@@user-jx2ei1kh4qyes he may be a criminal, however we live in a world that has laws and rules, the people who aren't criminals must follow, it's impossible for how fast he was shot coming out of the taxi to fling that gun 7 metres away. Also they knew he had a gun so they charged to the vehicle, isn't that school boy error ? The specially trained copper also shot one of his guys, seems to me like he panicked and shot his gun on impulse making it an unlawful killing.
@@D-A-A-well no big loss, if we can forgive mark for his crimes and have sympathy, we can obviously let the officer off. Could’ve been worse and happened to someone who didn’t actually deserve it, most unfortunate of all this happened after he managed to breed instead of before
@user-jx2ei1kh4q it's believed that they took it from the taxi and threw it after the event. Let's get some context here, buddy. It is widely known and has been proven on numerous occasions that S.O Squads from Scotland Yard carry drugs and guns, which HAVE been planted on suspects when no REAL evidence is found. It's not beyond comprehension that the gun in Mark Duggans case was a police stitch gun, too!
Having been a scottish firearms officer for many years, this doesn't factor in the intense stress the body is under to perform correctly. What can't be factored in is how intense stress causes 'forgetfulness' and 'tunnel vision'. I was fortunate not to be caught up in drama like this but even from a training point of view and the Kangaroo court exercise immediately after, its amazing to find out what you remembered and forgot, to what you saw or didn't see, things that are as clear to others, are not necessarily clear to everyone else. Even independent witnesses get it wrong. Excellent work has been done here to show some factual, some assumption and some suggestive actions on behalf of Duggan and the police. I would have hated to have had to pay for this forensic Analysis.
What excellent work? This is a hit job by the layers of the Duggan family. They even flat out say that's who funded this on their website. Would you believe tobacco industries research conclusions that smoking doesn't cause cancer? How much do you think they paid this group? Do you think they did that not knowing what the foregone conclusion would be?
@@Pugilistdictator your comparisons don't make sense, this company is independent from the family and there investigation is based on facts. If you bothered to watch the video you would see they are not pulling shit out there ass it's based on facts.
@@Pugilistdictator Would you believe tobacco industries research conclusions that smoking doesn't cause cancer? Yet we are expected to believe swat teams,
If the police were chasing a vehicle I was riding in, and I wanted to live, I wouldn't jump out of the cab immediately after it stops and move towards police officer's. Nope, I'd sit there and put my hand's up as far as I could and wait to be instructed on what to do next.
You missed out the vital fact, Dugan was on his way to kill his own cousin for a drug deal gone wrong the week before He was armed, they watched him pick the gun up from the armourer……the same armourer who is in prison for supplying the gun to him
That's irrelevant. The only thing that matters is if he had a gun in his hand as he exited the vehicle, only then is it justifiable for the cop to shoot him. If he didn't then it's manslaughter at the very least. But as it stands, it's unlikely he did have a gun as he exited, and even less likely he threw it. How did none of the four cops see him throw the gun?
@@timverrecchia1654 What is it called then when someone purposely excludes facts? Lying perhaps? Like.....oh, I don't know....let me see.....Kevin Hutchinson-Foster admitted it was his gun, his DNA was on the gun, he was convicted of giving Duggan the gun and admitted he had used it in a previous robbery. The police were surveilling Duggan whom they suspected had the gun for a retaliation killing and that is why they pulled him over, and guess what? Surprisingly, he had the gun. Shall I go on or are you convinced that the narrative built in this video somehow represents the facts? Or are you okay with editing out the facts that are inconvenient to your preferred narrative?
Bro if you put your hands on a gun, let alone an illegal one, during a police stop, you get what youre asking for. What did you want the cops to do, wait and see what he does with the gun hes holding in his hand? The nerve on these people…
@@greywolf2809 theyre people too. They have families. They go to work hoping to come home at the end of the day. I know thats a tough principle to get behind for one that thinks work is unnecessary, but dehumanizing those you disagree with is pretty fascistoid, dont you think?
These animations and conclusions, especially around the 10:00 mark remind me of the film/story "Sully". When loads of pilots managed to land a simulation perfectly, making Sully seem as if he made a deadly incorrect decision. But then Sully explained how a simulation doesn't take the human factor into account. The fear, panic, thinking time, the reaction delays and impulses etc. When taking these things into account and trying best to "simulate" the human factor, no pilot was able to land and all crashed. The courts ended up ruling in his favour :)
Also it's like a non-pilot speculating on how to fly a plane, their officer's perspective on shooting a gun is laughably wrong. In fact it is suspiciously wrong as in the wide shots of the officers the animation correctly shows him aiming down the sights yet in the first person perspective shows the gun low down as if shooting from the hip. This is a blatant stitchup.
They did 17 attempts to land the plane in the simulator. Sully had one unprepared attempt with real risk and adrenaline. If people were on board with one of these sim pilots, everyone would be 6 feet under.
What to take from this terrible youngsters death is…. Don’t play with guns. If he never went to East London, Leyton and acquired a gun he would not of been pursued by police, stopped and killed. That is the reality of it. Don’t get involved with guns they are used to kill simple.
I feel like using the entry and exit wound paths of the bullets is an erroneous method of figuring out how his body was angled: bullets often pass in unpredictable patterns through targets, especially smaller calibres like 9mm if they encounter clothes or bone. Aside from that small point the huge amount of work here is impressive and intense.
Watching clips from the Ukraine war, I’ve come to the conclusion that a gunshot victim falls different everytime. It’s never the same or even what you would think sometimes.
