text:
Duggan verdict
Lawful killing, even though the jury accepted he was unarmed when shot. Seems odd...
Given the evidence, I thought an open verdict was pretty likely.brusma this'd this
Given past history of this sort of thingCementimental and Ichor this'd this
Not sure I understand it either
Could it be that the jury accept that he was unarmed but that the police didn't know that and still assumed him a threat? :/
- _sam this'd this
So police murder is legal now?
Delightful. The jury doubtless will have been directed to deliver this - it's the Metropolitan Police and our out-dated justice system that needs to be blamed for this travesty.
- noise_ramones this'd this
this lazy attempt at trolling is reminiscent
of GG on a really poor day
Interesting subtleties to the law on show here, i think
it appears that despite accepting he didn't have a weapon, the fact that the police believed in good faith he did means it was a lawful killing?
trying to get my head round that.
Jury agreed that gun wasn't in his possession at the time
But police marksman had reason to believe he was still armed
Or in fact
had no evidence to suggest he WASN'T still armed
Well what did he do then?
Point at them with his fingers?
Why did they shoot if he wasn't armed and (I thus assume) made no show of looking like he was about to shoot someone (e.g. taking aim)?
- EndlessWindow, brusma, and felson this'd this
tbf if things continue to head this way
the water cannon's gonna be pretty superfluous
If DarwinDude was still posting, she'd probably post this,
but as she's not, I'll c+p it from her twitter:
re "lawful killing" - the defendant is judged on the facts as he honestly believes them to be. even if his belief is wrong and unreasonable and even if irrelevant or prejudiced opinions informed that "honest belief"justanothersheeldz and Cementimental this'd this
I came here to post the same
Good post. It's a subjective test of belief, not an objective one, that is, an honestly held ridiculous belief is what will be judged, not what the fictitious reasonable (police) man in the street would have believed instead.
Pretty sure that's not how it's written in the statute books.
Otherwise the 7/7 bombers would have been resolutely not guilty.
"the defendant is judged on the facts as he honestly believes them to be"
"even if his belief is wrong and unreasonable and even if irrelevant or prejudiced opinions informed that "honest belief"".
Covers most extremist acts really doesn't it?
I like your imaginative attempt at analogy
And I see what you';re driving at I think. But I'm sorry, it's not a sound analogy. besides, to compare the english and US legal systems is apples/ pears territory.
I think you maybe misunderstood... this relates only to whether he acted in self-defence
not his 'motive'.
Where did this bit come from then
"even if his belief is wrong and unreasonable and even if irrelevant or prejudiced opinions informed that quote honest belief unquote"
That's enshrined in law is it? Or are you just applying your Star Wars morality to stuff again?
that is quite a good summary
i wasnt aware of the severity of his involvement in criminal activity actually. id only read of the minor charges of theft and canabbis selling.
That's certainly not what stands out from that article for me, but whatever.
The crucial bit is:
"Of the three verdicts open to jurors, unlawful killing relied on them being certain Duggan was not holding a gun, and being certain V53 did not have an honest belief the suspect was brandishing a weapon. Lawful killing or an open verdict required them to reach a view on a lower standard of proof, namely on the balance of probabilities."
im just saying i hadnt read that originally.
not sure why youve quoted that in reply to me, but for interests sake then , do you think v53 did not have that honest belief and that the verdict should have been unlawful killing?
from the summary and (limited) other knowledge id have said an open verdict was probably a more reasonable conclusion than lawful killing.citizenmeh this'd this
I'm surprised that you hadn't read that originally,
especially seeing as though it was the story the Met put out repeatedly, and it was reported on just about every news outlet as a result.
If you (as the police) are approaching a known weapons dealer,
it is surely a sensible precaution to assume they are *always* carrying a weapon? Even if you see them throw away a gun in their hand, you can't be certain they aren't carrying another concealed until you physically have control of the suspect. To this, in context, the police involved in the incident would (or should) have an 'honest belief' the suspect has a weapon, as it would be too risky not too.
aw man
Childhood me proper cried his eyes out when Brittas went under that water tank
childhood me
even wept with joy when Brittas appeared from the destroyed leisure centre with them kids
I'm not saying that the decision of the jury was wrong -
as the law stands it was almost certainly correct - that's what I mean. The jury couldn't reasonably have given any other verdict based upon the evidence presented to them in the trial.
If I (as the police) approached a (suspected) weapons dealer, it is a sensible precaution to assume that they are *always* carrying a weapon. I probably wouldn't assume that they were brandishing one though, especially if I'd seen them throw away a gun in their hand.
The problem for me is two fold.
1) The time to go from not brandishing a weapon, to brandishing and firing one can be be what 5 seconds or less? The fact that a suspect may not be brandishing a weapon at any particular second, does not mean that they can not or won't be the next second.
2) You've seen them throw away the gun that's in their hand, fine - but you know the suspect is active in the illegal gun trade. With that in mind, it's not unreasonable to expect, or at least proceed on the basis that, they may have further guns on their person - potentially ones that can be withdrawn and fired in a matter of seconds. Should the officers wait for the suspect to fire first (potentially killing a police offer/civilian)? The window of opportunity between knowing the suspect is going to shoot and them actually shooting is minute, literally a split second.
If you're quick thinking enough to throw a gun over a fence,
you're almost certainly not going to then attempt to shoot an officer with another gun.
As we've said, what the officer said was that his account demonstrated his 'honest belief'. He was wrong, and presumably every other armed police officer in the unit didn't share the same belief (otherwise they'd have shot him too).
why dont you apply for a job in the armed response unit
Sounds like you obviously know a lot more about it than the people who work there.
Maybe get a job as England manager afterwards too?
This is a problem with marckee's posts in this (every?) thread.
They reek of "I definitely could have done better/wouldn't have done it wrong", when clearly that's bollocks.
general mistrust of all police and authority
baffles me.
Seems like just a projection of people's insecurities and personal issues onto an anonymised body
It's one of cases where I think
that if you don't want to be chased by armed police, you can lessen the risk by not being involved in gun crime.
This reminded me of the justification given for
the SAS shootings of the IRA members in Gibraltor c1988
He always tells the truth
this is terrible, regardless of how sincere it is
i mean, it's either a suggestion that he somehow 'deserved' to be killed or it's using someone's death at the hands of the police to rile up some people on the internet
think theres a difference between trolling people crying about boris johnson and this. there has to be a line.
in that case
would you mind clarifying/explaining your original statement. cause it looks like terrible logic with potentially horrific consequences
He won't do that
He's happy he got a few to bite
like an unarmed bloke getting shot dead and it being alright
yeah, pretty horrific
It read like you were saying his words could have 'horrific' consequences, not that you found the incident horrific.GayGuevara this'd this
the reasoning of
it's fine if he gets killed cause he's a bit of a bad egg. really not that far from blaming someone for getting raped cause they're wearing a short skirt.
One of the stupidest comments I think I've ever seen on here
Duggan shouldn't have been shot, and the subsequent police cover up was unjustifiable. But shooting a known gang member in the midst of the transaction to illegally purchase a gun is absolutely NOT THE SAME as raping someone in a short skirt, ffs.michael_w this'd this
looking at it, that was a stupid thing to say and i take it back
unreservedly. but the idea of shooting someone unarmed for having a previous record and (probably) being a dickhead to boot. is nothing like ok. i'm going to stop attempting to analogise because i'm rubbish at it
but they haven't done that have they?
if you read through the report, it's a lot more complicated than that, and your simplification is just as bad as any perceived trolling from anyone else here in the other direction.
i appreciate it's complicated
but the whole thing reeks. the met have previous in issues like this and given how much the details have changed from the earliest reports (that duggan shot first etc.) i think it's entirely fair to be pretty suspicious of their account
i completely agree
entirely fair to be suspicious of their account. it sounds like a huge fuck up.
but it's not fair to say they shot him 'for having a previous record and (probably) being a dickhead to boot'.
tbh i'm in a big state of revision/essay writing brain melt
my last post is basically the first thing i've written in this thread that i don't entirely disagree with. was sounding like a big shouty reactionary wanker. but yeah, still murky as fuck
Yeah, no smoke without fire, eh?
On that basis, Duggan was guilty.
- Antpocalypsenow this'd this
hey I came back here cause I heard someone was subtweeting me on DiS!
but I just wanted to say this Alan_Shearer post isn't by me... I used to occasionally log in as Alan_Shearer but this wasn't me. cause I don't think this is funny :(
it's basically when
instead of replying to a tweet, you make a tweet about the tweet
The Met says by April 2014, firearms officers will wear mini video cameras in the hope of clearly showing what happened and shorten investigation times.
how long have gopros been around now? can't believe they don't do this already. they'd have nothing to fear if they had nothing to hide.
I don't really have enough
confidence in the met to suppose this will solve evidential dilemmas in any potential future investigations. Footage can (obviously) be lost, re-sequenced, erased, recorded over, covered up, of insufficient quality etc.
No one comes out of it well really
He was clearly into some dodgy shit...the police have clearly fucked up at various points along the way.
One big block of fuck. Although, not sure why these facts wouldn't result in an open verdict.felson this'd this
his criminal record was possession of weed, minor assault and stolen goods. there will be DiSers with worse ffs.
I dunno, everyone but him came out of it pretty well in that they have not been shot dead
For fuck sake
Man shot and killed who is unarmed an that is lawful? After all the facts kept changing too. At the beginning, when he was killed, he was armed and shot a policeman but it hit his radio or some shit.
Much like when Charles de Menezes was shot in the head at point blank range for doing nothing but apparently he ran away from the police after they told him to stop, he ran - with a bulky coat - over the barriers and down onto a carriage. Except he wasn't wearing a bulky coat, he didn't run, the police didn't ask him to stop and ALL THE CAMERAS IN STOCKWELL TUBE WEREN'T WORKING for the route he took.
