Mark Duggan shooting inquest in London finally starts...

[DaveCinzano]

Can anyone clear up for me why there only seemed to be 10 people on the determination notes, and not 12?

Because there were ten jurors not twelve?

 

[sojourner]

Because there were ten jurors not twelve?

You need 12 though don't you? Or am I missing something?

 

[DaveCinzano]

You need 12 though don't you? Or am I missing something?

On skim-reading, the Coroners Act says only "not less than seven".

http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1988/ukpga_19880013_en_1.html#pb3-l1g8

 

[likesfish]

I rather thought any form of expanding ammunition was internationally banned for military use.

Hague convention the met are not classed as a military and niether are criminals as long as the met domt appear on a battlefield they are legal.

 

[sojourner]

On skim-reading, the Coroners Act says only "not less than seven".

http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1988/ukpga_19880013_en_1.html#pb3-l1g8

Ta.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Hague convention the met are not classed as a military and niether are criminals as long as the met domt appear on a battlefield they are legal.

Yeah, interesting contradiction isn't it? Use it against soldiers and it's a war crime, use it against unarmed civillians and it's 'lawful killing'.

Coming up next, facillitating peaceful protest via the tactical use of landmines.

 

[DrRingDing]

That's how they get away with using chemical weapons on us. Banned for military use.

 

[DrRingDing]

SLAF's statement: http://www.slaf.org.uk/post/72862697449/duggan-verdict-of-lawful-killing-reveals-the-depth-of

 

[8ball]

Yeah, interesting contradiction isn't it? Use it against soldiers and it's a war crime, use it against unarmed civillians and it's 'lawful killing'.

Why are they banned for use in the military? If someone was pointing a rocket launcher at me I'd definitely want hollow points.

 

[brogdale]

Hat tip to Mr Bone.... he reminds us of the power of genetics; Littlejohn's father was filth.

 

[Grace Johnson]

Hat tip to Mr Bone.... he reminds us of the power of genetics; Littlejohn's father was filth.

Fuckin hell.... that is properly disgusting. How the actual fuck did that get printed?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I rather thought any form of expanding ammunition was internationally banned for military use.

That's kind of my point. A fully-jacketed round can't expand, so:
a) It's more likely to give a through-and-through injury, and
b) it can't dump all the kinetic energy into a small area of the body.
Of course, you then have the problem of over-penetration with larger rounds, but at least you don't have fragmentation, which you'll get off of unjacketed rounds, or internal cavities caused by expansion, which you'll get off of semi-jacketed rounds.
Me, I never used semi-jacketed hollow points when shooting. Apart from anything else, jacketed rounds feed much better in semi-auto and automatic weapons (less friction between the projectile part of the round and the feed ramp).

 

[SpookyFrank]

Why are they banned for use in the military? If someone was pointing a rocket launcher at me I'd definitely want hollow points.

Hollowpoints are harder to remove surgically than ordinary rounds, and cause more extensive injuries. I guess the theory is once you get shot with any kind of round you're out of the game for the forseeable future, and it's unsporting to cause more damage to someone than necessary to achieve this aim. Of course if you kill them then that's fine.

 

[likesfish]

Why are they banned for use in the military? If someone was pointing a rocket launcher at me I'd definitely want hollow points.

It because the orginal dums dums may have caused extra suffering.
Killing people is fine.
Inflicting extra injurys on them not fine.
Also the fact it takes most armys around a 10000 bullets to kill anyone the extra cost of hollow points isnt worth it.
Machine guns artillery and grenades and the major killers.

If the met were anywhere else this wouldnt even be news

 

[SpookyFrank]

If the met were anywhere else this wouldnt even be news

Indeed. I can't imagine a headline in the US saying 'LAPD kills unarmed black man', it'd be like leading with the news that a plumber in Minneapolis had fixed a toilet.

 

[8ball]

Hollowpoints are harder to remove surgically than ordinary rounds, and cause more extensive injuries. I guess the theory is once you get shot with any kind of round you're out of the game for the forseeable future, and it's unsporting to cause more damage to someone than necessary to achieve this aim. Of course if you kill them then that's fine.

The thing is, from the perspective of the safety of your army, taking an assailant out of the game a second or 5 quicker can make a huge difference. And I've seen the kind of damage a jacketed round from an MP5 will do on a slab of ballistic gel unless it's a graze it's either an amputation or a fatality without body armour.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why are they banned for use in the military? If someone was pointing a rocket launcher at me I'd definitely want hollow points.

Because of the injuries they cause.
And guess who pioneered them (albeit by accident originally)? That's right! The British army, back in the days when we first started using bullets rather than ball in India. The arsenal at DumDum tended to underfill bullet moulds, leaving a concave depression at the head of the bullet, which people soon found out caused the bullet to fragment on impact, meaning that many injuries that would usually have been non-fatal weren't.
And from there the idea of using fully-jacketed ammo was born, as was the serious design of bullets.

 

[8ball]

It because the orginal dums dums may have caused extra suffering.
Killing people is fine.
Inflicting extra injurys on them not fine.
Also the fact it takes most armys around a 10000 bullets to kill anyone the extra cost of hollow points isnt worth it.
Machine guns artillery and grenades and the major killers.

