Mark Duggan Killing Lawful

paulie8290

The jury verdict today said it was a Lawful killing from the police but confirmed he had no gun on him

How can it be Lawful if he had no gun apparently it all kicked off in the courtroom after as well

Some idiots on twitter already saying "lets start the riots again" lets just hope it does not happen

BowieAddick

My understanding is the jury believed he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot but in all probability he had one in the taxi but chucked it out when the taxi stopped, a gun was found about 20ft from the scene.

Hope common sense prevails and nothing kicks off.

lolwray

there wont be riots ..too cold ...fact...always best to reach decisions like this when its cold ,dark and wet !

ValleyGary

pointless as we haven't heard any of the evidence

WSS

A jury of our peers considered all of the evidence and came to a conclusion they felt was right. That's how we do things in this country and whether you as an individual think it's right or wrong I'd prefer it that way than any other way.

BIG_ROB

Good

Sparrows Lane Lion

His family didn't believe he had a gun nor was a gangster. Odd.

Brendan_O_Connell

Sparrows Lane Lion said:

His family didn't believe he had a gun nor was a gangster. Odd.

Deluded.

Plaaayer

I see Diana Abbott has had her usual penniesworth.

CAFCAddick88

Mark Duggan was a renowned criminal. End of. All of his friends and family tried to portray to the media he was a family man and a thoroughly decent human being. This is far from the facts. If you go around the streets thinking your Gangster #1 with your knives and guns then inevitably one day it's going to come back to bite you.

My understanding is that this was a fair trial and the Jury made their own assumptions based on extensive and conclusive evidence.

And people believe rioting again over a criminal is going to be the answer...Unbelievable.

BIG_ROB

Seem to remember David Lammy giving an interview just after it happened, understanding peoples frustrations but calling for calm and thinking to meself, that's gonna give em the green light to do something

shine166

So within a couple of weeks we have a rip thread for Ronnie Biggs, but this guy was a gangster and deserved to die ?.. am I the only one that can see the irony in that ?

J BLOCK

shine166 said:

So within a couple of weeks we have a rip thread for Ronnie Biggs, but this guy was a gangster and deserved to die ?.. am I the only one that can see the irony in that ?

Who said he deserved to die?

sadiejane1981

shine166 said:

So within a couple of weeks we have a rip thread for Ronnie Biggs, but this guy was a gangster and deserved to die ?.. am I the only one that can see the irony in that ?

There's a difference between saying he deserved to die and saying the police were lawfully right to shoot. The police thought he was a danger, had strong enough evidence to think he was armed and shot to potentially save anyone else being shot, the jury found the police actions lawful, that didn't mean he deserved to die just that nobody else did!

Redskin

BIG_ROB said:

Good

Old school good?

BIG_ROB

Redskin said:

BIG_ROB said:

Good

Old school good?

No, just good.

rikofold

Surely all that is needed for it to be lawful is that the police officer is able to justify the use of his firearm? That is, if he genuinely thought Mark Duggan had a gun and was intending to use it on him and his colleagues, or indeed was putting the public in danger, then I presume that would be sufficient to justify firing his gun.

I don't think we need to go down the route of demonising either Duggan or the police officer, do we?

WSS

People need to get out of their heads the whole "so it's OK to kill someone who is unarmed now".

The law does not say you can lawfully kill unarmed people. The 'lawfulness' is determined by the officers' belief of him holding a gun at the time and the jury heard evidence on this point. Of course that is not ideal but equally, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

SELR_addicks

People are surprised that his family would try to paint him in a good light? Might not have even known about his activity outside the house.

shine166

J BLOCK said:

shine166 said:

So within a couple of weeks we have a rip thread for Ronnie Biggs, but this guy was a gangster and deserved to die ?.. am I the only one that can see the irony in that ?

Who said he deserved to die?

Well saying 'good' at the fact the jury verdict was lawful killing is not far off it.

I just think this is a slippery slope, next someone will be shot because a gun is thought to be on scene but then never found

BIG_ROB

shine166 said:

J BLOCK said:

shine166 said:

So within a couple of weeks we have a rip thread for Ronnie Biggs, but this guy was a gangster and deserved to die ?.. am I the only one that can see the irony in that ?

Who said he deserved to die?

Well saying 'good' at the fact the jury verdict was lawful killing is not far off it.

I just think this is a slippery slope, next someone will be shot because a gun is thought to be on scene but then never found

How do you work that out? I said good JUST at the verdict for fuck sake

blackheathaddick

Jeez, the guy was a gangster. He had a gun. He might have thrown it just before he got shot, but the guy was still the type of bloke that feels it's appropriate to carry an illegal weapon in public.

In addition a jury have decided the police were lawful in their decision to shoot.

Good. I dont care if it's inappropriate. I'm happier with my kids growing up in this country without people like him on our streets, and frankly I feel no sympathy for him at all. Good riddance.

masicat

VERY GOOD, and I won't be explaining.

stonewallpenalty

Sounds like a lawful killing to me on the evidence released anyway. Police were following him for a reason. I don't believe our armed Police are blood thirsty maniacs who go round shooting people willy-nilly.

Once the evidence on Duggan was seen by the jury during the build up to the incident there was only going to be one verdict.

1StevieG

You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

BIG_ROB

stonewallpenalty said:

Sounds like a lawful killing to me on the evidence released anyway. Police were following him for a reason. I don't believe our armed Police are blood thirsty maniacs who go round shooting people willy-nilly.

Once the evidence on Duggan was seen by the jury during the build up to the incident there was only going to be one verdict.

The police NOT shooting the 2 Rigby murderers is a geat example of this

charltonkeston

If you live life the way he did,it was always going to end badly.

Kap10

lolwray said:

there wont be riots ..too cold ...fact...always best to reach decisions like this when its cold ,dark and wet !

I thought exactly this.

shine166

It just all stinks to me. First off he was shot after he shot a police man (the bullet that finished in the Police mans radio was actually a bullet that hit Duggan), next he pulled a gun on them and now the apparent story is the gun was 20 yards from the body and probably thrown from the taxi.

Duggan may have been a criminal, but he should be facing that same great British justice system that the 2 blokes from Woolwich are getting.

RugbyAddick

This was aways a lose lose situation for the police.

It wasn't 10 police officers as the jury, it was 10 members of the public who are were not biased.

AddickUpNorth

I have actually spoken to someone who knew Duggan from the street and if what I was told is correct, I'm glad he never lived anywhere near me. The bloke was a wrong un.