I don't give a fuck if Duggen was a known criminal, they shot and killed a man who was unarmed. Fucked up yo.lardsnail, rhubarb, and Cementimental this'd this
the guy was a dickhead
and now he's dead. I'm ecstatically happy about that, regardless of the way it happened. The worlds a better place and thats great - dont moker yourself out about this
Good thing the Daily Mail reported things impartially at the time
- moker and Cementimental this'd this
given his past history, where he had believed to have just been
and if the police marksman's report is deemed true, then lawful killing is the right verdict.
Must be almost impossible to find unlawful killing against a police marksman though. I'd imagine there is always going to be some form of 'intelligence' suggesting past gun/crime involvement when the gun squad get called and then if the marksman says something along the lines of 'I believed he had a gun/saw a gun' given the level of stress, the expectation of what you will encounter in that situation (ie. someone with a gun)....gonna be hard to prove you're lying. As long as you don't say 'I just got shit scared I might die and completely forgot to assess the situation and shot him' the police are gonna keep that 100% innocent of any wrong-doing ever recordJordan_229_2 and citizenmeh this'd this
At what point did he shoot though?
Does anyone know this? As in, did he reach inside his jacket looking like he was going to pull out a gun? Did he take aim with an empty hand? Did he shout "I've got a gun and I'm going to use it in 3, 2, 1..."
I don't see how they would have shot him if he was unarmed. Surely they should only shoot to kill when the suspect pulls a gun / aims for attack?
I don't know the details so if someone knows, can they explain?
From The Guardian article
'The officer who fired the shots, known only as V53, told the jury he was certain Duggan had a weapon in his hand and feared he was raising it to shoot. V53 said the suspect pivoted 180 degrees towards him: "It's like a freeze-frame moment," he said. "The only thing I was focusing on is the gun."
He said he was sure there was a gun in Duggan's hands. It was in a sock, but he could make out the barrel, handle and trigger guard. He said Duggan was holding it in his right arm across his stomach. "The next thing he does, he starts to move the gun away from his body. He's raised the weapon, moved it a couple of inches away from his body."
That, the jury heard, gave V53 "an honest belief" that Duggan was going to shoot. V53 said he decided he must open fire. He said the first shot struck Duggan in his chest, causing him to flinch. V53 said this caused the gun alleged to be in Duggan's hands to point directly at him, so he fired a second time, hitting Duggan in the biceps. He said Duggan fell backwards and other armed officers converged on him. "My focus is glued on the gun," the officer told the jury. V53 said he reassessed the situation but could no longer see the weapon.'
It's very difficult to believe
after the confusion / blatant lies about Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson.
if you're working on the assumption that everything he said is a lie
what is there to discuss?
I'm not working on that assumption
It's a hard call I understand but this is the shooting dead of an unarmed man.
If I shot dead an unarmed man in self defence then swore he had a gun in his hand, how do you think that would transpire?
The Jury disagreed almost entirely with his statement and testimony,
except that they felt he had an 'honest belief' about it.
THAT is the crucial issue.
am i just being an idiot
or could they not have tasered him?
you'd need to be fairly close to use a taser effectively. As in the maximum distance you could be would be around 10m.
well, I also imagine that tasering someone you claim/believe to be armed with a gun
wouldn't be a long-term winning strategy......
would you be able to pull a trigger while getting tasered?
genuine question. never seen someone get tasered, don't know to what extent it incapacitates a target
You can't move for fuck
It's not pain (well it is) but it's also paralysis.
It tenses the muscles
including your fingers which may or may not have been on the trigger
because then he wouldn't be dead?
ok so, i've been looking over the reactions on twitter....
it would appear that the generally right wing orientated are quite happy in putting the blame fully in Duggan's lap, suggesting that he had whatever was potentially coming to him for carrying a gun in the first place.
the more broadly left leaning however seem to be in a state of extreme shock that an unarmed man could be shot in this supposedly free country, and horrified that this is turn could ever be described as a lawful killing.
i'm pretty suspicious of both of these stances, so i'm just going to sort of be floating around here in the middle of the two....feel free to join me.
It's annoying
It shouldn't be a party political mater. It's a matter of law and fact. If the police have intelligence that an illegal gun transaction is taking place, it does not take a massive leap for them to suspect that he might be armed, depending on what stage of the transaction they were at. If the policeman on the basis if the facts available and the circumstances at the time honestly thought that this was the necessary course of action, then the law supports that. If people don't like that, then blame the law, but don't blame the legal process which merely applied that law (correctly in my view).
There is of course the possibility that the policeman is lying about what he truly thought at the time, but the legal process has concluded that they believe that this was his honestly held belief. And that's that really.badmanreturns and Jordan_229_2 this'd this
"possibility" the policemen were lying.
The jury are basically deciding whether or not it *could* be reasonable for somebody whose job description includes shooting people to think they actually have to do just that, regardless of what informed that decision. I can't think of a single circumstance where a jury would come to the conclusion that it was an unlawful killing.
which basically means
its hunting season
Many lie
There is corruption at the heart of probably every police force in this country and any police officers on the front line will lie. Some as a matter of course.
Everybody knows this.
A jury, under direction of the judge, has decided that despite this generally held fact, this police officer is not lying. I find your glib retort quite offensive actually, but I am massively up myself and taking offence at silly things today, so you're probably ok.
Wow great typo . I meant MANY police officers will lie. Not ANY.
i just wish Jimmy McGovern would write a searing TV drama about the whole thing so i could watch it and be completely sure on what side i stood.
but like
it is a party political matter. in that how the Met find themselves in this position:
'the facts available and the circumstances at the time [they] honestly thought that this was the necessary course of action'
is something they should be democratically accountable for. politicians should hold them to account for it.
I was talig about the actions of the indiviual
Not the collective positoining of the Met, which I agree is open to political scrutiny.
yeah I think the whole discussion is a bit muddled
and I'm finding it hard to separate the legal issues from everything else. mostly because it annoys me how much things like "we lawfully killed the unarmed civilian" are so totally mystifying and counter-intuitive to most people. which only strengthens the hold that those 'legal' types of rationality have over us. and i think it shuts down the very legitimate, democratic concerns people have about what has just happened. because people are effectively being told "no you are framing your claims wrong. this is the law we're talking about and the law is a higher truth".
anyway I better stop before this gets out of hand.
nice seeing you guys.
You, and everyone else,
only knows he was unarmed in retrospect and from the safety of your office desks.
"your office desks"
I'm in bed naked mate.
forensics experts found it impossible to throw replica gun 10m over wall when attempted at a later date - presumably this is even harder to do with your last living breath, having just been shot. case is bent as fuck.
we can all sleep soundly, i guess, knowing that even if the police had been found guilty nothing would have been done about it.
throw a replica gun 10m over a wall
sounds like a really shit carnival game
- codpieceface this'd this
This is mad
This is just mad. Precedent now set for armed police to lawfully shoot suspects based on an 'honest belief'. This belief can be informed by racial prejudice, or maybe bad eyesight, having a cold, feeling a bit grumpy etc.
you're right - the police HAVE been murdering people for years and getting away with it
on the bbc just then the reporter said
"there are two main points to take from this: 1) the police have done nothing wrong, there was not and can not be justification for the riots. 2) COMMUNITY POLICING. ROBERT PEEL."
paraphrasing. wheyyy not gonna watch the news ever again.TheWza this'd this
Ian Tomlinson's death/Simon Harwood found not guilty
was worse than this imo
not sure how you define 'worse' in this case
but yeah, i'd say the reasons for the police's actions there were much weaker.
cynthia jarrett
joy gardener
colin roach
roger sylvester
smiley culture
to name but a few, and ignoring the 1000+ deaths in police custody. it is not over-egging it to call the met a terrorist organisation
they routinely murder people, and in particular target specific communities e.g. the broadwater farm; the aim here is the same psychological effect as al qaeda i.e. your existence is unwelcome, your street does not belong to you.
nah that analogy is a step too far for me mate
you're a good lad and i've enjoyed your company when i've kept it so i'll leave you to it.
The difference is
I don't phone up al qaeda if my house gets burgled.
They'd probably be more likely to catch the burglar
not a terrorist organisation
just another institution that's got massive problems caused by a lack of accountability
most of those organisations don't murder citizens as a matter of course, though
no, but the lack of accountability leads to a massive fall in standards
that eventually leads to criminal activity happening as a matter of course. just happens to be the case that journalists, bankers and politicians aren't required to carry guns
But anyway, going back to this particular case
Mark Duggan's fingerprints were found on the shoebox that'd had the gun in it when he was in the car...but NOT on the gun itself, found 20 feet away, supposedly thrown by him as he was getting out of a car and being shot at. And the Key Forensic Services guy said when questioned that he couldn't comment on whether the police could have planted the gun, because The Independent Police Complaints Commission didn't ask him to consider that possibility. Hmmm.
Fucking hell
Hs anyone actually read the case and the legal reasoning? It's irrelevant whether or not he touched the gun. If the policeman honestly thought he had it, then that's a defence. It's not hard.
I accept the legal reasoning behind the verdict,
but don't you think that how the police came to "honestly believe" Duggan had a gun (i.e. they saw it in his hand) doesn't make any sense (because it wasn't in his hand)? The policeman's "honest belief" seems to be as a result of some kind of hallucination.
I simply don't get it.
A: I saw the gun in his hand and he raised his hand, that is why I shot him
B: But he didn't have the gun in his hand, you couldn't have seen it.
A: No, I definitely, definitely saw it, I was looking at it the whole time.
B: You couldn't have, it was on the other side of a fence.
A: Oh was it? Well I honestly believed I saw the gun and it was definitely a gun because I described it in some detail earlier and I'm trained to recognise firearms.
B: Well, sorry he was unarmed.
A: Look, I don't care if it was a figment of my imagination, I honestly believed he had a gun.
B: Oh well if you honestly believe, I guess that's fine, better get yourself to specsavers though lol.
Worrying stuff PO.jontosh2001, alcxxk, umlaut_ampersand, moribund, and StormJH this'd this
Very much this
The jury ruled it's ok because a man trained to identify firearms shot and killed an unarmed man because the officer said he thought he had a gun.
