See the initial YouTube video from post #1.
1:20 onwards.
FWIW, I feel the video is biased in favour of MD, and yet they do not dispute that he collected the gun.
The Killing of Mark Duggan
- Thread starter Dork Lard
- Start date
See the initial YouTube video from post #1.
1:20 onwards.
FWIW, I feel the video is biased in favour of MD, and yet they do not dispute that he collected the gun.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,616
- Reaction score
- 2,422
- Country
Who hasn't? So what?
Something dodgy...You never shoot without a clear firing line as the people behind are just as much in the in the target zone as a person is in front of the target. Two people were inline with the target...the cab driver and the other officer....who was hit by the firing officer....hmmmmmm
Earlier intelligence was that a gun was to be passed to Duggan 'in a shoe box'. Crims don't keep their guns at home under the bed - they get some other sop to keep it for them and retrieve it when they need it. 15 minutes later - at the Duggan shooting scene - there's an empty shoe box in the taxi. There was no Duggan DNA on the gun but his fingerprints were on the shoe box. Later, the 'gun keeper' admitted being in possession of that gun about a week before the shooting event, when he used it himself in an attack on somebody.
So, why was Duggan carrying around an empty shoe box? Perhaps he was going to stop off at the local park and collect some flowers for his new hobby of flower pressing. Or, maybe the police were really thinking ahead and took along a shoe box with them, just in case it might come in handy for planting evidence. Plus of course they would need to have a gun ready in a sock. Not just any gun, it would have to be the very gun that the gun keeper admitted having just a week before. Hmmm, that's a tricky one.
Or, Duggan picked up the gun from the gun keeper in the shoe box and chucked it over the fence when he realised he was being stopped.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,616
- Reaction score
- 2,422
- Country
Perhaps pointing to the officer feeling in immediate danger, with a split second reaction.
The plot thickens, if none of the officers see him throw the gun away, the officer feels he's in immediate danger so shoots him how does the gun get into the field?
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,616
- Reaction score
- 2,422
- Country
He threw it from the car as soon as the car stopped? The video didn't even look into that possibility.
He launched it as the taxi was being pulled up i.e. the rozzers were more pre-occupied with "the stop" than with anything else.
Not really.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,616
- Reaction score
- 2,422
- Country
If the police did plant the gun would it not have been a much better idea for at least one to say they saw him throw it?
Didn't statements
Witness testaments concentrated on the gun being thrown away into the field but retrieving it from the back of the taxi was ruled out. The video shows it had been cut for four seconds and police movements round the taxi suggesting there was a possibility this was the case.
So if he's thrown the gun away he's been shot in cold blood
Witness testaments concentrated on the gun being thrown away into the field but retrieving it from the back of the taxi was ruled out. The video shows it had been cut for four seconds and police movements round the taxi suggesting there was a possibility this was the case.
You'd think so, perhaps they hadn't got all their ducks all in a row.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,616
- Reaction score
- 2,422
- Country
No, he had his his hand in his pocket, he was a known criminal who they knew had picked up at least one gun. It wasn't the time for nicey nicey.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 17,616
- Reaction score
- 2,422
- Country
Perhaps. Luckily for them the jury found he was lawfully killed.
Exactly.
If the rozzers didn't see the gun being launched, they'd expect he was still armed.
Even if they did see him lob it, they didn't know he wasn't otherwise armed.
Sponsored Links