Are you serious? This method is used around the world. Unpredictable pattern, but there is a pattern. Look for videos where shooting transparent human ballistic gel, complete with bones and organs.
@@afirdaus068 can’t compare ballistic gel that is stationary when a human is moving with momentum and have different body types. There are so many variables compared to shooting a block of gel that’s placed on a table.
This is excellent, and I agree with your conclusions based on the weight of evidence, but there are a few probems with your recreation of the shooting itself. First, Duggan's body position is underdetermined by the evidence at the moment of both shots. At the moment of shot 1 he could have been stood straight up, with his arm extended out and back in a throwing motion. This would remain consistent with his wound pattern and the bullet's trajectory. At the moment of shot 2 he could have similarly been stood straight. This is consistent with the evidence assuming the bullet hit bone and deviated in its course (you don't mention whether this happened but considering the shot placement it seems likely). The second problem is the notorious unreliability of eye witness testimony, especially in stressful situations. Four officers missing Duggan throwing a gun, especially contemporaneously with the shots being fired, is well within the bounds of reasonable possibility. Depending on which research you pay attention to it might even be MORE likely than any of them noticing the throw. I understand that you're arguing for a specific conclusion, and that presenting these caveats to an inquest for example would be self defeating. But for public broadcast I reckon including them would be beneficial.
Ya, they also assume that at no point the officer that shot Dugan looked at the other officers which I think seems unlikely. While he obviously was watching Dugan closely at the time of the shots shortly before and after its not unreasonable to think that he would be trying to coordinate with the other officers to avoid friendly fire, or more of it I suppose, and make sure everyone is on the same page in a highly tense and rapidly evolving situation. It’s all well and good to make a 3D mock-up of an event and set it in third person and say “see, the gun is clearly visible” but in the moment when you have extreme tunnel vision focusing on a specific point anything flying above that is probably not going to be memorable. It’s also kind of weird to argue that the officers went through the trouble of tracking this guy down, executing him, and planting evidence only to openly admit that they can’t explain how it got there. Wouldn’t it make more sent to plant the evidence in his jacket or maybe under the cab? Haphazardly tossing it into a field only to go and “discover” it without then being willing to say “yes we watched him throw it into that field.” Just doesn’t add up.
@@Mankorra_Gomorrah Yeah I should have also mentioned shooter tunnel vision as well. It's common in gunfights for even experienced shooters to massively condense/miss out events in recall and underestimate the number of shots they fired by up to a factor of 10. Gien the relative inexperience of UK firearms officers (just the fact that a supposedly elite unit approched the car from both sides, guaranteeing a crossfire situation is ridiculous -- any competent US beat cop would have aqcvoided this) it's also likely they all flinched on hearing shots (the officer who was hit in the arm certainly did at least), which would explain them missing a throw from Duggan. I think on the balance of probabilities, and assuming Duggan had both basic common sense and a survival instinct, that the most likely course of events is that he threw the gun before exiting the car, and that the shooter saw him exit with one hand in his pocket, and shot out of fear. But given the evidence it's impossible to prove any scenario to a high enough standard for criminal or even civil liability to be shown.
Agree, also human nature is not the same as a computer model. Who knows where they looked as they stepped out and around obstacles. I am sure they would have had to look down or at other officers at some point as to not trip over the pavement or something else. The model keeps an undeterred focus all the time. Not human I'm sorry. They were paid to come to a conclusion NOT in favour of the police so can understand the bias.
You felt is necessary to praise the biased opinion of the layers who paid for this as a PR stunt to sue the police? You should be better trained on recognizing propaganda when you see it.
If only 1 officer claims he saw him holding a gun, but the gun he was accused of buying earlier that day was 7 metres away, and had absolutely no DNA evidence on it directly connecting it to Duggan, a US court would've found the shooting unjustified because that raises reasonable doubt. And this whole situation is flawed to begin with since the officers don't even wear body cams. That's very questionable since now a court has to rely on an officer's word. And potentially one who's lying to save himself.
this video was created by a political action group don't be fooled by there fact based sounding name... its incredibly biased and only being made a point of because of the guys skin colour
Excellent piece of work. Sad to think that the whole situation could have ended peacefully if he just stayed in the vehicle. An armed man dashing out of a cab is just asking for trouble! Very sad
exactly, i think its really unfortunate that the officers clearly lied in their testimony about seeing the gun, but at the same time, if they are stopping someone that they think has a gun and he barrells out of the vehicle with his hand in his pocket, i dont think the police should wait to be shot at, they had intelligence he was armed and he had a criminal record so they were justified to be cautious, its just unfortunate that the young man lost his life like this
He opened the door and tossed the gun underarm BEFORE exiting the vehicle. You can't built a forensic model of what happened based on what the police said.
Exactly. You can't build a forensic model based on testimony alone. Whilst this presentation is really impressive, it's also impressively pointless. It doesn't prove anything. I mean, are they suggesting he wasn't even carrying a firearm to begin with?
@@branthomas1621 But all the cops said in their statements that they did see the gun? Also, why would they move the gun away from him? Surely they would move it TO him if he had thrown it, to support their statement and justify killing him.
You wouldn’t wait until the door fully opened. The short distance of the gun suggests little power in the throw and to me that means he threw it out on the split second the sliding door was opening by just a short width as you would if you didn’t want to be caught with it in your possession. That would explain no one seeing the actual gun until afterwards. His body language leaving the cab has sealed his fate . He should have crawled out on his belly. Human error cover up.
At no point do you dismiss the fact that Duggan was in possession of the gun. The fact he had the gun meant he was willing to use it or gain advantage by using it. Don't care. Glad he's not on London's streets.
I think on balance of probability, Duggan threw the gun before the officers engaged him whilst they were still getting out of their cars. This is earlier than shown in the simulation. Furthermore, it's hard to say that there's only one trajectory the gun could have taken, since you can arrive at the same point with a high and fast trajectory or a low and slow one. This would have made it more difficult but not impossible for those officers to see it. I think the officer saw him with his arm in his jacket and opened fire when he started raising it, and the officers lied in their statements to claim that they could see the gun in his hand. Ultimately, the end result is the same. The IPCC did not investigate thoroughly enough and the officers lied about their versions of events.
There is no way to tell this is actually the case, stop trying to spread misinformation. The officers clearly had a reason to shoot him and he shouldn't have had the gun in the first place.
Interesting theory but the video said the window wasn't open so it's not possible for the gun to have been thrown before the door was opened. By the time the door was opened and the gun was thrown, 4 officers would've seen it if they had the textbook timing in getting out of their cars. Also the theory about low and slow doesn't make sense considering there's a fence in the way and I'm assuming that the expert said it had to be those high angles because of the constrains of throwing things far with a human arm
@@bordedup546 Duggan would have opened the door and thrown the gun as he was opening it, which would have happened in the moment the officers were themselves opening the doors of their cars and climbing out. As you say the fence is in the way but my point is that he would have just needed to clear it, which leaves a range of trajectories. Obviously a lower trajectory where the gun just clears the fence would be harder to see, particularly for the officers on the far side of the car, than one in which the gun went sailing 20 feet up over the fence.
@@mcgherkinstudios Yes but the video said they modelled "textbook timing" by looking at training footage of the same hard stop technique and plugging it into their simulation. Given "textbook timing", the simulation showed that officers would've been out of their cars and able to see Duggan opening the door. As for the gun trajectory theory, watch the different perspectives from 12:46 onwards. The trajectory they've modelled actually looks like the lowest it could've been for the gun to reach the spot. The final perspective shows this most clearly.
@@bordedup546 The police officers all being out of their cars and standing with their guns trained on Duggan as he started to open the door doesn’t make sense. Duggan opened the door as the van stopped, and the police cars all stopped simultaneously with it, therefore they would all be opening their doors at the same time. The gun trajectory thing is more a reflection on the quality of the report, it would be more accurate to say that the trajectory they reported was the most likely of a range, than objectively saying it was the only possible trajectory.
Literally incredible. As in it lacks all credibility of being a remotely faithful recreation of events. It exploits ignorance of technical matters to mislead and presents assumptions as facts.
@@thomasshepard6030 By what the police is telling us. I see a clear animation here. As a bystander not ever hear of this case, i say its a planted gun. Cops are corrupt here.
@@thomasshepard6030 It's insane that people like this will look into the little details, when it doesn't matter if he had a gun or not. Either way he should've been killed for running at an officer. They even say they have no actual footage to rely on and yet people look into this like he was innocent because of witness reports.. Wake up call morons, witnesses LIE 90% of the time or are completely incorrect.
I think the important question is was this guy a criminal? If so, it is normal that any police would be afraid of his life in the situation where they knew the person has a gun on him. No one’s gonna wait till their shot before they shoot. Why are you trying to justify a criminal? What was the charge? He was linked to a violent crime no? Ask yourself this question, if you were that policeman, would you seriously not have done the same if placed in that situation where you knew this was a gunned, notorious man you’re facing?
The one thing this analysis doesn't take into account is the possibility that Mark might have opened the door to the van before or as the van was coming to a stop and threw it out whilst the van was still stopping. This would move the positions of the officers a couple of seconds back and they likely could have missed it with all the craziness of them parking, getting out the car, getting their guns ready etc etc... At the very least new analysis is needed of this scenario. I suspect he was holding the gun inside his left pocket inside the van. As the police did the stop, he opened the door of the van with his right hand, withdrew his left hand with the gun in it from his coat pocket and threw the gun, all as the van was stopping. Then he naturally, perhaps instinctively, put his left hand back into his coat pocket, almost as if to make out that nothing had happened. The officer saw Mark's hand moving back into his coat pocket as Mark stepped out the van and, seeing this movement, automatically opened fire, lying about seeing the gun of course to cover himself. This scenario explains things that this video analysis fails to address, such as why his left hand was in his coat pocket as he opened and exited the van, something rather unusual and presumably uncomfortable when opening a large door and exiting a vehicle, when the van door actually opened, and why the officer might have mistakenly thought that Mark was about to shoot at him.
This is most likely what happened and the way he threw it to be able to get that much distance was probably lobbing it underhand swinging upward. That way he would have had more power than throwing something heavy like that overhead while crouched down in the cab.
Either way, you're saying the officers were either mistaken, or lying. Both scenarios are a prime reason why police departments cannot be trusted to police themselves. Independent civillain oversight with no vested interest, is needed.
Watching this suggests he could have been arrested for possession of the gun without the need for the officer to discharge a firearm but we need to bear in mind that he had gone to collect a gun and had it in the taxi when stopped. People say don't carry a knife as you're more likely to have it taken from and used against you. If Mark hadn't collected a gun then the police would struggle to justify the use of one against him and this video confirms there's definitely something not right about this tragic event.
The thing I don't understand is why he got out of the taxi is such a rushed manner and with his hand inside his pocket (which makes it look like he has a gun inside it)
Mark Duggan was probably not in possession of the firearm at the time he was shot for the first time. There is no argument that he was armed prior to exiting the minicab. He had one hand in his pocket, beginning to point towards the officer and a second reaching for his waistband, which could reasonably be assumed to be reaching for a weapon. This isn't an old lady on the street gunned down in error, this was a long term, violent criminal with a great risk of carrying further weapons. Quite frankly, the position of the firearm at the time of the shooting seems entirely irrelevant to me but it does seem obvious both from the evidence and from common sense that he would have thrown the gun as soon as the door began to slide open. Even if the police did move the gun, the shooting of Mark Duggan appears entirely justified in my opinion and his death is no loss to society.
I totally agree with your last sentence, but a lot of comments and statements are of opinions not facts. As a PDO myself we come across this daily, we’ve got Officer involved shootings and are investigated but usually justified due to reasons.
Impressive work, but as others say, this doesn't take into account the severe stress and tunnel vision of a combat situation, very likely narrowing their field of vision further than normal and affecting their memory. Also, even if the evidence was somehow and for some reason planted (without any coordination on what to say to justify the gun was where they found it?), the shooting is still VERY reasonable. As a police officer, you certainly don't want a suspect,much less a criminal linked to fire arms, to jump out of a car or make unexpected movements. If he had stayed inside the car with his hands up, it's most likely no shots would've been fired that day, some human garbage peacefully sent to jail, and most importantly no police officers sent to the hospital.
I agree, people like to cry over how he didnt deserve to get shot, but end of the day, he made a choice to buy that weapon, to carry that weapon, and maybe even use it in the future! Or maybe it was just a trinket hahahaha! Im sure he was a good boy and im totally wrong.
@@user-ez7ls2du9cwhen you grow up in a country that does not let people carry firearms, and you grow up ina ghetto with problematic people, ypu get pretty inspired to buy a gun, what I mean with this is that you don't know his intentions, you don't know his past or who he was as a person, you are judging based on his skin color and where he grew up.....
@@DineroSucio754How dare you say we are judging him by his skin color. You rtard race baiter. He pulled a gun on police, and made them reasonably fear death or great bodily harm. There is no excuse for what he did. And he was 100% a criminal. He even knew the exact team that was pulling him over. He sent a text that said “Just got jammed by Trident”. He knew what Op Trident was. Because he was involved with crime, and had a documented history of it. Stop defending criminals, thug lover.
Thanks to the whole team that worked on this, really shows how important it is to film incidents like this and to protect our rights to do so. Was there any explanation from the tower block witness as to why there was a jump cut in the footage?
And then many of the residents of Tottenham, who frankly didn't give a hoot about Duggan went out and wrecked their own town to grab some free TV's, playstations and trainers, pretty much anything but books, workboots or study materials.
There should have been this much effort used to raise this boy to be a better man who wouldn’t mess with guns in the first place requiring no need for any police.
10:35 Unless you're in the situation you can't tell. Watch any SAS describe clearing a house. They'll tell you if you hold the gun up and look down the sights you go into tunnel vision. That added to the stress, it is possible he didn't see the gun thrown even if it was.
The problem with what you're saying is that the officer who was on the scene had to have been mistaken. He was in the situation but you're saying he can't tell?
Him throwing the gun makes no sense if I’m shot the first thing to come to mind is hold where I been shot and why would the police move the gun on the other side wouldn’t they have moved it closer to his body to make it look like he did have it
Why would the Police toss the gun? It makes much more sense to 'find' the gun on the floor where Duggan fell as if dropped from his hand after he was shot. The gun being tossed undermines the justifiable shooting argument so there is no logical reason for the Police to claim Duggan tossed it.
Exactly what i've been saying. If the gun is not in the scene there's no justification for lethal force so to move it away makes zero sense. I've heard of planting evidence in something like this but to remove evidence is just nonsense.
I was living in Woodgreen at the time and I remember the active targeting of black men in the area by the Metpolice who used everything from police helicopters to target and harass individuals and the community to street level harassment of drivers and pedestrians. The air support unit, police helicopter, would fly over Tottenham every Sunday from 10pm until 2am or later to 'use up' their quota of fuel. The fact that it disturbed thousands with their low level and very noisy hover was something they apparently did as an antagonistic act towards locals. The Metpolice used enormous amounts of resources to harass play with the lives of locals. They targeted school children, took their biometrics and literally built their gang matrix database on the back of black school children they intercepted at the school gates.
You live in area where probably 99% of crime is committed by black men but complain police stop search black men...he was a criminal and known to guns fuc4 him
Everyone knows the met police are the most racist police force in the UK, and even putting that aside they have continuously abused their power and used excessive force in general.
Yes, active targeting of black men because funnily enough - they commit most of the time. If it was English people doing disproportionately more crime then they would be under threat too.
You digital forensic detectives have done a fine job. This is the kind of stuff I’ve contemplated doing as well. It would be much more fulfilling than just doing VFX for ads and marketing material.
This is so detailed, it’s very impressive.. there are some over reaching statements such as “There are only two options” and both options lead to Duggan being unarmed when shot, but the police moving the gun isn’t a direct indicator that Duggan was unarmed when shot.. That aside, this is some good work!!
Exactly, likely an officer who was securing him kicked or threw it to clear it. adrenaline could make you forget details like this, especially years later.
This is propaganda by the Duggan family layers, there is nothing impressive about it. I hope knowing that fact may make you pause a bit to consider the people who just intentionally misled you with this video to be crooks and scum. Forensic in their name is laughable, but hey, you bought it.
