How not to get shot by the Police

January 10th, 2014 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

The family of Mark Duggan reacted with fury and anguished disbelief yesterday after an inquest jury found that he was lawfully killed but did not have a gun in his hand when a police marksman shot him fatally in the chest.

After three months of heated and sometimes contradictory evidence, the panel of seven women and three men decided by a majority of eight to two that the killing that sparked the worst riots in postwar Britain had been within the bounds of the law. …

Amid anguished outbursts in the courtroom from family members, jurors found by a majority of nine to one that the 29-year-old, who was believed by police to have been an active member of a criminal gang, had thrown clear the gun he had collected from an underworld quartermaster as the minicab in which he was travelling was stopped by armed Scotland Yard officers in Tottenham in August 2011.

If armed Police stop the taxi you are being driven in, don’t jump out and start running. And when they yell out “Stop” and “Put it Down”, then it is best to stop, even if you have already thrown the gun away.

Tags:

40 Responses to “How not to get shot by the Police”

  1. hj (7,067 comments) says:

    Amen Brother!
    [am at meeting]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    Also don’t carry a gun in the first place. If the police know that you are carrying a gun, what do you think they are carrying, slingshot!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    Ah but this is the Britain that Tony Blair wants,multicultural ,with all the baggage that goes with it……drug gangs,sink estates,gun violence,……feel the enrichment,celebrate all that wonderful diversity……

    And Cameroon is going along with it,with his celebration of the non white Commonwealth in WW1.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2536197/Mark-Duggan-Arms-draped-two-violent-gangsters-thug-death-sparked-riots.html

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Zapper (1,033 comments) says:

    I saw on the news last night a bunch of young (early 20s) white and black imbeciles yelling “Racist cops” at some protest of this result.

    Can I recommend one of the white kids behave in exactly the same way and see if they are shot?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. GPT1 (2,123 comments) says:

    So some gang banger who had a firearm is stopped by armed police in a dangerous and dynamic situation and instead of complying plays silly buggers and gets himself shot? Tough shit. He can get stuffed and so can his family and so called friends. Where were they with their demands for justice when he was terrorizing others? Where were they when he was buying a gun? This has to be the worst “excuse” for a riot ever. These are the ultimate of the bottom feeding, free loading “it’s everyone’s fault but our own” under class and deserve nothing but contempt.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. alwyn (438 comments) says:

    I wonder whaether he really knew that the people were police?
    Without trying to defend him he possibly had a genuine fear of members from other gangs who might be trying to kill him. In that case the truly sensible thing to do is to run, and run as fast as you can.
    I don’t think I would rely on the police in this case to tell the full truth about what they had called to him as to who they were.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Longknives (4,889 comments) says:

    Duggan’s family are claiming he was a ‘good boy’ and ‘not a criminal’.
    One might wonder what he was doing carrying a firearm round London then?
    Agree with GPT1- Worst excuse for a riot ever…(Quite similar to the Trayvon Obama incident in that a dangerous criminal gets his just deserts and somehow gets turned into a martyr afterwards)

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. berend (1,716 comments) says:

    DPF: And when they yell out “Stop” and “Put it Down”, then it is best to stop, even if you have already thrown the gun away.

    Since when is it acceptable to shoot people for running away? Why does the police get away with behaviour no one else gets away with?

    BTW, you are misrepresenting the story here. The policeman pulled the trigger in self-defence, which I think is entirely reasonable and acceptable. And I hope juries will forever give the same leeway to every non-police shooter who does the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ldypen (42 comments) says:

    The problem here is that the Police are not shooting enough of these scum, you’ll hear the same abuse and crap going on in our courts every day.. then the media interview the family/whanau and the piece of shit is always a “Good Boy” as far as they are concerned.. it’s always someone else’s fault… well they can all go and get Fucked!

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    It wasn’t that long ago that British SPG coppers carried a “first aid kit” containing a handgun, assorted illegal drugs and burglary tools just in case they shot and killed an unarmed or off-duty villain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. James Stephenson (2,233 comments) says:

    I wonder whaether he really knew that the people were police?