As I said before, imagine if I used that defence when shooting an unarmed man and killing him.
The more I read of the case, the more bizarre it gets. No officer saw the gun be thrown but it was a distance away. How? Duggen's DNA was not in the gun or sock at all. This makes no sense. Something is afoot.
Witness in the flats opposite also said Duggrn had no gun but a phone. It was shiny and thus defo not a gun in a sock.
What I don't get is why the court hasn't concerned itself at all with what actually happened with the gun and how it got over the wall.
For the verdict to make logical sense
the gun would have had to existed on the other side of the wall and in Duggan's hand simultaneously. Am I just being naive in thinking that it's odd that verdicts can be based on a moment that defies the laws of physics?
it's only irrelevant if you're a juror though innit
we're not trying a case, we're talking about what has happened.
you're trying ot put yourselves in the shoes of the jury
which is neither necessary nor desirable.
- codpieceface, jontosh2001, j0hn, and alcxxk this'd this
I just hate after the event post mortems
They're infuriating and feckless. unless you're in the jury room, don't judge.ColinFilth this'd this
i get that
If the police honestly believed he had a gun, then they were lawful in what they did. My point is about what that gun was doing 20 foot away behind a hedge and how it got there given that no-one saw the guy throwing it.moker this'd this
This ^
The policeman said he saw the gun in Duggan's hand, wrapped in a sock. But it's very unlikely that he still had the gun when the police got to him, so what did they see in his hand which made them think he had a gun and posed a threat?
It's not like they said that they "thought" he had a gun either, they actually said they saw it and were "focussing" on it, but they couldn't have. None of them saw him throw it so it must have got over the fence before they got sight of him. I don't understand it.
originally they said that not only did he have a gun
but he shot at them first. which turned out to be bollocks. it's all very squirmy and murky and bad
It seems like he was holding a mobile phone
He'd been on the phone to someone only seconds before. Long but useful article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mark-duggan-inquest-was-he-really-armed-were-the-police-under-threat-all-the-key-evidence-9046789.html
a lot of very murky conflicting reports there.
not that many conflicting reports though. the police colluded to lie about one thing, everything else supports a completely different story
Simple fact is, most people will be able to identify more with the officer than Duggan.
Put yourself in his shoes for a minute and drop any entirely made up preconceptions about how the cop may or may not feel about class, race or 'playing the hero'.
Some guy - it seems to me - well known for running with gun gangs and having a disregard for the law gets out of a car not far from you, may or may not make threatening gestures, may or may not fumble in his pocket for a piece. You don't have the steely nerve of a cop in a country who encounters this kind of thing every day, and you're not particularly keen on you or those around you dying.
For a moment, it seems like you or him. Of course, if you were in his shoes you'd wait patiently to be staring down the barrel of a firearm before you'd even consider shouting 'oi, yer nicked'.
The same could be said for a lot of these cases, and unless you were standing right beside them while it happened you'll never know the truth, and even then you probably won't. It's a shame about the lies but the country's media doesn't allow people to flat out admit a mistake without people calling for rolling heads.
Personally I'd like to think blind panic on the officer's part is many times more likely than him wanting to cap some black kid just to save on some future paperwork.
you talk about him getting a bit carried away in his job as if he photocopied the office newsletter too many times. he's an armed police officer ffs, he killed someone.
You deliver that last sentence
Like you're staggered those two things could ever go together. It's life or death, people do rash things, even with the best training.
not my point at all.
you can't talk about trained individuals of this sort having "blind panic" and so it's ok, or whatever, when their job is killing members of the public. your language trivialises the situation completely and seems to suggest that distinguishing between a mobile phone and a gun wouldn't be a central part of the, presumably large amount of, training these people undergo.
as i've noted above, there's a long, long history of the MET murdering citizens, predominantly black working class, in cold blood. no one's suggesting that the officer(s) themselves went out on the day purposefully to shoot a black person, but there is clear institutional racism at hand.
hundreds of people have now been killed by the MET police in dubious circumstances, and not a single time has a policeperson been found guilty.
At what point should the officer have opened fire on Duggan?
Taking into account that the officer is working on the basis that they are apprehending a suspect who has just purchased/is in the possession of a gun.
when Duggan put someone's life in danger
i.e. by pulling out a gun and raising it
He didn't do this, so no one should have opened fire.
Maybe blind panic's the wrong phrase
But, assuming the cop never set out to intentionally kill someone, he would've only had a split second to make a decision in an unusual and fraught situation. He might be a crack shot but he's not James Bond. If you think a *known gun smuggler* is raising a gun to shoot at you, even if mistaken, I can sympathise with thinking of your wife and kids and just pulling the trigger rather than trying to pull off some kind of kneecap trick shot. I'm not discounting the possibility that it was all a set-up but let's not pretend we all know what it's really like from our prime vantage point in a comfy leather armchair in our local Costa clutching a copy of The Guardian. This is a lot more relateable than kettling newsagents or biblically executing Afghan insurgents.
how many Police murders is acceptable collateral damage in the fight against crime? 1 a year ? 5? 20 ? 50 ?
and because things like this inevitably happen does that mean that officers should be unaccountable and not face consequences?
What are the options?
Have unarmed officers (facing armed criminals)?
Had the officers in question who apprehended Duggan *not* had guns, what would the outcome have been? The criminal (who was being stopped specifically because he had a gun illegally) would have had the upper hand. The officers would have been the effectively powerless to protect the rest of the population, as is their duty.
If it's taken that officers 'have to' have guns to do their job within the spectrum of crimes they deal with, sometimes people will get shot. It's not ideal, but then I don't see an alternative.
How about the police learning from stuff like this
where there's been obvious fuckups on their part? That'd be one alternative.
there are several options
one might be to answer the questions I asked instead of ignoring them and swerving the conversation into a nonsense strawman area - I'm not saying officers should not have guns. No one is saying that.
I'm asking;
how many Police murders ('lawful killings' - mostly not involving guns) is acceptable collateral damage in the fight against crime? 1 a year ? 5? 20 ? 50 ?
and because things like this inevitably happen does that mean that officers should be unaccountable and not face consequences?
My answer would be
However many people are willing to use deadly violence towards local law enforcement. And no, they shouldn't be accountable if given no other option but to take someone down (not saying that's what definitely happened here). Otherwise you've got this situation where criminals are pointing guns at cops who can't do anything about it until they pull the trigger, at which point it's too late.
Sometimes you've just got to say, you live by the sword, you die by the sword. Let's not pretend that Duggan had any other objective in mind when he acquired the gun than using it to at least maim his rivals. Having one purely for 'protection' sort of loses its meaning once two people have them pointed at each other.
what the fuck are you talking about, you nutter?
Your first sentence is psychopathic, and what do you know about Duggan's intentions to maim his rivals?
Well, as an armed officer of the law, what would be your first course of action
If a hardened criminal pointed a loaded gun at you or one of your colleagues? Reach for your truncheon?
And what do you expect Duggan wanted with the gun? To stick some posies on the end and put it on the mantelpiece?
don't think anyone's suggesting your man was after shooting some black lad
most of the opprobrium is due to the way the police respond to situations like this, the PR offensive and closing of ranks that happens every single time there's a police involved death. people maybe focus too much on the operational details of high profile cases but that's a fairly natural reaction & it comes from a place of deep, well-founded mistrust.
the put yourself in their shoes idea isn't a goodun, they're really well-trained professionals and have to be held responsible for their actions.
I think the press make it incredibly difficult to be honest with the public with things like this
You see it all the time in coverage of politics; modern politicians reduced to soundboards as one out-of-turn phrase becomes class warfare, so I can sympathise with that a little, especially when so many seem to be on the side of a potentially dangerous criminal in this case and I doubt the bloke on the ground who fucked up has anything to do with the high-level corruption in the police force.
dunno man
can't really sympathise with people being corrupt because it's easier then not being corrupt.
i think people being "on the side of a potentially dangerous criminal" is in reality people not trusting the police to give an accurate account after something like this has happened.
agreed on the last bit obvs, don't feel any animosity towards the guy who shot him, can only imagine how difficult a job it is, probably just fucked up.
If that accurate account amounted to 'whoops, I fucked up'
then I'm sure the result would be that person is thrown to the wolves rather than the whole operation that put him in that position in the first place. It shouldn't be, but I wouldn't trust the left wing media to not vilify him more than I trust the right wing media to not vilify Duggan, even if the officer was genuinely putting his safety and that of his colleagues first.
Don't cry, the officer honesty thought he was armed!!!
'Lawful killing' is a fucking fudge, a get out of jail free card.
But what would I do in a similar situation? Shoot but then, y'know, most likely get into a fuck load of trouble, because that's what happens to normal people when someone dies at their hand.BobRickerton this'd this
If you're Tony Martin you get the whole right-wing press on your side
and get released early.
From what I understand, the verdict on the actual killing stands up,
but I also certainly think that there's grounds for misconduct, negligence and corruption investigations based upon the subsequent police behavior, in terms of their collusion on statements, evidence and the briefings they gave to the public.
Don't forget that the family found out about Mark Duggan's death via the news, and don't forget the Met and their complicit allies in the press's attempts to smear him afterwards.citizenmeh, PickledOeuf, p_a_u_l, and vamos this'd this
I hold no real issue with the verdict in the context of both the inquest and the fact that I'm accepting that police officers will occasionally make split second errors of judgement. Few have as tragic consequences as this, I'd never dispute that.
But the inquest really has shone a shoddy light on the police's behaviour after the incident, in which untruths were left publically aired and the processes governing their freedom to collude on statements etc highlight a very lop-sided route to justice. That's where the issue lies for me. A police force staffed by humans will always make tragic mistakes. Like CG, I don't see what the alternative is. But, once again, the way these things are dealt with internally suggests operations above the law are fair game. Public trust and faith in transparency in the police are vital. Shit like this makes your ordinary citizen roll their eyes once more and lose that little bit more faith.
The verdict stands up perfectly.
