Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next View previous topic :: View next topic  
neilcaterham
Quads


Joined: 07 May 2011
Posts: 1730
Location: Wannabee Specialist Forum Champ

PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:23 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
From what I heard on the radio he was being followed about by the Trident team and was seen visiting a known gun supplier. I would assume the LIKELYHOOD of him being armed was high. He was apparently en route in a taxi with that gun. Taxi is given a hard stop, that does NOT mean they are going to shoot you, it means that every precaution will be used to stop the vehicle and its occupants.
From here, it gets hazy imo. BUT if he had of got of the car CORRECTLY, with hands raised in the air and nothing in them he would be alive. NOT REALLY THAT DIFFICULT.

Morale -
If a geezer or a bird stop a car your in and points guns at you, do as your f'ing told or die, simple
_________________
Wannabee Specialist Forum Champ
paddymick
Straight Flush


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 3455
Location: Leicester

PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:19 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
The fact still stands (according to the jury and all eyewitnesses, except the officer that fired the shots)- he did not have a gun on him when he was shot. The gun was not found until later. Therefore the officer that shot him made a mistake. That is irrefutable. Whether he 'behaved correctly' when he exited the taxi, we will never know. The only independent witness to the actual shooting claims he had his hands raised, holding a mobile phone.
Marcus6
Royal Flush


Joined: 06 Jun 2012
Posts: 5916
Location: london

PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:32 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
paddymick wrote:
The fact still stands (according to the jury and all eyewitnesses, except the officer that fired the shots)- he did not have a gun on him when he was shot. The gun was not found until later. Therefore the officer that shot him made a mistake. That is irrefutable. Whether he 'behaved correctly' when he exited the taxi, we will never know. The only independent witness to the actual shooting claims he had his hands raised, holding a mobile phone.


he should not been holding anything, the officer may think he is holding! a gun? like i said before you dont have much time to think! when you are in a spot like this. (the only Question they did to ask the officer! did he shoot to kill?)
paddymick
Straight Flush


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 3455
Location: Leicester

PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:43 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
[quote="Marcus6"]
paddymick wrote:
he should not been holding anything, the officer may think he is holding! a gun? like i said before you dont have much time to think! when you are in a spot like this. (the only Question they did to ask the officer! did he shoot to kill?)


The officer testified that it was a gun, in a sock, with the barrel poking out of a hole, pointed at him. That's very specific. He apparently had enough time to make that observation.

Loads of things about this do not add up. It stinks.
neilcaterham
Quads


Joined: 07 May 2011
Posts: 1730
Location: Wannabee Specialist Forum Champ

PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:43 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Completely disagree with you.
You have obviously had no training or experience into what happens during a "Hard stop". But, I tell you 1 thing, if you are told to get out of that motor with hands raised AND empty, you will if you are not stupid.
What matters is whether the copper had reason to believe his, or any other persons safety was in immediate threat. He obviously believed it was, rightly or wrongly. By holding something in his hand in a sock and not putting it down when told to do so when guns are pointing at you is stupid in my book, almost suicidal, its not a game and Duggan knew that with his lifestyle.

Also if you think things are black and white (no pun intended) in any situation of this kind then you have your head in the sand.
_________________
Wannabee Specialist Forum Champ
paddymick
Straight Flush


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 3455
Location: Leicester

PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 2:53 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
neilcaterham wrote:
Completely disagree with you.
You have obviously had no training or experience into what happens during a "Hard stop". But, I tell you 1 thing, if you are told to get out of that motor with hands raised AND empty, you will if you are not stupid.
What matters is whether the copper had reason to believe his, or any other persons safety was in immediate threat. He obviously believed it was, rightly or wrongly. By holding something in his hand in a sock and not putting it down when told to do so when guns are pointing at you is stupid in my book, almost suicidal, its not a game and Duggan knew that with his lifestyle.

Also if you think things are black and white (no pun intended) in any situation of this kind then you have your head in the sand.


Who said things were black and white?
We do not know what actually happened. I'll accept the officer could of thought that there was a danger. On the evidence presented he was wrong. So maybe he made a mistake. Maybe Duggan made the mistake of having something in his hand (maybe he was scared). What stinks is the IPCC cover up (which they have admitted to) and all the other contradictions which point to a police cover up.
Rigsby
Forum Challenge Champion


Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Posts: 1909

PostPosted: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:00 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
I would like to know why the police close ranks lie and cover up in these situations, the officer in my opinon must have had a guilty conscience to lie from the outset
_________________
"o8 is Medicine" Knassen
Alex B
Straight Flush


Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2856
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:34 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
What rate of false positives would we accept, given the more certain the police need to be the more likely it is that innocent people get shot by the suspect?