    You think he’d have ditched the gun out of the taxi, if he’d thought it was a rival gang stopping him?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    GPT1 (2,028 comments) says:

    January 10th, 2014 at 11:27 am

    “So some gang banger who had a firearm is stopped by armed police in a dangerous and dynamic situation and instead of complying plays silly buggers and gets himself shot? Tough shit. He can get stuffed and so can his family and so called friends. Where were they with their demands for justice when he was terrorizing others? Where were they when he was buying a gun? This has to be the worst “excuse” for a riot ever. These are the ultimate of the bottom feeding, free loading “it’s everyone’s fault but our own” under class and deserve nothing but contempt.”

    Who of you remembers the Brazilian electrician who was executed by British cops because he looked a bit like one of the tube bombers?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Mary Rose (393 comments) says:

    >Who of you remembers the Brazilian electrician

    Innocent bloke, total screw-up by the police.

    >the 29-year-old, who was believed by police to have been an active member of a criminal gang, had thrown clear the gun he had collected from an underworld quartermaster

    Total scumbag, by the sound of it (haven’t followed the case).

    So what’s your point jack?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Fentex (1,040 comments) says:

    Not having seen the event I don’t know details, but in general shooting someone not actively threatening another is wrong. So as described in this post the UK police sure look irresponsible.

    I went and looked for details to see what happened and apparently it’s very confused, no video, conflicting witness statements and the whole thing complicated by the police interfering with the scene – like a lot of what becomes political problems the issue was exacerbated by incompetence and dishonesty after the event.

    I don’t know enough to know if the police in question had any reason to think the man was threatening, evidently the jury believed an officer had reason to think himself endangered, but if he wasn’t it wouldn’t be the first time UK police recklessly killed someone without need. Nor the second.

    All in all it sounds like a situation rife for presentation as any party chooses and a good argument for law enforcement to routinely video everything.

    Speaking of which research in the U.S jurisdictions where police have routinely taken to wearing constantly recording video reports reductions in violence, reductions in arrests and general increases in civility between officers and people they talk to.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. NK (1,258 comments) says:

    Since when is it acceptable to shoot people for running away? Why does the police get away with behaviour no one else gets away with?

    If the police have reasonable grounds for believing he has a gun, but he doesn’t, shooting him while running away is still acceptable.

    The police “get away” with it, because they *do* have different rules than ordinary citizens. They are allowed to use force. The are allowed to carry guns and shoot people (provided the rules are followed). They are allowed to drive fast with their sirens on and chase people (provided the rules are followed).

    But funnily enough, ordinary citizens are allowed to do the same things, provided the rules applicable to them are followed also (self defence laws; Arms Act regulations; defence of necessity) etc.

    The difference is that the rules for police acting under their duty are different to ordinary citizens, for obvious reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Jack5 (5,167 comments) says:

    Criminals are manipulating the MSM around the West. When they can throw in an accusation of “racism!” that’s a good tool for them.

    Fentex is wrong. If someone has a firearm, or has had one until the last minute and it’s not known if the person still has it, the rules change.

    Britain, with its still largely unarmed police, is vulnerable in such a case. You don’t hear many recriminations about criminals being shot in America or Australia or China or India or anywhere-else where the police are armed. I think the UK, Norway, and NZ are about the only countries where police are routinely unarmed.

    If the British police routinely carried pistols, the criminal in this case would have likely been shot before he could throw away his gun at the last minute.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Jack5 (5,167 comments) says:

    Jackinabox (11.45 and 12.01 posts) routinely comes into a thread when police actions are challenged.

    Tell us your story, Jackinabox. What did they do to you?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. cha (4,084 comments) says:

    Tell us your story, Jackinabox. What did they do to you?

    Have a play with the URL in his handle.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. kowtow (8,784 comments) says:

    The police don’t get away with anything as is so blythly claimed……

    In the British tradition ,thank goodness,all exercise of force,but speciffically deadly force is srcutinised by the judiciary….that’s what this inquest was about.

    With respect to Menendez,that was in the context of Muslim terror bombings……so if the multiculturalists behaved themselves then cops wouldn’t have to waste their time and taxpayer money on anti terror operations,that given the nature of same is extremly dangerous.World wide.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Jackinabox (11.45 and 12.01 posts) routinely comes into a thread when police actions are challenged.”