I haven't watched all this because at the beginning you state the shot guy acquired a gun and was being followed by Police. Of course no one will have sympathy for the dead guy or the idiots that rioted after it and spent years in jail. If you play with fire you are going to get burnt, right? It's very sad that these kids think they can commit criminality and not expect to face the consequences. The Police were faced with a difficult situation and someone who was a dangerous criminal got shot. Happens all the time and you have to wonder what these criminals are thinking when they think they want to play with fire.
"It's very sad that these kids think they can commit criminality and not expect to face the consequences." Tell me where in UK law it says the consequence for crime is death.
This murderer? Not forgotten through his murderer son?... The glamification of gangsters and violence needs to stop. Our police aren't like American officers, he was shot because he was carrying a pistol with the intention to murder that day. & when it came down to the police officer fearing for their lives they made the right decision at the time.
If I was carrying an illegal weapon and as soon as I saw police stop my minicab, I would either try to hide it in the car or throw it out by opening its door immediately, but on the other hand if I had nothing on me I would stay put in the cab, wait for officers to interrogate and find out what was all that commotion about, so from this video it seems he was carrying an illegal fire arm, which risks high probability getting shot first. Whether he was going to use it or not.
Simple rule in life: don’t be a criminal. Use your life to do something positive. If you do that, the world will be a better place, and you’ll be happier.
Wow you've really solved all the problems in society. Why didn't anyone think of that before? Such nuance and thought in your comment. You're gonna be making waves in sociology and criminology when they hear about this
I think we can all agree that Duggan was a fine upstanding member of the community who played an active part in being a role model for all the youngsters of the borough. He actively encouraged and enriched the area with his good humour to his fellow man and his selfless concern for all. Some however may disagree......
He seen the gun at the suspects waist being raised as, Duggan was throwing it. The officer reacted to that motion by raising his carbine to an aim position an closing his left eye but not fully acquiring, Duggan in his sights, firing a shot into the arm of, Duggan and then again into his chest all within 1.5 seconds. That's very fast. Bullets are not computer lasers an don't go in straight lines through people. The idea there's some elaborate conspiracy that an officer threw a firearm into a public park an beyond the area of control is laughable. Lesson to be learned, Don't reach for your gun and don't run at armed police 🙄
spot on . i had a friend once that was stopped by armed police after they were checked and cleared he asked an officer what would have happened if they had panicked and legged it the officer calmly remarked they would have shot them.
@@kirkhunter146 The citizen that took the video ran out of space or stopped the video is more likely. If it really was continuous then he\she will still have the original. I see at least 4 civilians in the public park during the time they claim the gun was thrown by officers yet no one came forward to say the police threw a gun into the park. The tinfoil hat gymnastics are laughable too.
Career criminal and everyone goes to war. If this was a student or a doctor there would be silence. Mad how people always rally around the worst people.
Ur telling me if a law-abiding university student was unlawfully killed it wouldn't spark up a reaction??? Also students and doctors don't end up in these predicaments so that was a silly example
Don't you think we should hold the police to account when they make mistakes and when inquests make bad decisions regarding these mistakes. You won't ever find yourself in the same situation as Duggan but you sure as hell could be impacted by a culture of policing that lets mistaken go, right?
@@bordedup546 as an ex police officer of 28 years mostly in firearms I can say yes - of course there should be accountability - but I can also say that knife and gun crime is mostly committed by aggressive blacks Your move
@@djscoah8037 Firstly, respect to you for what you did. Secondly, the law doesn't say "if you're a gangster and carry firearms, we can shoot you if we want and any inquiry into our conduct that confirms this stance is not to be question". So no, it's not that simple because the law doesn't agree with you. Thirdly, it's concerning that a former armed officer is throwing down the gauntlet to strangers on RU-vid about whether gun crime is committed mostly by aggressive blacks or not
@@bordedup546 it’s not a challenge it’s a statement of fact and one which is replicated in every city globally - just check the statistics and the prison populations all Over the world Each situation must be dealt with given the information available and within the law or we all lose There is no campaign of summary judgement and justice anywhere - if an individual officer sees fit to “execute” somebody then that officer should of course feel the full weight of the law and should be cast out and ostracised by his colleagues The reality is I’m afraid that young black men are hyper aggressive hyper sexual and in the main have no respect for or understanding of authority - we see this from school age right the way through to adulthood and again it’s a global phenomenon Street gangs and knife and gun users are not generally white
"Police officers then shouted at the taxi driver to not look at Mr Duggan. He told the inquest that an armed officer said that if he looked at in the direction of Mr Duggan he would be shot. When the driver looked at Mr Duggan a second time he was moved and made to face the other way with his back toward the 29-year-old's body. He said he did not know why the police officers did not want him to look at Mr Duggan but said it could have been because they did not what him to see what they were doing."
@@louistracy6964 this should've been enough evidence to take actions against the officers, as this isn't normal behavior and assuming they could prove the two's weren't related it would correlate to a criminal behavior.
Until evidence proves otherwise, it is reasonable to regard the taxi driver as an associate of Duggan. It is a prevalent practice among criminals to establish relationships with taxi drivers and compensate them generously for their services, providing a discreet means to facilitate their illicit activities. In many instances, taxi drivers are fully aware of their involvement in criminal acts when transporting individuals of questionable character. In fact, I am aware of several instances where drug dealers, for instance, rely on the same taxi drivers to aid them in executing delivery and retrieval operations.