Apparently the US use hollow points in sniper rifles - not sure if that's just a matter of openly flouting the rules.
But anyway, modern weaponry is sufficiently nasty that rules from 120 years ago that were drafted with explosive rounds in mind (which the military openly use) seem a bit pointless.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Indeed. I can't imagine a headline in the US saying 'LAPD kills unarmed black man', it'd be like leading with the news that a plumber in Minneapolis had fixed a toilet.

Rodney King?

 

[likesfish]

Unfortunatly thats true the americans have invented the "no knock warrant"
When they steam into a house unannouced often in plain clothes
In a country where people are often armed in no way could this end badly

 

[8ball]

The arsenal at DumDum tended to underfill bullet moulds, leaving a concave depression at the head of the bullet...

Ah, hence the name...

 

[DotCommunist]

Rodney King?

its a fair comparison isn't it? police filmed doing a mass beatdown on one bloke, aquittal of those who did it sparks massive riots, anyone caught rioting or post riot slapped with a huge stretch

 

[ViolentPanda]

The thing is, from the perspective of the safety of your army, taking an assailant out of the game a second or 5 quicker can make a huge difference. And I've seen the kind of damage a jacketed round from an MP5 will do on a slab of ballistic gel unless it's a graze it's either an amputation or a fatality without body armour.

A hit with a fully-jacketed assault rifle or pistol round is traumatic enough that there's little difference in the speed of "taking an assailant out". Hollow points are unnecessary unless you're looking to make kill shots every time, which is why game hunters use them.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Apparently the US use hollow points in sniper rifles - not sure if that's just a matter of openly flouting the rules.

Military snipers tend to "roll their own" in terms of ammo, or have specific preferences for different jobs.

 

[DrRingDing]

That's kind of my point. A fully-jacketed round can't expand, so:
a) It's more likely to give a through-and-through injury, and
b) it can't dump all the kinetic energy into a small area of the body.
Of course, you then have the problem of over-penetration with larger rounds, but at least you don't have fragmentation, which you'll get off of unjacketed rounds, or internal cavities caused by expansion, which you'll get off of semi-jacketed rounds.
Me, I never used semi-jacketed hollow points when shooting. Apart from anything else, jacketed rounds feed much better in semi-auto and automatic weapons (less friction between the projectile part of the round and the feed ramp).

*rubs thighs*

 

[scalyboy]

It because the orginal dums dums may have caused extra suffering.
Killing people is fine.
Inflicting extra injurys on them not fine.
Also the fact it takes most armys around a 10000 bullets to kill anyone the extra cost of hollow points isnt worth it.
Machine guns artillery and grenades and the major killers.

If the met were anywhere else this wouldnt even be news

Sorry if this has been covered before, but am I wrong in thinking that the idea of using hollow point ammo in these situations, is that the bullet stays in the victim's body and doesn't travel through it, going all over the place and potentially hitting others? Because that's exactly what did happen in this case, one bullet passing through Duggan's body to hit another cop (his radio), and the other finishing up in the cab, inside a bag

Or do they use hollow points because they're more likely to 'stop' the suspect?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry if this has been covered before, but am I wrong in thinking that the idea of using hollow point ammo in these situations, is that the bullet stays in the victim's body and doesn't travel through it, going all over the place and potentially hitting others? Because that's exactly what did happen in this case, one bullet hitting the another officer (his radio), and the other finishing up in the cab, inside a bag

Or is the use of hollow point ammo because they're more likely to 'stop' the suspect?

The excuse for use is the former, the actual reason is the latter.

 

[DotCommunist]

Sorry if this has been covered before, but am I wrong in thinking that the idea of using hollow point ammo in these situations, is that the bullet stays in the victim's body and doesn't travel through it, going all over the place and potentially hitting others? Because that's exactly what did happen in this case, one bullet passing through Duggan's body to hit another cop (his radio), and the other finishing up in the cab, inside a bag

Or is the use of hollow point ammo because they're more likely to 'stop' the suspect?

iirc the round that ended up in another coppers radio had gone though Duggans arm, not his torso

 

[8ball]

A hit with a fully-jacketed assault rifle or pistol round is traumatic enough that there's little difference in the speed of "taking an assailant out". Hollow points are unnecessary unless you're looking to make kill shots every time, which is why game hunters use them.

There doesn't seem to be unanimous agreement on that, the authorities who approved the use of these bullets did so based on the fact that they were designed for 'instantaneous incapacitation'.

edit: there's the over-penetration too iirc, but it was the first design feature that was mentioned in the press (not seen any mention of bullet type in the court transcripts yet)

edit2: I'm aware this is a bit of a crap post, still kind of thinking aloud over why munitions banned in warfare are ok for use on civilians

 

[littlebabyjesus]

its a fair comparison isn't it? police filmed doing a mass beatdown on one bloke, aquittal of those who did it sparks massive riots, anyone caught rioting or post riot slapped with a huge stretch

I think so. The idea that only in Britain would people care so much about an injustice meted out by the authorities on an individual is wrong, I think.