    I do love to stick it to the cops Jacks5, the dirty bent porky bastards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. NK (1,258 comments) says:

    I do love to stick it to the cops Jacks5, the dirty bent porky bastards.

    All of them?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    All cops, Sergeant and above, need to be shot with a ball of their own dung!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. lolitasbrother (751 comments) says:

    You are running around to much Farrar, you have weak knowledge of International affairs
    you are becoming a blog imbecile watching NZ Nat Govt die ,
    You need replacing Farrar and we will replace you

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Longknives (4,889 comments) says:

    Lolita- Your last weirdo post is far more amusing if you say it in a Dalek voice!

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    You don’t hear many recriminations about criminals being shot in America or Australia or China or India or anywhere-else where the police are armed.

    I’m sure George Zimmerman will be relieved to hear that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    This is a helpful list:
    http://lawofselfdefense.com/the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense-in-a-nutshell/

    I’d say this case checks all the boxes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    If the police have reasonable grounds for believing he has a gun, but he doesn’t, shooting him while running away is still acceptable.

    To whom? Reinhard Heydrich?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. NK (1,258 comments) says:

    No, he’s dead and therefore unable to approve.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Fentex (1,040 comments) says:

    If someone has a firearm, or has had one until the last minute and it’s not known if the person still has it, the rules change.

    The rules never change though the circumstances under which they are observed alter all the time. Having been told a person is armed raises anyones expectation that they are a threat. In the case at hand a jury apparently agreed the shooting officer had good reason to feel endangered – I presume because he had been forewarned the suspect was armed and the suspect acted as if intending to use a weapon.

    It’s a pity the police didn’t record events and didn’t contaminate the scene so the general public had better reason not to suspect errors as have previously been committed.

    I think the UK, Norway, and NZ are about the only countries where police are routinely unarmed.

    Our police are not as unarmed as many suppose (and I suspect this is true of UK cops as well). Firearms are more accessible in police car lock boxes than most New Zealanders realise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    armed Police stop the taxi you are being driven in, don’t jump out and start running

    You’re not black and this was the British police.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Gulag1917 (1,026 comments) says:

    “And when they yell out “Stop” and “Put it Down”, then it is best to stop, even if you have already thrown the gun away.”
    Excellent advice.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. MH (817 comments) says:

    chinese police are generally not armed either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Gulag1917 (1,026 comments) says:

    Mark Duggan, the man who lived by the gun: Arms draped around two violent gangsters, the thug whose death sparked riots – but who his family insist was a peacemaker
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2536197/Mark-Duggan-Arms-draped-two-violent-gangsters-thug-death-sparked-riots.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “It’s a pity the police didn’t record events and didn’t contaminate the scene so the general public had better reason not to suspect errors as have previously been committed.”

    They have video cameras on their Tasers but not on their Glocks, why is that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Gulag1917 (1,026 comments) says:

    Might interfere with accuracy of the Glock

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Might interfere with accuracy of the Glock”

    That’s not the reason Gulag.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Fentex (1,040 comments) says:

    In this instance the shooting was by a MP5, not Glock (one round passed through the target and lodged in a police officers radio).

    It would make more sense if police had cameras built in to uniforms, it works in keeping everyone safe from erroneous or malicious accounts and encourages civil interaction all round.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “In this instance the shooting was by a MP5, not Glock (one round passed through the target and lodged in a police officers radio).”

    MP5 or Glock, who cares what they used, handguns are all capable of carrying a video camera and if they did there would be no more arguments or extra judicial executions. And how could a round have passed through the target and into a police officers radio if the target was running away from police when shot as claimed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. UglyTruth (4,552 comments) says:

    If armed murderers stop the taxi you are being driven in, don’t jump out and start running. And when they yell out “Stop” and “Put it Down”, then it is best to stop, even if you have already thrown the gun away.

    FIFY

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    If I carried a Beretta Bobcat in my pocket because I believed that the NZ Police were a hindrance rather than a help vis a vis my personal safety would the police be justified in shooting me on sight?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote