owners. Two out of three isn't bad, if you support those objectives. Personally I think that so many properties have ended up in the hands of private landlords is small beer - and really who else was going to buy ex-council stock, old council houses still sell room for room at a discount to non ex-council housing stock even if the council property had been built to meet Parker-Morris and the private one hadn't. The policy was from the point of view of providing an adequate housing stock for the UK population a disaster. Government money was used to heavily subsidise the sale of properties either bought or built with government money. Had government money been used to build houses that were then given away at least we'd have been spared the administration costs. Apparently Singapore, bastion of the free market, has most of its housing stock in state ownership.I think it depends a lot on when and where the housing was built. A hell of a lot of council housing built in the inter-war years is of outstandingly good quality, and very much in demand by families. The assumption then was to build four to six houses per acre, so they have big gardens. More recently built flats in tower blocks are only of interest to landlords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maltaran Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 UKIP knows the real reason for the floods - gay marriage! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-councillor-blames-floods-on-gay-marriage-9069245.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.