I'm perfectly comfortable with the current situation. Seems easy enough to avoid making yourself a suspect, and follow instructions properly if it happens.
Rigsby
Forum Challenge Champion


Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Posts: 1909

PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 11:46 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Alex B wrote:
What rate of false positives would we accept, given the more certain the police need to be the more likely it is that innocent people get shot by the suspect?

I'm perfectly comfortable with the current situation. Seems easy enough to avoid making yourself a suspect, and follow instructions properly if it happens.


It would be interesting to know the figures of both, innocents shot buy suspects and innocents shot by police
_________________
"o8 is Medicine" Knassen
paddymick
Straight Flush


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 3455
Location: Leicester

PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:06 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Alex B wrote:

What rate of false positives would we accept, given the more certain the police need to be the more likely it is that innocent people get shot by the suspect?


Hope i'm reading this right. Do you mean a 'false positive' to mean a suspect shot by police when it was not necessary? So a 'positive' is a suspect shot by police when it is necessary? And you are asking about the ratio of false positives to positives?

Alex B wrote:
I'm perfectly comfortable with the current situation. Seems easy enough to avoid making yourself a suspect, and follow instructions properly if it happens.


Me too. What I am not comfortable with is when a 'false positive' happens and it gets covered up, rather than admitted to and learned from. I also think if there were no cover ups, the public would accept a higher rate of false positives.
Seb
Full House


Joined: 29 Dec 2011
Posts: 912

PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:32 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
paddymick wrote:
neilcaterham wrote:
My thoughts are that if he don't want to get shot, don't drive about with guns.


The police only suspected he had a gun. The gun was not found until after he was shot. Are you saying police should shoot anyone they suspect of having a gun?


How many people go around with guns? It seems like they *knew* he had a gun and was therefore mental. Kill him, don't kill him, not sure it makes much difference.
paddymick
Straight Flush


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 3455
Location: Leicester

PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 6:06 pm
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Seb wrote:
How many people go around with guns?


I don't know.

Seb wrote:
It seems like they *knew* he had a gun and was therefore mental.


So assuming they knew he had a gun - big assumption - still does not mean he should be shot for that reason alone. He should be given a chance to surrender. Maybe he messed up that chance. Maybe the police messed up. Maybe both.

Seb wrote:
Kill him, don't kill him, not sure it makes much difference.


Not sure what point you are trying to make here. Are you saying that if you carry a gun your life is forfeit? Please note I am not implying that that is a totally unreasonable policy. It's just very hard to be absolutely certain that someone is carrying a gun when they have not used it or showed it, and for a life to be forfeit I would argue that you need to be very sure.
berba
One Pair


Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 14
Location: london

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 12:07 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
If you play with guns you might get shot, seems reasonable enough to me.
_________________
�Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.�
BenFranklin
Alex B
Straight Flush


Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 2856
Location: London

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:32 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
paddymick wrote:
Alex B wrote:

What rate of false positives would we accept, given the more certain the police need to be the more likely it is that innocent people get shot by the suspect?


Hope i'm reading this right. Do you mean a 'false positive' to mean a suspect shot by police when it was not necessary? So a 'positive' is a suspect shot by police when it is necessary? And you are asking about the ratio of false positives to positives?

Alex B wrote:
I'm perfectly comfortable with the current situation. Seems easy enough to avoid making yourself a suspect, and follow instructions properly if it happens.


Me too. What I am not comfortable with is when a 'false positive' happens and it gets covered up, rather than admitted to and learned from. I also think if there were no cover ups, the public would accept a higher rate of false positives.


Agreed.

Regarding "false positive", I meant we are assessing whether suspect is guilty of threatening to shoot someone and needs to be stopped.

In maths terms: Ho Innocent/safe suspect, Ha Dangerous suspect - shoot

Type 1 False positive is rejecting Ho incorrectly and shooting someone innocent
Type 2 False negative is failing to reject Ho and failing to stop dangerous subject

These are always a trade off.

The interesting number is the ratio of T1:T2, which depends on how many "situations" invoice stopping innocent people in general - my guess is some but not many (and greatly skewed towards suspect behaving), therefore a lower evidence requirement for rejecting H0.

As an example, if you stop 100 innocents for every 1 dangerous you need to be 99% sure to be right ~50% of the time. But if its 1 innocent to 100 dangerous, zero evidence and shooting every time would be correct >99%. Given the situations these people get in to, I think its closer to the latter.

I know the detail is not necessary for the thread, but I happen to be revising hypothesis tests for business school so it was helpful to run through and check the logic Smile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors
paddymick
Straight Flush


Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 3455
Location: Leicester

PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 10:42 am
View user's profile Send private message Add User to Ignore List Reply with quote
Interesting, think I just about follow you, kinda Smile

You could apply the logic to normal stop and search as well, which is being criticised as misused and ineffective. Maybe the police should, and present their case for them like this, and talk to the public (in Tottenham specifically) and figure out what rate is acceptable.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Hendon Mob Forum Index -> Non-Poker General Forum All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum