Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday June 11 2020, @02:36AM   Printer-friendly
from the blender-was-used-for-what dept.

This is fascinating look at a crime scene recreated with Blender1 (and other tools) from publicly available information.

https://www.blendernation.com/2020/06/10/forensic-reconstruction-the-killing-of-mark-duggan/:

View the interactive feature on the Guardian here.

Click here to explore the scene in a virtual reality 360° video.

Read about our investigation in depth in our methodology report.

Read our letter to the Independent Office of Police Conduct.

[...] On 4 August 2011, Mark Duggan was shot to death by police in Tottenham, north London, after undercover officers forced the minicab in which he was travelling to pull over.

As the vehicle came to a stop, Duggan opened the rear door, and leapt out. Within seconds, an advancing officer known only by his codename, V53, had fired twice. The first shot passed through Duggan's arm, and struck a second officer, known as W42, in his underarm radio. The second, fatal shot hit Duggan in his chest.

V53 would later tell investigators that he saw a gun in Duggan's hand, and felt his life to be in danger. Duggan was being monitored by Operation Trident, a controversial unit of the Metropolitan Police focused on gun crime in London's black communities; firearms officers had followed him from a nearby meeting, at which he had reportedly collected a gun. But following the shooting, the gun in question was found around seven metres away from where Duggan had been shot, on a nearby patch of grass. But no officers reported that they saw Duggan throw the gun, or make any kind of throwing motion.

1Blender is a free and open source 3D modelling, animation and rendering solution, that runs on Windows, Mac and Linux.

There are a number of iffy/confirmation bias conclusions, but they also identified irrefutable evidence that led to the family of Mark Duggan receiving compensation for his death.

The 23 minute video is presented well and well-worth watching, as they collect images for photogrammetry, stabilise shaky footage and recreate 3D walk-throughs in VR from multiple perspectives.

They also make the .blend files available for anyone to conduct their own investigations.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by janrinok on Thursday June 11 2020, @06:48AM (14 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 11 2020, @06:48AM (#1006197) Journal

    What justice was Duggan denied? What did he intend to do with the weapon, a weapon that had been intentionally converted to fire live ammunition?

    Why do Duggan's family deserve financial restitution because Duggan was a criminal? From the Independent [independent.co.uk]:

    Mark Duggan was a core member of one of the most violent gangs in Europe – a group linked to two murders and numerous other shootings during a murderous feud with rivals – an inquest into his death has heard.

    Mr Duggan was believed by police to be responsible for shooting a man in a nightclub and firing a gun in a car park in the months before he was fatally shot by armed officers, sparking the riots in 2011 that spread nationwide.

    The 29-year-old was one of six members of the Tottenham Man Dem gang who were being watched during a four-day surveillance operation in August 2011, and was considered the man most likely to get a gun, according to documents and evidence on Monday.

    The gang had links with Turkish gangs and was responsible for drug distribution in London, a senior officer told the inquest. TMD were “undoubtedly the most prominent criminals in London” with a “propensity to use firearms and extreme violence”, according to the documents shown to the jury.

    “They were considered the most violent people in London, outside London and stretching across Europe,” Acting Detective Superintendent Michael Foote told the hearing at the High Court. He said Mr Duggan was among the core of 48 members of the 100-strong gang and was involved in gun crime, the supply of ammunition and class-A drugs.

    Why should the UK tax payer have to pay his family anything? This event occurred not because of racism but because of criminality, in my opinion. The findings of the Independent Police Complaints Commission are freely available [statewatch.org].

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Flamebait=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MadTinfoilHatter on Thursday June 11 2020, @07:02AM (6 children)

    by MadTinfoilHatter (4635) on Thursday June 11 2020, @07:02AM (#1006199)

    What justice was Duggan denied?

    Um... The justice of being tried in a court of law, and being given a sentence appropriate to the crime he had committed, rather than just being shot dead in the street? It baffles the mind that this is something that needs to be explained to some people.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @10:16AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @10:16AM (#1006227)

      It's not legal for the public to be in possession of a handgun in the UK. Carrying a handgun or machete should see the carrier instantly spotted and dropped and there's no question Duggan was in possession of the firearm.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:36PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:36PM (#1006392)

        It's not legal for the public to be in possession of a handgun in the UK. Carrying a handgun or machete should see the carrier instantly spotted and dropped and there's no question Duggan was in possession of the firearm.

