At the weekend there was an article in a broadsheet about the gun at the centre of the police shooting, that preceded the riots in London. It seems that an earlier incident may not have been properly investigated and an opportunity to take that gun out of circulation, potentially missed.
The gun, a Bruni 92 replica that had been converted to fire live ammunition was used in a 'pistol whipping' at a hairdressers and the officers who followed up the incident have been put on 'restricted duties' whilst their actions are investigated. The suggestion was that they could have found the gun and precluded the incident that led to rioting.
The story isn't very substantive and has the smell of being planted. Even if the gun had been seized after the earlier incident, why are we to suppose that Mark Duggan, if he wanted a gun wouldn't have acquired a different one? The story seems designed to distract attention from the actual shooting, immediately after which it was claimed that Duggan had fired first. Not only was this not true, it now appears the gun was in a sock, in a shoe box.
Once again it seems that armed police attending an incident have been extremely ready to open fire, presumably keyed up by the nature of their briefing. The logic appears to be that a criminal with a gun will always use it, whereas we only get that impression when considering armed police. The strategy and tactics applied in armed incidents seems at best to be childish.
If this story was planted and the finger points at the IPCC, it is a disgraceful attempt to obfuscate and distract, in a very serious inquiry. I wish they were more concerned with helping the police correct aberrant behaviour. It is what the public think they are paying for.
No comments:
Post a Comment