Mark Duggan.

stevie_r said:
I'm sure it was, it was acknowledged though that when Duggan was shot he was not in possession of a firearm or indeed anywhere near it. Therefore he was not capable of causing the death or serious injury of anyone and to shoot him exceeded minimum force. He could for example have been tazered. Clearly the copper that fired just took him out anyway or he had an ND. How his killing can therefore be declared lawful is beyond me. The rules of engagement were clearly not adhered to.

That said, the world is probably a better place without him.
Click to expand...

It was acknowledged but the basis for the Police defence was that they didn't know that. The killing was declared lawful because the jury found that the Police reasonably believed he was still in possession of the gun and the copper who shot him (V53) thought he was an imminent threat. To suggest they should have used a taser suggests they knew he didn't have the gun, was not a threat and therefore the jury who sat through 3 months of evidence and deliberated for 2 weeks were also wrong.
 
gmc40 said:
It was acknowledged but the basis for the Police defence was that they didn't know that. The killing was declared lawful because the jury found that the Police reasonably believed he was still in possession of the gun and the copper who shot him (V53) thought he was an imminent threat. To suggest they should have used a taser suggests they knew he didn't have the gun, was not a threat and therefore the jury who sat through 3 months of evidence and deliberated for 2 weeks were also wrong.
Click to expand...

Could they see his hands?
 
As with so many things there is only one person in all this who knows the truth. The officer V53 had to make a call, in a split second in what very well may have been (as he saw it) a kill or be killed situation. As it happens he was wrong but he and he alone knows his intentions. With situations like this the jury have to decide, and 6 out of 8 of them believed him (the other 2 were unsure) based on the evidence put forward. In the absence of further actual evidence as opposed to speculation and tittle tattle, that will do for me.
 
stevie_r said:
Could they see his hands?
Click to expand...

He had his mobile phone in his hand and reacted to the police in a confrontational manner. The Police knew he had a gun when he got into the taxi, but were unaware it had been tossed. It was a split second decision.

10 jury members deliberated for 3 months and 8 found the killing lawful and 2 returned an open verdict. Not one thought the killing was unlawful.

It's always a sad thing when anyone loses their life and I have sympathy for the families involved, but the verdict was the right one IMHO and I'm surprised some people are questioning it's validity just because they don't agree with it. Everyone is entitled to read the full evidence here if they so wish - http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/
 
He was a drug dealer who had a weapon, he took a chance and lost. No great loss to society at all, if anything a bonus!

Stop pandering to the criminals. Brave work done by CO19
 
Andy said:
He was a drug dealer who had a weapon, he took a chance and lost. No great loss to society at all, if anything a bonus!

Stop pandering to the criminals. Brave work done by CO19
Click to expand...

Good grief, he was a drug dealer who had had a weapon in his possession, I agree on the no great loss to society. No one is pandering to the criminals as you put it. At the time he was shot he was not a threat to anyone - the fact that he had had a weapon in his possession shortly before that doesn't mean you can shoot him. If that were the case we could have happily ended Op Banner long before the peace process started.

Officer V53 is clearly not very good at his job, but then again it wouldn't be like the police to collude on anything would it?

And just to reiterate, yes, the world is probably a much better place without Duggan in it.
 
The Jury found his killing to be lawful. The Jury system is the best way we have to decide on such matters and having sat on a Jury myself in not a completely disimillar case I can understand how difficult it can be to make a decision and to reach a suitable majority verdict.

The jury have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt to reach a proven verdict so we can only accept that this is what they did after taking into account all the evidence placed before them. I would like to believe that the Police have not hidden or falsified anything.

What I did find distasteful was the way Duggan's family and supporters acted during and after the trial. We should not be scared of clamping down on such behaviour in our courts and especially towards the Jurors. Were these people beyond comtempt of the court because we are running scared of the mob?
 
SocketRocket said:
The Jury found his killing to be lawful. The Jury system is the best way we have to decide on such matters and having sat on a Jury myself in not a completely disimillar case I can understand how difficult it can be to make a decision and to reach a suitable majority verdict.

The jury have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt to reach a proven verdict so we can only accept that this is what they did after taking into account all the evidence placed before them. I would like to believe that the Police have not hidden or falsified anything.

What I did find distasteful was the way Duggan's family and supporters acted during and after the trial. We should not be scared of clamping down on such behaviour in our courts and especially towards the Jurors. Were these people beyond comtempt of the court because we are running scared of the mob?
Click to expand...

I agree with the bulk of what you are saying, I have a query though; I believe it was an inquest not a trial, therefore was it beyond all reasonable doubt or balance of probability? I suspect the latter.
 
stevie_r said:
Good grief, he was a drug dealer who had had a weapon in his possession, I agree on the no great loss to society. No one is pandering to the criminals as you put it. At the time he was shot he was not a threat to anyone - the fact that he had had a weapon in his possession shortly before that doesn't mean you can shoot him. If that were the case we could have happily ended Op Banner long before the peace process started.

Officer V53 is clearly not very good at his job, but then again it wouldn't be like the police to collude on anything would it?

And just to reiterate, yes, the world is probably a much better place without Duggan in it.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no way of confirming if either of those statements are true. Unless you work within the Police as an armed officer I also don't think you are in a place to be able to comment. The officer had a split second to react and as far as he was concerned Duggan posed a threat and appeared to be carrying a weapon, was confrontational and aggressive. His intelligence said he had a gun and he had something in his hand. You have a split second to make a decision as a firearms officer who doesn't have the ability of hindsight to know he has made the wrong decision.
 
woody69 said:
He had his mobile phone in his hand and reacted to the police in a confrontational manner. The Police knew he had a gun when he got into the taxi, but were unaware it had been tossed. It was a split second decision.

10 jury members deliberated for 3 months and 8 found the killing lawful and 2 returned an open verdict. Not one thought the killing was unlawful.

It's always a sad thing when anyone loses their life and I have sympathy for the families involved, but the verdict was the right one IMHO and I'm surprised some people are questioning it's validity just because they don't agree with it. Everyone is entitled to read the full evidence here if they so wish - http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/
Click to expand...

He was probably updating his Facebook status... "Pig's are pointing guns at me, LOL. You'll never take me aliv....".
 
stevie_r said:
Good grief, he was a drug dealer who had had a weapon in his possession, I agree on the no great loss to society. No one is pandering to the criminals as you put it. At the time he was shot he was not a threat to anyone - the fact that he had had a weapon in his possession shortly before that doesn't mean you can shoot him. If that were the case we could have happily ended Op Banner long before the peace process started.

Officer V53 is clearly not very good at his job, but then again it wouldn't be like the police to collude on anything would it?

And just to reiterate, yes, the world is probably a much better place without Duggan in it.
Click to expand...

No one is disputing he didn't have the gun at the time he was shot. The point is the Police state they thought he did and that he was a threat. The officer had a split second decision to make and as a result shot and killed Duggan. The jury agreed this was reasonable and therefore found in favour of it being a lawful killing. You need to include all of the facts. You can't just exclude the points that don't suit your argument. If the jury thought the Police were aware he wasn't holding a gun and wasn't a threat when shot they would have found it an unlawful killing. They didn't.
 
woody69 said:
You have absolutely no way of confirming if either of those statements are true. Unless you work within the Police as an armed officer I also don't think you are in a place to be able to comment. The officer had a split second to react and as far as he was concerned Duggan posed a threat and appeared to be carrying a weapon, was confrontational and aggressive. His intelligence said he had a gun and he had something in his hand. You have a split second to make a decision as a firearms officer who doesn't have the ability of hindsight to know he has made the wrong decision.
Click to expand...

Please do not try to lecture me on the carrying of a weapon in dangerous circumstances.
 
gmc40 said:
No one is disputing he didn't have the gun at the time he was shot. The point is the Police state they thought he did and that he was a threat. The officer had a split second decision to make and as a result shot and killed Duggan. The jury agreed this was reasonable and therefore found in favour of it being a lawful killing. You need to include all of the facts. You can't just exclude the points that don't suit your argument. If the jury thought the Police were aware he wasn't holding a gun and wasn't a threat when shot they would have found it an unlawful killing. They didn't.
Click to expand...

See that is the difficult part, because you are asking the jury to suppose what they thought the police saw, it's far too subjective. They were asked the more objective question on whether th​ey believed Duggan was armed - 8/2 No.

But here's a bit I can't understand, 9/1 vote that the gun had been thrown on to the grass. So that means 1 of the jurors who thought he was armed also believed he had thrown the gun on to the grass? :confused:
 
Old Skier said:
No,the jury are asked to give a verdict on the evidence supplied.
Click to expand...

Correct, which is why if you read my post properly, in conjunction with the post I quoted, you will see that I stated that the jury could not be asked the question that gmc40 suggested. They were asked whether they (the jury) thought he was armed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Carnoustie Report
Replies
18
Views
5K
Crow
Crow
tugglesf239
I just can't kick the habit.
Replies
19
Views
2K
bigslice
bigslice
Piece
2015 Drivers - Mini Test
2
Replies
22
Views
9K
SugarPenguin
SugarPenguin
Pants
BT Broadband. Heads Up
Replies
5
Views
1K
RGDave
RGDave
MikeH
  • Locked
GM forum - general notice. Updated rules/guidelines
Replies
0
Views
2K
MikeH
MikeH
Top