Who's to say he had to be that far out of the minivan to chuck the gun? With cars suddenly surrounding the cab and it being pulled over, he likely knew it was police stopping him before he opened that door. In the animation he gets his full body out, stops to look around, then chucks the gun. He would have had ample time and room in the van to chuck the gun that far with the door cracked or as he was opening it. In this situation, the police would at best have had an opportunity to see his arm stick out and a black object go flying, with the possibility of him not having had his arm out at all. The officer's testimony of him making out the gun would still make no sense in this scenario if his testimony is trusted, but nothing says he's not just trying to cover his butt. In any case, the weather, birds (or any other objects in the air), or tunnel vision on the suspected armed individual could have let the gun fly by unnoticed. I don't disagree, it is extremely unlikely he was shot while holding the gun. And with the rigorous review and investigation standards the architects go through, this exact scenario was probably considered, and the problem in the animation was just due to restrictions in animation/other factors I haven't considered. But I don't feel that this video communicates well enough the reasons why we are able to rule out that the gun had been thrown. The final part with the examination of the video on the other hand; Yeah that settlement was sealed and signed when that came to light, anything to keep that detail from getting more attention. If no-one else reported on it before, I can only imagine the reaction by the team/team member on who picked up on that.
I agree with you. It is highly likelt the gun was thrown much earlier than is being considered in this video. The door did not need to be fully open, and the vehicle did not need to have reach a complete standstill. The video does not explore whether the gun was thrown the moment the 'hard stop' had started. A savvy Duggan realised he was being boxed in and threw the gun forward, out of the slightly opened door. But then, lets be realistic here, this video is more or less complete nonsense from start to finish. Just college kids that have managed to get their hands on some hi tech equipment and wasted a lot of their own time.
@@shaunbanner6774 you have a confused view of what I said...! I'm not talking about the subject, Mark Duggan, I'm only talking about the standard of the way the video has been produced, the graphics, sciences, AI and narration....! My personal opinion about the subject Mark Duggan is neither here or there.
@@johncockiner8460 no i dont think so he came out and had his hands in his pocket and there was no intent to kill him it was luck If he did stay in the cab and put his hands up they wudve arrested him like normal thats what happens all the time no ones exclusive
I'll grant that this investigation was incredibly detailed and thoughtful. But nevertheless, I really fail to see the significance of this investigation. Does anybody REALLY expect law enforcement to conclude that this was an individual who was just traveling home after some perfectly innocent errand? If so, why were they following him, and why did they perform a hard stop? Also, why did he keep his left hand invisible to officers? Why did he exit the vehicle in a challenging, aggressive manner? Why didn't he just stay put in the vehicle and put his hands up? That would have been the expected response of an innocent man. I don't think it matters much whether LE planted the gun or not. That's not germane to the killing at all. The facts were: 1) this was a man who was a serious threat to all LE officers conducting the hard stop; 2) he certainly acted like he was ready to shoot it out with LE; and 3) because of #1 and #2, LE was perfectly justified in neutralizing the threat to their safety and the safety of bystanders. If he didn't want to get shot to death, he shouldn't have exited the van in the manner that he did. That's just Common Sense 101. This is not about the question of LE impropriety even if it occurred, which is speculative, but rather suspect behavior lending definite credence to the thesis that this was a dangerous, armed individual that was and should have been perceived to be a threat to LE and bystanders alike.
I'm from Chile, if a similar case were to happen the guy would never receive the same level of support from the public as the man in this video because it's obvious he was a dangerous person and probably a criminal. As you say, his actions make no sense, and getting shot was the obvious outcome of this situation.
@@elfelix8843 well in this case it's clear there is some level of covering up the truth, that's why this case caused such a stir. The biggest riot in British history literally shut down London for weeks
@@elfelix8843 In the UK we don't decide whether people should be executed based on how much public sympathy they might receive. Different culture I guess.
“I was left with the impression of some uncertainty about precisely what was being investigated, on whose behalf, for what purpose, and by what means.” There’s the story. I’ll just say I would like to see the same energy from the community and experts put into reconstructions and remembrance for: Brian Douglas Joy Gardner Shiji Lapite Ibrahima Sey to name but a few.
According to the true crime video i just watched and a comment just below yours that confirms it, the window of that kind of cab couldnt open wide enough for that.
No chance 1 windows dont go up down on them cars only slightly outwards only way is open door slidding it but police would of seen it thrown in there view there is no possivle way him having gun police murdererd him cold blood and put the gun there v53 officer already stated he saw the gun in hand but missed him throwing it thats not possible if they see then they must of seen throw so its BS
other than the fact the cab window couldn't been open'd at time, it would be quite hard to throw it in that position, as it would take quite the amount of force, as you have the resistence of the wind caused by the car moving.
@@notscar He opened the door not the window. The gun was tossed over a fence some 20 feet distance. The wind resistance is not worth mentioning. My Grandmother could throw it further.
Great analytics but I feel there is still so much room for the gun to have been thrown as he was getting shot. Just because you've been shot doesn't mean you can't throw a gun as a twitch. Just because the officers are present and facing the right direction doesn't mean their eyes weren't fixed on the target and not on a small object flying through the air after a gunshot and adrenaline coursing through their system. Very easy to miss things in a moment like this.
@@unknownprofit3553The officers not seeing is actually fairly reasonable. They were inexperienced, poorly trained and under intense pressure all whilst trying to remain focused on Duggan himself. I can't remember the name of it but I highly recommend checking out the gorrila suit briefcase experiment to see just how easy it is to miss something extremely obvious when you're focused on something else.