That's kinda why it's so terrifying to any right-minded person.
i prsume most people are familiar with teh expression
'you can't legislate for every circumstance'? Well, that's kind of why we have the common law too. Legislatoin is open to interpretatoin and is malleable, so this is the area where judges bend laws and turn the jigsaw pieces of a case on their side, upsoide down, whastever they can do to prevent an anopmaly.
In this case the law is clear. There is no malleability. the law was applied studiously and the jurors decided the facts 9as is the well established legal system in this country, like it or lump it)./ On the basis of those facts as decided, there was only really this verdict.
It feels wrong in my gut, bhut it's worth noting that this does happen now and again. The right result feels unfair, absurd. but the law isn't perfect and, well, you cannot legislate for every circumstance. this law exists to protect the civil liberties of a person who has an honest belief as to the extreme likelihiood of danger and harm.
I think what lot of people are saying is that this should be a 'reasonable belief', ie an objective test.
It's too early in the morning for an essay on the matter, and this is already tl;dr, but there is extensive jursiprudential writing as to why this would be unsound. Obviously this was an inquest and not a trial, but Self defence and other similar doctrines must be looked at in the context of the facts and circumstances as the parites thought they were, not as they actually were, or as they ought to have thought them to be. Panic, adrenalin and fear can heighten and sometimes skew awareness and perception and the law recognises this and doesn't convict people because they failed to react perfectly to taht environment.
what makes this feel nasty is the fact this- preusmably well trinaed- police officer should, in my view, have a higher standard applied as to his perception of risk, and fear, and how to channnel adrenalin. That's not what the law says, although I would hope that there will be separate reviews into why this policema neffectively shat his pants that night.
Agree with the last paragraph
presumably his credibility has to be highly questionable given both;
a) the disinformation spread by Police following the incident
b) his vested interest in saving his arse
Did he wear his uniform in court do we know? Does he usually wear a uniform in his day-to-day job?
Also, why is his identity protected? On what legal basis I mean?
I suppose I'm less bothered by what happens
to the owner of the finger that happened to be on the trigger at the time (although I do think there should be harsher questions asked of him as an individual, too) and more concerned about the organisation behind him.
the corruptoin at eth heart of the force
is separate fomr the questoins of law and fact that people are debating thoiugh. The suggested cover up is an entirely separate issue. (although, thinking about this, maybe i compartmentalise too much- i can see why you'd conflate the two actually.) this is prbably a terrible thread for a lawyer to be in. because quite rightly te genaeral public don;t really care about the tevhnical rights and wrongs and I appreciate that's not what's being generally discussed here.
I find it difficult to be outraged by this
if he was an unarmed bloke, just minding his own business then that is obviously utterly unacceptable. But someone they knew had a gun, was involved in criminal activity and they had reason to believe he still had a gun so shot him? It was wrong, but I can't help feeling that he lived by the sword so died by the sword in a way.
Don't get involved with guns, kids.
And remember kids
killing people is wrong, unless they happen to be working class and involved in criminal activity, in which case people will mutter that they probably had it coming anyway.rhubarb this'd this
Killing people is wrong full stop
I don't care what "class" he is (whatever that even means these days), or if he was a habitual criminal. I just find it hard to be angry and outraged when he did actually physically have a gun which they knew about, the problem is he happened to throw it away which they (apparently) didn't know about. The Police got it wrong, I just don't share the local community's outrage tis all.
Except he died by a gun
and apparently 'lived' by a mobile phone.
idk why so much of the focus in on how much of a piece of shit Duggan was, or whether or not it is 'right' or understandable that the officer fired there and then in the moment when it should be about the complete fucking lack of accountability on the part of any alleged authority figures in the time since.
Doesn't it worry people that the shoddiest, shittest, most inaccurate intelligence is apparently a sound basis to shoot someone, so long as the finger on the trigger is hooked up to a brain that 'honestly' believes the bollocks intelligence?Body_In_The_Thames, moribund, umlaut_ampersand, and rhubarb this'd this
That is the worrying thing
in theory could the police get away with shooting anyone they wish just because they genuinely felt they were a danger? That is how people with table legs and running Brazilians get shot. Luckily this is very rare. They need to sort out the accountability though, even if it is very uncommon.
Unless there's a pattern of this sort of incident happening
extrapolating that now all police will kill everyone at will seems a little far-fetched. If anything, the outcry is more likely to have Met gunmen being more cautious next time rather than leading to some dystopian future I'd have thought.badmanreturns this'd this
I'm not extrapolating that police will wantonly shoot whoever they want,
you odious Daily Mail sub wannabe.
God, I hate you so much.
not necessarily bollock intelliegence
since Hutchinson-Foster has been found guilty of supplying a gun to the deceased.
Everyone's going on about what the police *shouldn't* have done,
but what *should* they have done?
People are talking about a lack of accountability, but I think what they really mean is that they're upset jury's decision didn't fit their pre-determined anti-police bias. Accountability or 'justice' in this instance means an outcome that suits your prejudices - and that's the same for left and right.
I think people are upset
because the law pointed the jury to a verdict that allowed too much weight to be given to subjective evidence (the officer's "honest belief") than it did to objective evidence (where the gun actually was at the time of the killing).Gorkys_Forever this'd this
I agree
never heard the word "belief" used before to justify a state execution..Oops except for Jean-Charles Menezes eh?
it's a very well established principle though
according to the law, a policeman has the same right (or propensity) to act in self-defence as you or I. The difference is I would have a very difficult time explaining what I was doing pursuing someone, who I believed to be armed, and then shooting him dead. The police just seem to be good at getting themselves into situations where they're shit scared for no real reason and then overreact.
"...getting themselves into situations
where they're shit scared for no real reason".
You've jumped the trolling shark here.
''The difference is I would have a very difficult time explaining what I was doing pursuing someone, who I believed to be armed''
Because it isn't your job to do so?
well yes exactly
The reason the police are able to argue self-defence so easily is because they're so often in situations where their own personal safety is genuinely under threat and they are often the target eg. police Raoul Moat shot - who ended up hanging himself - or the two policewomen Dale Cregan killed in cold blood, or the policewoman who had her hand blown up in Leeds recently. All of those situations involved police who weren't directly involved in armed operations, they were just called out to disturbances or in the first guy's case just sitting in his car. But the fact is we (or the police command or the state or whoever you want the buck to stop with) requires certain police officers to be put in these 'dangerous' positions and to be trained in dealing with the possibility of being attacked or shot.
That they so often get it wrong, target the wrong people, and that faith and trust in the honesty and decency of the police as an institution is so low, is the problem.
yes, and i don't really disagree with anything you've said there
but what is the alternative to them being put in these situations?
I dont think its something that can be looked at as just a matter of police tactics at all
Especially when we're talking about people in communities where there is like 0% mutual trust between the police and citizens. which yesterday's verdict has exacerbated. The only real viable alternative, imo, is a completely different relationship between the police and the communities they are 'policing'. Its never going to be exactly amicable but for a huge and complex array of reasons, there is a really damaging approach to dealing with certain groups of poeple. groups of people who certain sections of the media and certainly the police would understand as some sort of 'criminal underclass' but are equally marginalised, socially excluded, racialised and fare very badly in economic distribution.
You're asking me to basically argue what I think should have happened in this case or similar ones. When I don't have access to the workings of the police unit responsible. I'm not convinced that within their current constrains and the culture at the Met and targets imposed by the government, that they could actually have acted drastically differently in the run-up to his death. The officer could, of course, have spent 2 more seconds considering what was going on and gathering his nerves, and we might not be having this conversation. But the pursuit of Dugan and the intelligence gathering leading up to it seems pretty in keeping with how the police are 'meant' to be operating. Which to me and a lot of other people, seems quite fucked up.
"The officer could, of course, have spent 2 more seconds..."
That could have been long enough for Duggan to shoot someone. Either with the gun the officer thought he had in his hand, or with another he could quite conceivably have been concealing. When a 'split second' decision needs to be made, 2 seconds is a pretty long time.
It's very easy for you and others to say these things from the comfort of the internet, but they're ridiculous.
How would you explain
all the other armed officers who were there at the time rather than commenting on the internet years later refraining from firing their weapons?marckee this'd this
long enough... had been holding a gun which he wasn't
it would normally only take 2 seconds to establish that someone wasn't holding a gun. True, the officer may have felt he didn't have 2 seconds to spare for risk of being shot. But why was he in a "split second decision" at all? There was no immediate or severe risk to the public.
I've pretty obviously been talking about the Met as a whole and not the thought processes or culpability of this individual officer. Forgot how bad your reading comprehension is ;)
`They so often get it wrong`
Do they? And what is the `it` they're getting so frequently wrong?
Just to add...
...I've got numerous issues with certain police protocol (especially anything to do with race etc.) and the way they appear to get exonerated beyond what I class as `fair` for some of their mistakes (including this case) but tragic fuck ups on this scale are incredibly rare by my observation.
The issue is that they get so wrong SO RARELY that should be commended
Depends what you mean by 'rare':
And that's from spending about three minutes on Google.
10 cases spread over 30 years?
sounds quite rare to me, but I'm no stats expert
1 in 1983
2 in 1996
1 in 1998
1 in 1999
1 in 2001
1 in 2005
1 in 2007
1 in 2011
1 in 2013ohgood this'd this
Ok, get rid of the 1983 one (who didn't die)
And you've got 9 in 17 years. Feels too high to me - might not to you.
You need to see it in context:
with the numbers of SCO19 callouts over that time period. I've not been able to find those stats anywhere on the internet, but I heard someone on Radio 4 Today this morning say 30 callouts a year on average (not sure if that is just London, does sound low)
But even without those figures and removing the 1983 one, 1 every 1.88 years is still rare in my eyes
All very interesting.
My question was in response to DD who claimed this all happens `so often`, but she hasn't provided much of a context to back her claim up so far...
Of course the term `often` is all subjective, though.
Of course
Must be remembered that list above isn't comprehensive - there are likely to be more. And those cases are likely to split opinion in the same way that this one has.
very true
I'll be amazed if the stats to SCO19 callouts/shootings/deaths etc isn't available somewhere online for the past 10-15 years
Knowing the number of SCO19 callouts is vital though
Yep, of course.