        I didn't realize that summary execution [wikipedia.org] was the penalty for gun possession in the UK. You learn something new every day. Thanks AC!

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @02:16AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @02:16AM (#1006734)

          It's covered by the Criminal Law Act 1967:

          A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime.

          So you did learn something. There are no exceptions for private citizens to own any handgun other than a musket, even most starting pistols are banned.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 12 2020, @01:15PM (2 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 12 2020, @01:15PM (#1006845) Journal

          It wasn't a summary execution. The officer concerned believed his life to be in danger. He is authorised to open fire. If you are faced with an armed police officer - DO AS YOU ARE TOLD.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @09:24PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @09:24PM (#1007086)

            Ja, mein Fuhrer! Sieg Heil!

            Might makes right and principles be damned.

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday June 13 2020, @07:14AM

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 13 2020, @07:14AM (#1007342) Journal

              Read the IPCC document I linked to. Read what precautions were in place to protect the innocent - including the person being detained.

              Armed police operations are relatively rare in the UK. Most policemen are not armed other than with a stick and perhaps a pepper spray. But if you are faced with a dozen or so armed policemen telling you to lie down then you are well advised to do as you have been asked. Anything that you do that could been seen by any of those policemen as being a threat may result in them opening fire. Note it wasn't a hail of bullets as we sometimes see in the US, but 2 aimed shots.

              It seems like you are advocating that until a suspect has actually opened fire and killed someone then the police shouldn't take any action whatsoever. I disagree with that view.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @09:27AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 11 2020, @09:27AM (#1006220)

    And now I know, why it is, that the janrinok is a persistent opponent to truth and justice, and insists on STEM, instead of truth and justice. Admit is, janrinok, you are a bloody "Law and Order" ferkin limey, the kind that likes to bopp about the Welsh, the Scots, and especially the Irish. Yes, I know you type, and I only hope the international reaction against bloody British racism will sot your dick, you blimey cratich! Bloody Pom. Fucking Brit! Damn English! And your courgie, too.

    • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday June 12 2020, @01:23PM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 12 2020, @01:23PM (#1006846) Journal

      Your style of writing gives you away. If I have offended you I must be doing something right.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jelizondo on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:41PM (4 children)

    by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 11 2020, @04:41PM (#1006399) Journal

    The fact that a person has committed a crime does not strip that person of his rights. Labeling someone a “criminal” does not mean that the Police should fail to follow lawful procedures. Think about it: if Police uses unlawful procedures it becomes criminal as well.

    Police only should fire when fired upon. I know it is hard, but that is the job they choose to do; if they think it is unfair to risk their lives, they can become bus drivers or whatever. Shooting someone because some policeman thinks that person is armed leads to senseless killing, many unarmed people have been shot because policemen are happy to shoot first and ask questions later.

    • (Score: 1) by taylormc on Thursday June 11 2020, @07:29PM (1 child)

      by taylormc (5751) on Thursday June 11 2020, @07:29PM (#1006539)

      It is very simplistic to suggest that police must not fire unless actually fired upon first. The law permits self defence where the defender believes that he/she is in imminent danger of attack. It's clear that the officer concerned claims that he, or someone else present, was in imminent danger of being shot by Duggan.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @04:22AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @04:22AM (#1006765)

        No one else would be able to claim self-defense if they did what cops do. I can't just shoot anyone I want because I feel they threaten me. Cops can shoot people based on the theoretical possibility that the person has a gun and might intend to harm the cops with the gun. Even if someone has a gun, that alone doesn't justify shooting them on the spot. Again, ordinary people can't do that.

        You want cops to be able to defend themselves like anyone else should be able to do? Okay. End qualified immunity, require body cameras on all cops under penalty of law, and have special prosecutors prosecute any cops who are accused of violating the law. Only then can the scales begin to be balanced. Until then, the system will continue to absolve cops even if what they do is murder, not self-defense.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @02:32AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2020, @02:32AM (#1006740)

      The officer believed Duggan was armed and posed an imminent threat, that is the legal test and the killing was ruled lawful. Firearms officers are attached to specialist units and were present at this incident for good reason.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @12:10PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @12:10PM (#1007731)

        This officer doesn't sound like someone who should be a firearms officer. Anyone that sloppy is likely to get either himself, a fellow officer, or a civilian killed, and explains exactly why you don't shoot without knowing what is behind your target.