@@charlottesshit he’d shoot you in a heartbeat if he could’ve had your car to get out that situation, stop being a BLM bumlicker 😂 can’t call him a silly twat if he wasn’t one
@@charlottesshit hey :). Instead of being an ignorant and brainwashed liberal and defending vile criminals who are just menaces to society; please educate yourself.
The first problem is in the method of making the traffic stop. Friendly fire is virtually guaranteed if the suspect even tries to show he's dropping a weapon he's carrying. So every officer involved is already flooded with adrenaline, and narrowly focused on hands and face of the person getting out of the van. The officers are hyper focused on reading any clues of body language and fully aware they are in the line of fire of multiple weapons. I can easily believe that even four officers might have missed the toss of the pistol.
I've not read any news or evidence he was an arm's dealer? He collected/purchased this gun according to police, legal proceedings etc.. Read the reasoning is thought to be his cousin was murdered, stabbing, possible wanting revenge or that he was a little paranoid after. His prior convictions were a cannabis possession and handling stolen goods (not theft or proven theft), nothing violent or gun related, from what I've read. 29yrs if age? His maternal aunts husband was a crime boss, don't know how well he knew him/if involved.
It's not about who he was, it's about how the police acted. If we start letting them kill criminals with no oversight, it won't be long and they'll be shooting innocents in their homes and beds, just like in the US.
This has potential. Gotta wrap my head around a few things. So the shooting officer says he saw Duggan holding a gun and shot him, should the gun now not be right where he lays? (Unless he was in the motion of throwing it and getting shot didn’t interrupt that) Why would the police now move the gun and cause the gun throwing issue? He must of been throwing the gun?! Say he stepped out of the car unarmed and was murdered, would the police not plant the gun next to Duggan to make it look like he had it drawn like the shooting officer said? Perhaps that is a harder frame to make. IMHO I think Duggan chucked the gun out of the van before exiting and was gunned down by a cowardly officer. They didn’t see the gun thrown because it was chucked quickly out the window while they where focused on the hard stop. The fact that all four officers didn’t see him throw a gun yet the shooting officer saw him with a gun in his hand does not fit. Someone is probably lying and it is the shooting officer. He has full incentive and motivation to protect himself. All I know about this is this video. Just my first opinion. Would like to know more and hear replies. ✌️
Agreed, it is much much more likely the shooting officer lied about seeing the gun to make sure he had a lawful reason to fire than the police moving the gun. I conclude he threw the gun immediately as the door opened which tallies with his right hand being out of his pockets and him turning to the left as soon as he leaves the cab. The officer fired (probably because the victim was moving toward him with his left hand in his pocket) and he wanted to make sure he wouldn’t come under scrutiny so he said he saw the gun.
How the hell does a normal every day young man get into this situation? Was he a regular person ow nah he got a gun wtf this isn’t regular behaviour….. normal people don’t want a gun or weapon period. If he was a completely innocent person going about his day then this situation is nuts…. Got a funny feeling he must have been a bit dodgy in the first instance. He should not have died if only he was not in this situation 🥺 The fact a gun is a thing in his life is not usual for a regular individual… this is the main point…. Why you not getting this fact?
He was in a gang for sure but only had misdemeanours like marijuanna possession and smt else minor. I think the riots and anger rises from the fact that guns are very common in the UK amongst both black and white parties, and trident the unit monitoring gun control in black communities resulted in an unlawful killing of a black man when there hasn’t been anything similar to that with a white man. But I also think it could’ve been unlucky circumstances that it was a black man who was killed first. Furthermore the way the police handled the aftermath, was disregarding and disrespectful if a white man had been unlawfully killed like that there probably would’ve been a more serious course of action and apology from the police. Only once the rioting began did they start to take the case seriously
Also it feels like you are saying that buying a gun should result in a death penalty ? Because that’s what’s occurred. Duggan was not holding a gun when he was shot, and he was not posing any threat to the police and was killed for buying a gun. And it was ruled a lawful killing. Imagine being his family members your loved one has been killed for a mistake that should’ve got him 3-7 years max. And no justice was provided. Very sad case
I’m still massively confused ? He was a career known criminal which in itself doesn’t mean he deserved to be shot, he was known to have access to firearms which increases the risk hence the armed police, he was armed at the time but threw it away ?
@@jessicapearson7721 ah yes, the intricate examination which pulls together as much data as possible and never makes a full claim on anyone being at fault is biased. Not you and your lunatic laughing at the murder of someone obviously, you're the stable genius that is never biased.
A couple of issues here, the gun could have been thrown by Duggan before the police and Duggan exited their vehicles (possibly before the minicab came to a complete stop). Secondly, there was no DNA from Duggan found on the firearm, which means he was unlikely holding it in the correct way (palm around the pistol grip and finger anywhere near the trigger/trigger guard).
If it was thrown before then they shot an unarmed man and One officer committed perjury by lying in court that he saw Duggan with a gun in hand Besides the windows didn’t open for the minicab so that’s unlikely The officer that shot him said he saw the door slide open Meaning duggan couldn’t have thrown the gun
I live in Tottenham literally 300 meters away from where Mark was shot and remember the nights of rioting. its surreal watching this, of a spot I walk past regularly. Even more so, a friend has just moved in to a flat directly, not near, but 'directly' opposite where the hard stop happened, where I was pointing it out to him only a month ago the significance of his view.