Every police killing is going to split opinion. And it should as well, owing to the significance of the act because every instance of it needs to be thoroughly investigated.
What I think needs to be considered also here is the amount of work that the police does, using intelligence and other pre-emptive policing methods, to ensure that criminals are adequately monitored/arrested before these gunpoint situations arise.
Again, I don't know the figures, but my hunch is that the police's pre-emptive stifling of a significant amount of violent crime is worthy of praise and our respect. It's only an opinion, sure, but at least I'm going to lengths to not position my opinion as fact.
I feel quite uncomfortable looking at it as if its just a price to pay
and that certain people (disproportionately black guys) are like this sacrificial price worth paying. cause it has to be someone, right. Like fuck off if you think people should be praising the police for only *occasionally* shooting people by mistake.
More generally, if you're not clear that the police "get it wrong" wrt targeting suspected criminals for other stuff then just look at the stop and search stats, which are widely reported and demonstrate institutional racism.
I don't believe it's " a price to pay" as you say
I'm saying that the relatively low numbers of mistaken shootings compared to the number of SCO19 callouts is reason to praise the police for not killing/hurting more innocent people
Do you expect there never to be any mistakes in policing?
I agree with you regarding racial profiling of suspects
i guess it depends on how we define 'get wrong' here
would the De Menezes case have been any less 'wrong' if he had just been seriously hurt? i'm not sure.
It would still have been wrong
The Duggan case? Less clear
yeah, i'm swinging the other way with this point
it isn't just deaths you'd have to consider if you were looking at how often the police 'got it wrong'
DD would have a hard time explaining it, a police officer wouldn't.
meant to say "used as much"
(i.e. in the news reports)
- umlaut_ampersand, alcxxk, 84joe, DanielKelly, iquitelikeradiohead, and rhubarb this'd this
As flippant as that post is
I'd genuinely be interested to hear the opinions of military personnel who have been in combat situations on the Duggan shooting.
What insight could they really offer though?
As the firing officer said himself when being examined, no situation someone in his line of work could ever find themselves in is comparable to a combat situation where there's no need to justify every single shot fired.
Probably a bit more insight
than a bunch of DiSsers.
I think in some modern arenas of war there is an increasing need to be able to justify many of the shots fired.
But I don't think the answer is "None" in the latter case.
If you're happy to think that a DiSser is on a par here with someone who has had experience of, say, looking down their crosshairs at someone who they aren't sure is a civilian or an enemy and had to make a split-second decision as to whether the person is a threat to their life or not, then go right ahead.
If you're happy to make stuff up about what people on here have said,
then go right ahead.
Aside from whether or not the officer should have pulled the trigger
Is it not a bit bad that the first shot effectively missed, going through Duggans arm and hitting another officer? If the bullet hadn't been stopped by their radio it could have been much worse. Shouldn't a police marksman be a better shot and shouldn't the other officers know not to stand in the line of fire?
from what i read on the guardian summary
the operation they undertook typically stuns the criminal and they don't attempt to escape as quickly as Duggan did. either way we're probably talking a window of seconds from him exiting the vehicle and the shots being fired.
Some utter bullshit in this thread
Some many assumptions taken and hyperbolic reactionary crap
Sad really
:o) fair point
Although I posted up thread several times before it got all conspiracy and "fuck the police"
Simple truths are: No one here heard all the evidence or was in the jury room. On the reported face of it, this verdict seems odd. But we have to trust in a jury system otherwise what other options are there?
But people aren't arguing with the verdict the jury arrived at.
By and large, people accept that it was correct according to the law.
Not my reading of some posts ITT
But I agree some appear to agree
My point was a more general one about twitter/facebook reactions when things like this happen
What are people upset about then?
The law being wrong?
I'd say some are upset that the law
would probably lead any jury to a verdict of lawful killing in a situation where an armed police officer has killed someone.
Some are upset at the conduct of those in authority in the aftermath, and the apparent lack of accountability regarding that conduct.
It's all in the thread up there.
I'm still unclear as to what this 'accountability' looks like
(or should look like).
We've never seen it before
I'm broadly happy with the level of accountability
we've already seen.
It's others in this thread who have questioned a 'lack of accountability'.
The verdict doesn't seem odd,
but the way the officer arrived at his "honest belief" seems odd because it's been established that Duggan was unarmed and that the officer described in detail something he couldn't have seen until after the shooting. I'm not saying it's impossible for the officer to have honestly believed Duggan was about to shoot, but his reasons for doing so don't make any sense when looking at established facts about the case.Jordan_229_2, SenorDingDong, and rhubarb this'd this
The jury honestly believed
that the officer honestly believed that Duggan was armed, it seems.
- Jordan_229_2 and Gringo this'd this
what's your take on it G-man?
I'd be interested to know.
- Body_In_The_Thames, Gorkys_Forever, and Cementimental this'd this
It wasn't with impunity: a jury found it to be lawful. And he wasn't unarmed
I understand that the initial reporting and alleged cover up in the aftermath of the shooting didn't cover the Met in glory, but a 6 month inquiry in front of a jury found that the shooting was lawful according to the laws and guidance provided.
Now I can understand if people think the definitions of lawful/open/unlawful are a little too loose, and perhaps the law needs some revision in this area. But I'm thankful that there are officers that do an extremely difficult job in very difficult circumstances , and that this country only utilises armed police on very rare occasions
at the time of shooting, he was unarmed. and if it's not with impunity, please, tell me, what is happening to the police? I think it's really unsettling how quick people are to say BUT IT WAS WITHIN THE LAW as if like me and other people who're annoyed about this don't understand that and that it makes whatever happened automatically ok. like ffs obviously what people are saying here is that the law is an ass and only seems to protect the powerful when this sort of shit happens.
You know it retrospect he was unarmed.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
It's the other way around though.
If the officer was so focussed on Duggan's hand that he saw a gun, how come he didn't notice Duggan was unarmed? It's physically impossible for the officer to have seen the gun so it's his fictitious hindsight which has led to a lawful killing verdict.
Even if Duggan didn't have a gun in his hand (even though the
officer thought he did), it is only with hindsight that we know he had no other guns on his person. It would have been/is a sensible precaution to assume he had other weapons him - he was a gun smuggler after all - regardless of what may have been in his hand at any particular second.
To this end, the fact he didn't have a gun in his hand at any moment in time does not mean it was impossible for him to have one, and fire it, within a second or two.
Wouldn't that logic mean
that the police would be within their rights to fire on anyone suspected of possessing a firearm as they could always argue that the suspect could draw and shoot the weapon within a few seconds; what's in their hand at the time would be irrelevant.barleysugar this'd this
if an armed copper was pointing a gun at you and you moved in a way that might suggest you were pulling out a weapon then I guess you can't really blame them for shooting especially given how intense and fast those situations must be. Always happens in films, usually they're just pulling out a photo of their baby daughter from their inside pocket.
I didn't think CG was suggesting anything about reaching for a gun
but that even if Duggan's hand had been empty he was still correct in firing as it's reasonable to assume he had other guns on him and could still shoot in seconds.
Yeah all valid except the officer explicitly said that he saw the gun in his hand.
So the fact he could've had another one on him is moot. I read the transcript and the officer never once said that he thought Duggan had other weapons on him he was "focussed on the gun" and that's what made him shoot.DanielKelly this'd this
The point has been made upthread by several others
re: armed/unarmed. At the moment of the shooting, the officer BELIEVED he was armed. The retrospective fact that he wasn't is irrelevant. The fact he'd got rid of one weapon doesn't preclude the fact that he may have had another. The officers were acting in response to intelligence that a known gangster had acquired a gun and moved to apprehend him.
The inquest was set up to inquire if the shooting was lawful or not, therefore holding the police to account. The fact that is was found to be lawful and this is not the verdict a lot of people expected does not mean that the police are above the law and act with impunity.
It is of course not ok that someone died because of a mistake, but the fatalities involved in SCO19 incidents is so low compared to the number of callouts
"Everyone" being here on DiS?
Or generally? Because given the reaction in court and on twitter yesterday, I'd argue that it wasn't
Everyone being gentle and standard hyperbole.
Duggan's family, friends and associates may have hoped for a different outcome and voiced disapproval, but I'd happily wager that the vast majority of people following the case fully expected the killing to be found lawful.
Or don't
Up to you. A large number of people are following the case on twitter, hence my suggestion to take a look at the hashtag and see what their opinions are and if it matches your wager
You seem to have a real issue understanding the words people write
Still, at least you know about the law and stuff
I don't know much about the law, but I do try and read judgements and attempt a balanced view
A large number of people following the case on twitter yesterday tweeted their shock/outrage/horror at the judgement yesterday, using the hashtag #duggan. Since it's fairly difficult to ask "the vast majority" of their opinion, maybe have a look there
It's not just brainless "fuck da police #duggan" stuff, a lot of legal bloggers etc were surprised
hahahah like you actually seem unaware that
I WAS THE FIRST ONE TO MAKE THE POINT that it was his 'honest belief' under consideration. like marckee subtweeted it.
'The retrospective fact that he wasn't is irrelevant' - no it's not. stop talking to people as if you're directing a jury or something.rhubarb this'd this
Sorry if I've appeared to patronise you
It is not my intention at all: I may have not read every single post in this massive thread so sorry if I have missed one of yours
I still believe that the fact that in hindsight he was found to be unarmed to be irrelevant to the finding the inquiry, as guided by the law.
Now I'm happy to agree that the law is probably too vague here and needs some rework
I thought subtweeting was when you tweeted about someone
without mentioning who you were tweeting about?
this was an inquest and not a trial
so even if the verdict was unlawful killing, the shooting officer wouldn't be charged with anything and the result couldn't be used against him in an actual trial. it's just to find out which phrase to write on some reports and certificates. just wondering if people get this because the way it's being reported, it's like the police officer is the defendant and duggan's family have lost.
it is really upsetting and scary to read that there's basically no way for the jury to have found this to be unlawful killing, despite what is sounds like. there's always some handwave-y reason. but there's no new precedent here or anything, it's just another case of the met being a bit shit and further reason not to trust them.
