Gun Crime

August the 4th marked the anniversary of the death of Mark Duggan who died from a gunshot wound whilst armed police had stopped the car he had been travelling in to make an arrest. The funeral of Mark Duggan sparked riots the like of which has not been seen in London for many years. Much of the subesequent rioting and disorder around the the UK at that time, it is fair to say was pretty unconnected with this event but Mr Duggan's death was the blue touch paper that ignited it all.

There has not been an inquest yet as the IPCC (The UK body that investigates, amongst other things deaths at the hands of the police) is still in an ongoing investigation. 

Duggan Shooting Timeline

Normally I have faith in the British judicial system and it 's ability to reach the right conclusion eventually. But this event has taken too long and there have been, for me, disquieting similarities with other fatal shootings where things were not what we, the public were initially led to believe.

I refer to the shooting of Jean Charles De Menezes in 2005. An event that still makes my blood boil. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/seven-mistakes-that-cost-de-menezes-his-life-1064466.html

I could also refer you back to 1972 and the Bloody Sunday killings. 

In both of these events stories circulated in the press about the apparent guilt of the victims however the truth was somewhat different. 

I am not protesting Mr Duggan's innocence or guilt. I believe the Judicial system is bringing itself into disrepute in waiting so long. There is now an almost unshakeable common belief that the police have something to hide. 

Due to the sensitive nature i.e. the rioting that followed the killing, I can make allowance for some delay. To allow the dust to settle and for the evidence to be examined in cold daylight. But the IPCC is now seen to be dragging it's feet as if on purpose.

----

On a not totally unconnected point I am wary of the use of firearms by police. Have no doubt that the police need the ability to respond with armed officers.

My concern is that the  threshold of evidence for the use of such firearms once deployed is "grey" at best. The officer involved only has to suspect you are of immediate threat to themselves or the public to slot you there and then. There have been some high profile cases where the supposed threat is difficult to comprehend to an outsider when not present at the scene.

I know that training for such units is detailed and arduous and successful candidates are continually reassessed.

So what am I saying? People who are involved in gun crime should be under no doubt that armed police will shoot to kill. That armed units MUST be fully informed of the situation before entering into an incident (It would seem in 2005 case there was a lot of conjecture that became fact in the "fog of war").

A commander that allows an armed unit into "the fray" should be under no doubt it is tantamount to pulling the trigger themselves. Because the officer on the ground has to make a split second decision on life or death,     the officer cannot afford to think about wider issues to be effective. Therefore the officer that sends them in has to take responsibility for their actions. Once mobilised the commander has no control and should not send them in unless they are prepared for the consequences. The buck should stop with them.



http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=3193755#editor/target=post;postID=7635782910194557746