We don't use the death sentence here, and we usually have a judge decide the punishment, not the police. Doesn't matter what you do, you have the right to a fair trial. We CANNOT let armed police decide who's dangerous and who isn't, because we'd end up like the US
Its hard to say what really happened without footage of the exact moments the stop happens, theres a window where Mark could potentially have exited the vehicle first and thrown it as the officers are getting out, its unlikely they'd have a full view of his side of the vehicle until they've properly exited theirs, the problem is the window is only hypothetical and even then very brief, I dont know how reasonable it is that Mark would be able to exit first given that he wouldn't have known what was happening whereas the officers would, it also means that by the time he was shot nobody had seen a firearm and they've lied to the courts, which is a pretty serious problem. Mark was of course known to the police previously and they were going into this with the impression he was armed, hence it being part of Trident to begin with, I think the most likely scenario either way is that the officer that shot him was going to whether he saw a gun or not, assuming they'd find one on him and be able to justify it after the fact. I dont see how anything else would be possible, they either did see it be thrown or didn't see it at all, which in my eyes means they shot an unarmed man in both scenarios. The real lesson is to not give the police suspicion you're carrying a firearm I guess, it doesnt end well either way.
Disagree that 'he wouldn't have known what was happening' Of course he knew. He had just picked up a gun and then three vehicles force you to the pavement. How could he not know?
@TizerisT. I see what you mean, I've left what I said too open to interpretation, what I'm really saying is that he didn't have time to sit down before and plan how it was going to play out, whereas the police did, he would have had a maximum of maybe 10-15 seconds to react to it, if you get what I mean?
@@lewisblackwiththenicehair 10s-15s at best!!! I'd say not even that, fight or flight kicking in, we talking miliseconds, notices car breaking and feeling the sudden change force of enertia from taxi driver slamming in the breaks, to maybe hearing the screach of the police cars if traveling at a avg. speed of ~40mph, 40mph > 0mph few seconds, then Mr Duggan knew what was up.. Then the confusion, adrenaline flowing, shouts and screams from the police, Lots of confusion as thats the whole idea, idk if they popped any of the taxis windscreens.. All this is in a matter of moments, all sence of time slows down during hightened states miliseconds seem like seconds, to sliding the side door open to leaping out, to then feeling a burning sensation as a bullet travels through bicep then another into cheast.. i have no doubt they were briefed prior if scinareo X Y or Z happens, this is what we do... They had intel saying he was armed do you think they would give an armed Black man a moment to freeze put your hands up or get down on his face?? or do you think they went in to kill (eliminate the PRECEVED threat) They went to do their job which is to protect save life EXCEPT when a clear threat is PERCEIVED in which case they will simple Execute their roles as they have been trainned to do... Im no expert on policing procedures but i know how a human thinks in such situations... fight or flight... path of least resistance. PRECEVED Threat meet with a well rehursed, almost automatic response, thats what happened imho. Then they made the scene fit the desired scinareo..
@@lewisblackwiththenicehair I get what you mean. The whole brain process of 'Fuck! Poilce! Better throw this' is roughly 2-3 seconds though. I cant really imagine any other scenario that involves him not throwing it.
Most people in the uk have never held or used a firearm….when you look down the sights you focus in and you lose awareness enough to miss things around you. Just trying to stay alive when you know you are hard stopping a known criminal for a possible firearm offence is enough
It’s a really hard question but, because of the text sent by mr Duggan he knew the police where following him so I think its possible it was thrown as the taxi came to a standstill with the sliding door open enough as the police are exiting there vehicles.
the thug deserved it. people scream and attack police for quite simply doing their job to get back to their own family. shameful, good job on the cops for keeping people safe.
I'd say the most likely scenario is that he exited the minicab with his hand in his pocket, the officer assumed he was holding the weapon concealed (maybe not unreasonably), and shot him. Once they found this wasn't the case they retrieved the gun from the cab and planted it on the grass, during those seconds that the video was (in retrospect after this analysis) obviously cut. Interesting that there's no mention of testimony from the cab driver. Surely the officer involved should, at least, have been hung out to dry for shooting in such a way as to kill or injure a colleague (which he did) and / or the cab driver.
In his evidence the taxi driver told the inquest jury sitting in central London; - He did not see Duggan open or close the shoe box, inside which the gun had been handed over by a man in Leyton. - At no stage did he see Duggan with anything in his hands, nor did he see the passenger holding a weapon in or outside the cab. - When stopped by police Duggan raced out of the rear of the cab to try and escape. Once out of the car Duggan did not raise his arm, nor did the cab driver see him make a sudden or threatening movement towards the armed officers. - The cab driver said he heard the men who stopped his cab shouting but he did not hear them shout "police" to identify themselves as officers of the law. He said he understands 40% of the English language, but knows the word police. - The taxi driver did not see a gun flying in the air after police fired. The gun, wrapped in a sock, was found on the other side of a fence 10 to 20 feet away from where the fatally injured Duggan fell to the pavement.
Nah. Not according to actual evidence. Most likely explanation is that he was a criminal trying to ditch the gun. Your claims are not built on evidence, they are built on uncertainty and confusion. And you are finding a way to believe what you want to believe. He was a known criminal and got what he deserved.
@@Winser22 you should probably watch the video. You can believe that it's right for cops to execute people in the street but also acknowledge the glaring inconsistencies between the officer's version of events and the evidence, including witness testimony from the cab driver.
Although I was alive when the riots happened, I was young and I'm not British, so I didn't know about what happened many years. I found out through a video essay chronicling the death of Mark Duggan and the the riots but for some reason, this analysis made me so much angrier than any emotionally charged essay could've. This case was so blatantly mishandled by not just the police but also the media. It's shameful, infuriating and saddening. I hope that the Duggans may one day get the justice they and Mark deserve.