I made this point upthread
The legal dcotrines applied are the same though, which is what people are discussing, but yes, many seemed to have missed the point- that this was an inquest into a death. not a trial.
also i drove through tottenham twice last night
and there was none of the animalistic anger and violence that the news media were clearly clamouring for. wankers.
You know what THEY Say:
live by the sword (that someone imagined you holding)
die by the sword (that was actually a gun)
I bet the officer was thinking
"That's funny, didn't know you could play Angry Birds on a gun grip"
I guess that, to be certain
you really had to be there, with the shooters pov, to be able to judge with the certainty and vehemance that many people are using for comments
That is what the proceedings at the inquest will have tried to recreate as best they could for the benefit of the jury and the judge. even then, it's still not the same.
There are always plenty of armchair jurists who will believe they know better than the jury who have seen all the evidence.
but the way the law is structured
effectively makes it irrelevant what the evidence actually was
and that's one of the reasons to still be pissed off at this
not quitre
You have to convince a jury it was your honestly held belief. You can't just say 'I thought x' and it is taken as gospel. if he had been unable to demonstrate that he genuinely thought this, then it would have been unlawful killing.
It'd be interesting to see the evidence
which was strong enough to convince the jury that the officer was telling the truth about seeing the gun in Duggan's hand but at the same time wasn't strong enough to convince them it wasn't on the other side of the fence.
It wouild be interesting to see the evidence.
very droll
I've had a look at most of it, and even as a lawyer, it is largey meaningless without being presented in context by counsel.
And if you have a spare 10 hours to go through it
It's almost as if you needed to have been at the inquest to form an educated opinionPickledOeuf and Raanraals this'd this
question for our legal experts/anyone
if Duggan had survived, what would have likely have been convicted of?
Do you mean arrested for?
Possession of a firearm, presuming they found the 'thrown' gun nearby. Depending on the police intelligence, conspiracy to murder? Not sure.
They didn't see him throw the gun away
There was no trace of Duggan on the gun they found
I know
but if they had intelligence that he had a gun, searched him and found him to be unarmed, they would presumably search the local area in case he had chucked it.
considering teh counterparty to the transaction has been convicted
of selling Duggan the gun,m it doesn't take a genius to work out that duggan would probably have gone down for buying the gun (it doesn't have to be on your person for it to amount to 'possession').
Kevin Hutchinson-Foster has been convicted already of supplying the gun.
Duggan was under surveillance and the sting was to intercept this gun deal. At least a couple of summaries I've read have said that Duggan was seen collecting a shoebox from Hutchinson-Foster. Duggan and Hutchinson-Foster's fingerprints were on the shoebox and it's believed the gun was in it. The gun was found 5m from the car, covered by a sock with a hole for the barrel, with Hutchinson-Foster's DNA on it but not Duggan's.
You need somebody who knows what they're talking about to interpret that. I'm just paraphrasing various newspaper articles.
we don't need to interpret it
You've summed it up perfectly.
I wrote my diss on the riots
and I think that all the talk about this verdict, which, seemingly makes sense from a legal standpoint, glosses over the almost comically inept handling of the event itself and the police's grossly overzealous tactics on a day-to-day basis. Not really sure how much of the stuff I have read ITT is trolling but the argument that he 'could' have had another concealed weapon so the officer had no choice doesn't really hold water, surely. Surprised no one has brought up the fact that the evidence suggests the shot that killed him appears to have been fired as he was falling if not when he was on the floor. If anyone's interested I also helped promote this film about the riots late last year and it's just been put up online for free:
i dunno
is it not forseeable that someone known to have access to firearms and known to be carrying a firearm when the operation began carried more than one firearm?
i don't think it glosses over the handling either. i think the majority (not saying it is a vast majority or EVERYONE) of people are saying that although the verdict reached was understandable the police's handling of the situation was horrific.
This "possible concealed weapon" argument just seems ludicrous though.
Are people seriously suggesting that the police should shoot and kill people who are not visibly armed on the basis that they might have one down the back of their jeans or something? I assumed CG was just on the wind-up.seewhyeneyesee this'd this
Sounds like a weird phone.
"Again, you can make out the shape outline of it, the handle of it, the barrel, you could make out the trigger guard, not visually, but again if you image it going as a L-shape, the sock, there's like a little bit of give in it, so that's where the trigger guard would have been, and obviously the size of the object was similar size to my side arm."umlaut_ampersand this'd this
But it was a phone wasn't it?
His evidence is clearly confused, which explains why the verdict was duggan didn't have the gun, but the officer "thought" he did
He's obviously lying about what he saw.
Was the event really that traumatic that a firearms officer who sees guns every day managed to confuse a mobile phone for a quite vividly described gun in a sock?moribund this'd this
Bit of a leap you've made there
"quite clearly lying"
- eltham this'd this
It's just needlessly defensive.
"my focus is just glued on the gun and what that gun is going to do to me."
If he had said he "thought" he saw a gun then that would be more acceptable. But he's described the gun in detail, repeatedly said he was focusing on the gun and nothing else and then said the gun disappeared "in a split second". What he's talking about isn't a phone, he's clearly created a fictitious account to make himself sound less incompetent.
For me, the biggest problem with his testimony is that to justify shooting he has to have been certain he saw a gun – so he describes very clearly a gun pointed at him and a finger on the trigger. He says how clear his sight of it was and how that was the only thing he was focused on.
But to justify the shooting of an apparently unarmed man, he has to then have no idea of where that gun went, supposedly in that very same second, even though it travelled quite some distance.
I completely understand how a nervous, scared man, even a trained police marksman, could make mistakes, but it's the clumsy impression of a post-incident cover-up from so many disparate cases – this one, Tomlinson, de Menezes, etc – that leads to people becoming seriously distrustful. Occasionally, once in a while, a policeman might actually have to be guilty of something for some trust to return…eltham, moribund, 84joe, and jontosh2001 this'd this
His response to questioning regarding the number of shots fired is particularly elucidating, even if you weren't an attending juror/a lawyer on DiS.
That's not what's being said elsewhere in the thread though.
It's being suggested that he could have another weapon that he could have accessed and fired in a couple of seconds, which is reason enough to pre-emptively shoot him (unless I'm seriously misreading some of the posts).
As far as I know, the police officer hasn't suggested he mistook a mobile phone for a gun.
i don't recall saying they should, no
your phrasing also makes it sound like you are referring to a random person on the street and not someone known to have access to firearms and known to be carrying a firearm when the operation began.
Fair enough
My meaning is that I don't believe that suspicion of firearm possession is enough to justify shooting and killing a suspect.
the relevance of the particular circumstances of this situation
was that the police were sent to intercept a transaction they have found out about which was about to take place. That transaction was the deceased buying a gun from a party who has since been found guilty in a criminal court of law (where the standard is Beyond Reasonable Doubt) of selling the deceased a gun.
Whilst with hindsight, of course a phone doesn't look like a gun, if somebody lifts their arms and waves something black at you in the middle of a raided gun purchase, it's not completely crazy for you to shit yourself and thing, Fuck, that's a gun. I've already said, whether or not a trained officer wshould have done so is another matter, and a matter for internal disciplinary.
I don't disagree with any of that
When I was referring to a concealed gun, I wasn't meaning the mobile phone - I was more referring to statements like CGs in this thread where he's said: " You've seen them throw away the 2) You've seen them throw away the gun that's in their hand, fine - but gun that's in their hand, fine - but you know the suspect is active in the you know the suspect is active in the illegal gun trade. With that in mind, illegal gun trade. With that in mind, it's not unreasonable to expect, or at it's not unreasonable to expect, or at least proceed on the basis that, they least proceed on the basis that, they may have further guns on their may have further guns on their person - potentially ones that can be person - potentially ones that can be withdrawn and fired in a matter of withdrawn and fired in a matter of seconds. Should the officers wait for seconds. Should the officers wait for the suspect to fire first (potentially the suspect to fire first (potentially killing a police offer/civilian)? The killing a police offer/civilian)? The window of opportunity between window of opportunity between knowing the suspect is going to shoot knowing the suspect is going to shoot and them actually shooting is minute, and them actually shooting is minute, literally a split second."
That, to me, suggests firing on a suspect based on the suspicion that they may have a weapon. I don't think that's reasonable. This is what I thought other people were talking about regarding concealed weapons - I don't mean mistaking one thing for another, I mean shooting to kill without seeing anything.
Exactly this.
Its the behaviour of the police and the IPCC after the event that should be debated. If they'd done their job properly then only the usual conspiracy theorists would be talking about how far guns can be thrown and how much the look like phones.Jordan_229_2 and Gringo this'd this
not worded very well above
I didn't mean there's no reason to suspect he 'could' have had another weapon, just that that suspicion isn't justification for shooting someone on the floor.
Today's thread has been brought to you by the word 'irrelevant'
The argument that he 'could' have had a secondary, concealed weapon is 'irrelevant' and nonsensical bullshit that it's mildly distressing to see anyone but the resident wind-up merchant bring up because at absolutely no point has the firing officer mentioned it as part of his assessment of the situation.
He shot Duggan because he imagined him to have a gun in his hand, not because he was concerned he had another one hidden somewhere.
He is referred to as having been
previously involved in gun crime, what exactly does that mean in this case? what is 'gun crime'?
purchasing, possesion, distribution of illegal firearms?
that kind of thing?
so not actually using them yourself?
more just dealing in them illegally, rather than waving them at people?
that was what I was wondering
'gun crime' is so unhelpful and uninformative, and I would be wanting to establish whether the operation to intercept him had established whether he was a likely user of the item or probably just a conveyer of it.
If he had had previous of using one, even if only threatening someone, then I for one, would feel a lot more trigger happy, if I had had to face him, than if i had heard that he merely only ever 'dealt' in them. And I was wondering if the people on the operation on the ground were fully briefed on this?
not putting your piece back in its holster properly
once you've 'capped someone.
