Mark Duggan did not shoot at police, says IPCC

[brooklynite]

Source: Guardian

Mark Duggan, whose shooting by police sparked London's riots, did not fire a shot at police officers before they killed him, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said on Tuesday.

Releasing the initial findings of ballistics tests, the police watchdog said a CO19 firearms officer fired two bullets, and that a bullet that lodged in a police radio was "consistent with being fired from a police gun".

One theory, not confirmed by the IPCC, is that the bullet became lodged in the radio from a ricochet or after passing through Duggan.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/mark-duggan-police-ipcc

---

Not going to held the current situation...

[gateley]

1. Wow. This could give new life to a wave of new protests/riots --

hadn't they abated somewhat?

I'm just concerned for all involved -- the police and the protesters.

[14thColony]

6. Not abating, just shifting

A police station in Nottingham was just firebombed, which is the first act of actual protest by one of these "protesters" that I've seen yet. 99.9% of the rest have been grabbing mobile phones, TVs, Nikes, and jewellery. Watching them raid the DIESEL store in Manchester city centre right now on BBC News. Making their political will felt by hauling off whole racks of designer jeans and smashing and burning local shops that were barely making ends meet anyway.

[gateley]

12. Oh, Dear. I'm so sorry this is happening.

:(

I can understand the frustration and how people get swept up and just boil over, but I hate how it's affecting and ultimately hurting everyone.

[dipsydoodle]

7. That only two bullets, were fired neither by Duggan,

became apparent yesterday. See reply #25 http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4951732#4952203

It was the media who had mentioned 3 bullets : not the police. Both bullets were from the same gun used by one of the armed police.

[gateley]

13. Thanks for the clarification. It's hard to keep up. nt

[Dawson Leery]

2. Coppers doing what they do best, protecting the controlling interests.

:puke:

[autorank]

3. Thanks! A quick check in and I get the most important part of the story

Well, the most important part is the disaffection brought on by austerity, the official master of ceremonies of this riot.

But how about this - the "bad guy" didn't fire a shot. So why did they shoot him, we might ask.

Great grab, thanks.

[Downwinder]

4. I would rephrase that to: "Why did they take him out?"

[dipsydoodle]

8. When our police are armed

they are authorised to to fire in response to an imminent threat - it is not necessary that they are fired at first. One bullet hit Duggan in the chest and the other in his arm. It does not follow that the officer shot to kill. It is thought likely that the bullet travelled through his arm and hit the police radio of another officer.

[War Horse]

5. So maybe people should have waited for the IPCC report

Before unleashing this mayhem? :shrug:

[GliderGuider]

9. "Why couldn't that angry mob just have been more reasonable? Is that too much to ask?"

Well yes, actually it is too much to ask. Large crowds take on a mind of their own, which is not amenable to reason.

[sabrina 1]

10. From what I read early on, a peaceful demonstration was

taking place against the shooting of this man by police. The police then beat up a 16 year old girl, again, according to reports I read. That apparently enraged the crowd. Not sure how it spread from there to the rest of London.

I have also read, but not verified, that police brutality towards that community was pretty regular.

However, while inititially they had cause to demonstrate, it's too bad that there has now been so much destruction of the homes and businesses of ordinary people. Whatever cause they had, will be lost.

[slackmaster]

11. OK, but did he ever have the gun in his possession?

Did he display it?

Did he brandish it?