If you were an armed police officer
And Hacksaw Jim Duggan came charging out of a taxi cab holding a plank of wood above his head and screaming 'HOOOO!!' what would you do?
double-axe handle him to the solarplexus
it's the only way...
Mistake the plank of wood for a bazooka and shoot him to ribbons.
Chief: Why did you shoot Hacksaw Jim Duggan?
Me: He charged at me with a bazooka sir.
Chief: No he didn't it was a plank of wood.
Me: A plank of wood with a shoulder rest, triggers, sights and a big rocket pointing out the end? I think not chief, it was a bazooka.
Chief: Honestly?
Me: Honest.
Chief: Well alright then. You're a loose cannon, Kincaid, your ego's writing cheques your body can't cash, but you're the best goddamn armed police officer on the force and I suppose I should cut you some slack seeing as you're marrying my daughter at the weekend.
Me: She's a great gal chief.
He was charged numerous times for gun offences
but was always found not guilty.
The 5-0 thought he was going to get away with it again and murdered him.
They said he shot at them which was a lie, then they said he pointed a gun at them which was a lie and the non police witness said he was executed.


text:
The Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Council (RIMFC) held commercial fluke (summer flounder), scup/black sea bass and herring advisory panel meetings on October 2 in preparation for a Thursday, November 8, 2012 public hearing. The purpose of the advisory panels is to provide industry (fishermen) and the general public with the opportunity to offer input and proposals to be considered at public hearing.
Advisory panels reviewed Department of Environmental Management (DEM) presentations on stock assessment, historical fishing activity and allocations. The November 8th public hearing on proposed management plan changes is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. at the University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography, Corless Auditorium, South Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI. Commercial and recreational fishermen are urged to attend and provide input on proposals.
Fluke (summer flounder) advisory panel meeting highlights
Summer flounder stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, the fishery is considered rebuilt.
RI quota for 2013 will likely be 1.796 million pounds, a decrease of approximately 11% from 2012 quota.
Proposals reviewed
A status quo proposal (same quotas/regulations as last year).
The Marine Fisheries Division made a proposal to shorten the summer season to May 1 through September 15, but keeping the quota percentage the same for this period at 35%. The proposed change would allow inshore commercial fishermen the opportunity to take advantage of the stock when it was close to shore.
A change in starting possession limits were also proposed (see recommendations at www.dem.ri.gov).
Additionally, the fluke advisory panel approved moving a RI fluke sector fishing plan forward to public hearing. The proposal would allow the program to run for one year under the 2011 proposal plan and agreement guidelines giving DEM time to consider departmental policy on alternate fisheries management approaches.
Meeting participants applauded the sector's track record for reducing discards at historically low levels and the program's financial benefit to even non program members. Non sector fishermen received the benefit of higher market prices in part due to a consistent supply of fish to the market, spreading available fish over a longer time period when they are not ordinarily available.
Scup advisory panel meeting highlights
Biological reference points indicate that the scup stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring.
Recruitment actually exceeded the 1984-2011 average of 104 million in 2011. So the stock is in good shape moving forward. DEM proposed enhancing limits from 5,000 lbs/wk on May 1, 2012 to 50,000 lbs/wk on September 15, 2012.
The RI 2013 commercial quota is generally 56.19% of the coastwide summer allocation, so for 2013 this would be 4,995,284 lbs, a 16% decrease from our 2012 quota, however, scup landed in 2012 was well below quota.
Scup proposals included a status quo proposal as well as a Marine Fisheries Division proposal to increase the starting aggregate limits in an effort to keep up with the high level of quota. These limits would increase to 10,000 lbs/wk.
Black sea bass (BSB) highlights
The stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring.
2011 recruitment was 21 million fish, this year and recent years have been near average recruitment.
Three closings occurred in 2012 to ensure that RI did not overfish its quota.
RI's share of the Coastwide commercial quota in 2013 will likely be 189,827 lbs which is a 1% increase in quota from 2012.
Fishermen (both commercial and recreational representatives) at the advisory panel meeting testified to the abundance of black sea bass (inshore and offshore) at a variety of sizes.
DEM recommended no changes to the black sea bass commercial fishery in 2013, however, (due in part from fishermen input on an abundance of stock) fish managers related the stock can likely accommodate more harvest and they will continue to improve estimates in the stock assessment and continue to improve the stock assessment itself so that harvest levels can be increased in the future.
The second BSB proposal was from the RI Commercial Rod & Reel Association (RICRRA) pertaining to spring and summer sub-period adjustments to insure the season remain open to offer a consistent supply of product to dealers. The proposal called for a deceased starting possession limits to 25 pounds per day, May through October. A third proposal called for a decreased starting possession limit, increased minimum size, and changed sub periods. The fourth proposal increased starting possession limits to 100 pounds per day, May through October.
A fifth proposal set aggregate limits in spring and summer periods.
Atlantic herring ad hoc panel meeting highlights
DEM Atlantic herring fishery regulation proposals include a river herring by catch allowance of 5% (which would allow in state and out-of state boats to land their catch in RI, 0% by-catch allowance was the case in 2012. Zero tolerance discouraged commercial fishermen from landing their catch in RI). The second major recommendation by DEM provides for a closure of state waters to herring boats if it is deemed that an area will likely have 5% or more of river herring.
These proposed amendments come with a lot of qualifying details, the plan (Part VII - Section 7.19; pages 65-66) can be found online at www.dem.ri.gov.
After the November 8th public hearing the proposed regulatory changes to species management plans along with input from the public will be presented to the RIMFC for consideration. The council then votes on the proposed recommendations/changes and forwards its recommendations to DEM director Janet Coit for consideration.
Where's the bite
Striped bass fishing is very good for anglers all along the southern coastal shores of Rhode Island. Steve McKenna noted RI shore angler and associate at Quaker Lane Outfitters, North Kingstown, said, "Shore fishing has been the best in years.
Since the end of August I have caught bass to 40 lbs in the surf using plugs at Narragansett. There is so much bait around… peanut bunker, needle fish, silversides and more mullet than I have ever seen before." Ken Landry of Ray's Bait & Tackle, Warwick, said, "Customers are catching some nice bass out in from of Brenton Reef and Beavertail using eels as well as tube & worm." John Littlefield of Archie's Bait and Tackle, East Providence, said, "Customers Albert and Kevin Bettencourt of East Providence are doing well with bass at night drifting eels in the Bay."
Tautog fishing is good but anglers have to work their way through a lot of shorts and an awful lot of small black sea bass to earn keeper tautog. John Wunner of John's Bait & Tackle, North Kingstown said anglers are catching ten short tautog to everyone keeper. Angler Brian Beltrami said he weighted in an 8.95 lbs. tautog at Quaker Lane Outfitters Saturday that he caught in Narragansett Bay using green crabs (when weighed in the fish was in 1st place in the RISAA tautog fishing tournament). John Littlefield of Archie's Bait said, "Anglers are catching tautog all over the Bay but there are a lot of shorts mixed in." Ken Landry of Ray's Bait & Tackle said the tautog are at Hope Island, General Rock and this week some anglers are catching them off the Rocky Point dock in Warwick.
Bluefish are roaming the Bay and coastal shores. John Littlefield of Archie's Bait said, "One customer had ten fish in the six to twelve pound range lined up on shore at Sabine Point". Ken Landry of Ray's Bait and Steve McKenna shore angler said the blues are mixed in with the bass along southern coastal shores.
Captain Dave Monti has been fishing and shell fishing on Narragansett Bay for over 40 years. He holds a captain's master license, a charter fishing license, and is a member of the Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Council. Your fishing photos in JPEG from, stories, comments and questions are welcome… there's more than one way to catch a fish. Visit Captain Dave's No Fluke website at www.noflukefishing.com ; his blog at www.noflukefishing.blogspot.com or e-mail him at email@example.com.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
product highlights
Features: Prevents and eliminates fleas
Intended For: Cats
Includes: 6 Tubes
Health Consideration: Flea
Pet Weight: Over 9 lb
Cautions: Harmful if swallowed. Causes moderate eye irritation. Avoid contact with eyes or clothing. Wash hands thoroughly with soap and warm water after handling. Keep out of reach of children. Do not contaminate feed or food.
Directions: It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.
How to Open:
1. Be sure tube is at bottom of pouch.
2. Using scissors, cut the pouch across the top and remove lube.
How to Apply:
1. Remove one applicator tube from package. See "How to Open" section.
2. Hold applicator tube in an upright position facing away from and you and your pet's face and eyes. Pull cap off tube.
3. Turn the cap around and place other end of cap back on tube.
4. Twist cap to break seal, then remove cap from tube.
5. Part the hair on the neck at the base of the skull until the skin is visible. Place the tip of the tube on the skin and squeeze the tube to expel the entire contents directly on the skin. Do not get this product in your pet's eyes, or allow your pet to ingest this product. The product is bitter tasting and salivation may occur for a short time if your pet licks the product immediately after treatment. Treatment at the base of the skull will minimize the opportunity for your pet to lick the product. Do not allow the product to run off.
6. Discard empty tube as described in Storage and Disposal.
7. Under normal conditions this product is effective for a month. However, in case of severe flea infestation, retreatment may be necessary earlier than four (4) weeks. Do not retreat more often than once every seven (7) days. After flea control is attained, return with a monthly retreatment schedule.
Active Ingredients:
Imidacloprid, Pyriproxyfen


text: Dunno if this is the right forum, but hey worth a shot... so if i go to http://roundcubemail.com i get a blank page, but if i go to https://roundcubemail.com i get a roundcube login screen.. i just updated, roundcube is not set to default to SSL, and i have little experience with roundcube but some decent amount of experience with Ubuntu. i would like to be able to access via http, but i do not know why it is just assessable via ssl any thoughts??


text:
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. – Trailing late in the fourth set, the MIT women's volleyball generated a 9-3 run to defeat Babson College, 25-15, 25-16, 23-25, 26-24, in the quarterfinal round of the New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference (NEWMAC) Championship Tournament on Wednesday night. The No. 3-seeded Engineers improved their ledger to 28-5 on the year and will face No. 2 Springfield College in a semifinal match at Wellesley College on Saturday, Nov. 3. The No. 6 Beavers, meanwhile, saw their season conclude with a record of 22-8.
The early stages of the opening set were closely played as it featured seven ties and three lead changes until Babson used a 3-1 spurt to put it in front, 13-12. A kill by freshman Meryl Gibbs (Bellaire, Texas) sparked a 12-2 run which featured back-to-back aces from senior Trinity Leonard (Mill Valley, Calif.) that resulted in set point. A strike from freshman Alicia Wilde (Franklin, Mass.) extended the frame, but a serving error gave the hosts the win.
In the second stanza, the Beavers inched out to a 6-4 edge which was erased by an 11-2 run by the Engineers. Babson narrowed the gap to five on two occasions, the last at 18-13 courtesy of an ace from freshman Elizabeth Sullivan (Quincy, Mass.). This was as close as it would get as MIT registered seven of the last 10 points to secure the victory.
The visitors jumped out to a 5-2 advantage which grew to 12-8 in the third set. The Engineers slowly chipped away at the deficit as a block by freshman Ada Taylor (Durham, N.C.) and Gibbs in addition to a pair of kills from Leonard put them ahead, 16-15. Babson responded with six straight points, including a trio of aces from freshman Brianna San Diego (Daly City, Calif.), to reclaim the lead. MIT continued to attack, cutting its deficit to two at 21-19 and 23-21, but a kill by Wilde gave the Beavers set point. A hitting error and an ace from junior Emma Gargus (Columbus, Ohio) kept the Engineers alive and prompted Babson to call a timeout. Freshman Krissy Robertson (Dedham, Mass.) replied with a strike after the break to extend the match.
The Beavers carried the momentum into the fourth set as they quickly established an 8-4 lead. Following an MIT timeout, the hosts generated a 6-1 spurt that featured three kills from Leonard. Babson countered with a 10-3 run which resulted in a 19-13 advantage. The Engineers cut their deficit in half courtesy of a serving error and two aces from senior Katie Spielbauer (Lakeview, Mich.); however, a pair of miscues gave the Beavers some breathing room and resulted in MIT's final timeout of the set.
After exchanging side-outs, a block by junior Kristine Bunker (Falmouth, Mass.) and senior Alyssa Rothman (Plainview, N.Y.) in addition to a Bunker kill and a Babson hitting error trimmed the deficit to 22-20. The Beavers used their final timeout of the night, but it could not stop the rally as the Engineers capitalized on a strike by junior Tatiana Berger (Fort Lauderdale, Fla.), another Bunker-Rothman block, a roll shot from Leonard, and a hitting miscue to reach match point. Kills by Wilde and Robertson evened the score at 24 but Babson could not sustain the late rally as a Bunker blast and a solo block from Berger clinched the victory.
Leonard led the way with 15 kills and four aces while Berger totaled nine kills and four blocks. Bunker registered nine blocks and five kills as Gibbs rounded out the front row with six kills and two blocks. Spielbauer posted 22 digs and three aces as freshman Lindsey Wang (Cupertino, Calif.) notched 10 digs and three aces. Taylor contributed three blocks while junior Sharon Hao (San Jose, Calif.) finished with 10 digs. Rothman racked up 36 assists, five blocks, and two aces for MIT.
Freshman Mary Donahue (Braintree, Mass.) paced the Beavers with 14 kills to go along with three blocks as Wilde totaled nine kills. Robertson chipped in six kills and four blocks while San Diego earned three aces. Senior Kathleen Lynch (Quincy, Mass.) compiled 34 assists and two blocks in the loss.


text:
Great Greenwich Pub Tour
For history buffs and ale lovers, a tour of some of Greenwich's historic pubs, including the Trafalgar Tavern on the river, where William Gladstone and Charles Dickens were known to quaff. Four half-pints of your ale of choice are included in the price. Advance booking only. Meet at the Sir Walter Raleigh statue opposite Greenwich Pier, outside Greenwich Tourist Information Centre.
|Event phone:
|020 8319 2143
|Event website:
Average User Rating
3 / 5
Rating Breakdown
- 5 star:0
- 4 star:0
- 3 star:1
- 2 star:0
- 1 star:0
1 person listening
Kailash More
as good as it is
Show More


text:
Note: This item is more than five years old. Please take the publication date into consideration for any date references.
Print – Plain Text – Permalink
News Release
Media Contact: TPWD News, email@example.com, 512-389-8030
April 9, 2013
Hitchhiker Stopped at Local Gas Station
ATHENS—Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Inland Fisheries biologist Robert J. Mauk of Wichita Falls tells how a routine refueling stop at a gas station turned into something quite out of the ordinary.
"Recently, I had a new experience that I had hoped never to have and hope I never have again. I've discussed and written articles about the importance of cleaning, draining and drying your watercraft when removing it from the water, especially when taking it to a different water body, to insure that you are not spreading invasive species. In my 16 years as a TPWD biologist for the Wichita Falls area, I have come in contact with invasive species that are illegal to possess, such as applesnails and giant salvinia. Both were in private waters, and the owners had to eradicate them.
"This leads me to a recent event. The staff and I were heading to a lake to collect largemouth bass to stock into the new Maplewood Pond. We stopped at a local gas station to fill up, and I noticed a large boat parked in the lot missing most of its identification such as up-to-date plates, boat registration and numbers. The stern was a mess, obviously having not been cleaned since being in the water. The technicians and I discussed that if there was ever a boat that could be transporting invasives, this was the one. The owner was nowhere to be seen, so I went over to the stern of the boat to have a look. The first thing I saw was small triangular shells indicative of zebra mussels covering the back of the boat. I immediately contacted the game wardens so they could handle the situation.
"Upon arrival, the game warden obtained pertinent information from the driver, who was transporting the boat to Pueblo, Colorado, for the boat's owner. While the game warden discussed the situation with the driver, we tried to positively identify the mussel species. We had to return to our office with samples of the shells to examine them under a dissecting scope. It took a long time and many phone calls and text messages to experts in mussel identification before the mussel was identified as a dark false mussel. This is a brackish water mussel originally found along the Gulf coast that is nearly identical in appearance to the zebra mussel. The only way to tell it apart is by opening the mussel and looking at the beak of the shell.
"Even though it was not a zebra mussel, it is a species that could cause significant problems if it became established in brackish waters such as the Brazos and Red River basins. While the dark false mussel is native to the Texas Gulf coast, it is considered an exotic species in Colorado where the boat was being towed, so officials there were very interested in knowing it was coming to their state. They required the driver to meet them for a boat inspection as soon as he arrived in Colorado. We required the driver to clean the boat before resuming his trip.
"The situation could have easily been avoided had the boat owner followed a few basic rules that Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has been recommending:
- Inspect the boat and trailer and remove any mussels, vegetation or foreign objects.
- Drain all water from the boat including such things as the engine, bilge, ballast, livewells and bait buckets before leaving the lake.
- Open all compartments and livewells and allow the boat and trailer to dry before entering another water body. To determine how long to allow the boat to dry before using it at a new lake, go to http://www.100thmeridian.org/emersion.asp and click your location on the map and the month. The length of drying time depends on the temperature and humidity.
- If you can't dry your boat and leave it out of the water for a week or more, you should wash it at a commercial carwash using high pressure and hot (>140°F) soapy water. The hot water will kill zebra mussels, and when the water from the carwash goes through a wastewater treatment plant, the process should kill any remaining mussels. Also, flush the motor for five minutes with the motor running and be sure to pay special attention to small crevices and other hidden areas."
Zebra mussels have been found in Lakes Texoma and Ray Roberts. It is extremely important that boaters be vigilant and take the necessary precautions to insure they are not responsible for their spread. The possession or transportation of invasive species in the state of Texas is illegal. Trailers, boats, motors and anything else that has been in contact with Texoma or Ray Roberts water should be thoroughly cleaned and inspected.
Boats that have been stored or kept at a marina on infested waters for an extended period of time should be professionally cleaned before launching in another body of water. Because invasive species are so detrimental, it is a good idea for all boaters to thoroughly wash and dry their vessels any time they go from one lake to another, regardless if that lake is known to be infested or not.
If you have any questions, please call the Wichita Falls Inland Fisheries Office at (940) 766-2383 or e-mail email@example.com. Boaters and anglers can also help by reporting sightings of suspected zebra mussels to the Operation Game Thief toll-free hotline at (800) 792-4263.
Publication — Permission is granted to publish, in whole or in part, any news releases on this page.
Print — A print-friendly version of the news release shows only the release with font sizes set to the browser default.
Plain Text — Plain text versions of TPWD news releases are provided for copying and pasting into editing software.
To copy text into an editing software:
- Click a Plain Text link to display the plain text page in your browser.
- Select all.
- Copy.
- Paste in a document in your editing program.
Permalink — This is a direct link to the news release, omitting the navigation context from the URI.
English/Spanish — News releases posted in both English and Spanish have one of these links.
If you have any suggestions for improving these pages, send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.com and mention Plain Text Pages.
(5.4.16 i)


text:
Types of upgrades done to full-size trucks that include: ugly body kits, swivel seats, chrome roll-bars, deep dish wheels, brush guards, chrome rocker panel guards, girly mudflaps with chrome accents, huge window visor, tires with white lettering, chrome fender trims, chrome edge protectors, dual bladed wiper blades, bull or lobo painted on the door or tailgate, Raiders, Cowboys stickers or license plate frames. When a Mexican gets five or more of these upgrades on his or her truck it's got the Mexican Sports Pack option.
Did you see that truck with the Mexican Sports Pack at the auction? Yeah Hector the wholesaler is buying it for his used car lot in TJ.
by Hector the Mexican January 01, 2010
buy the domain for your foodie blog