Of course he didn't deserve to die but I don't think the police have anything to feel guilty about. They discharged their firearms in the belief Duggan was armed. That's justification enough for me.
What stinks @shine166? The jury has all of the evidence to make the decision they come to. This isn't an independent inquiry or anything like that.
The jury acknowledged he was not holding a gun at the time he was shot BUT still found it a lawful killing for whatever other reasons/evidence they were presented with.
What stinks @shine166? The jury has all of the evidence to make the decision they come to. This isn't an independent inquiry or anything like that.
The jury acknowledged he was not holding a gun at the time he was shot BUT still found it a lawful killing for whatever other reasons/evidence they were presented with.
I gave my 3 examples in the post you are referring to, I can repeat them if you like ?
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.
I find it very difficult to disagree with any of that. The bloke was a stone cold wrong 'un who went out that day for whatever reason and collected a gun. This was consistent with the police's intelligence (which was subsequently proved correct) and therefore he got stopped and then shot. Not only did he put himself in a position where he was at risk of getting shot but he went in an effing taxi too, therefore exposing the poor bloke driving to the same risk.
The inquest ran for 4 months and therefore the jury, unlike all of Mr Duggan's charming family and supporters, have heard all the evidence and made their decision based on that rather than hearsay, prejudices and preconceptions.
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.
Got to say, I agree with this. No loss to a decent society and was the nephew of Desmond Noonan - the drug dealer, gun runner, etc, etc from Manchester.
What stinks @shine166? The jury has all of the evidence to make the decision they come to. This isn't an independent inquiry or anything like that.
The jury acknowledged he was not holding a gun at the time he was shot BUT still found it a lawful killing for whatever other reasons/evidence they were presented with.
I gave my 3 examples in the post you are referring to, I can repeat them if you like ?
Shine, I'm not really clear about your 3 examples post - are you saying that that was the sequence of events or that the police's story has changed or something else? Sorry, maybe I'm being thick but I don't get what you were saying.
I never want anyone to die unlawfully but as far as I'm aware mark duggan didn't share my beliefs.
Doesn't totally defend it just cos he was a nasty bloke. we don't know all the details of his criminal career anyway.
maybe they couldn't get enough evidence to get him done though they know he had done certain things. seems to me like it might of been a bit of old fashioned john McClain cop attitude. Lets kill the bad guys. Fight fire with fire. doubt after what happened with the riots the police will be doing something like that any time soon, if true.
What stinks @shine166? The jury has all of the evidence to make the decision they come to. This isn't an independent inquiry or anything like that.
The jury acknowledged he was not holding a gun at the time he was shot BUT still found it a lawful killing for whatever other reasons/evidence they were presented with.
I gave my 3 examples in the post you are referring to, I can repeat them if you like ?
Shine, I'm not really clear about your 3 examples post - are you saying that that was the sequence of events or that the police's story has changed or something else? Sorry, maybe I'm being thick but I don't get what you were saying.
Im saying that they are the changes in Police story from day 1 to now and that is what stinks. If the Police went with the intent of killing him, which I believe they could have done.. it isnt lawful killing.
Duggan's aunt shown on the news, outside the court, screaming "no justice, no peace" and giving a clench fist salute.
If that's not trying to incite unrest I don't know what is.
Yet her and his brother were claimimg that Mark Duggan was a lovely guy & they wanted to disassociate themselves from any of the subsequent unrest that occured in 2011.
Glad that his wonderful family and supporters made a statement asking for calm and no repeat of the previous troubles. Oh hang on, they smashed the door of the coroner instead.
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.
Its never an exact science, the ob are only human after all. The 2 at Woolwich weren't fatally shot and Duggan was. The secret is, not to walk around with a shooter up ya jumper and you'll probably reduce the risk of being slotted by the old bill. As for what happened at the exact time the copper squeezed the trigger, what if Duggan made a sudden movement? The copper might've thought "hold on, this known gang banger just chucked a gun away, he might have another one!" and then not gave him the benefit.
Glad that his wonderful family and supporters made a statement asking for calm and no repeat of the previous troubles. Oh hang on, they smashed the door of the coroner instead.
...and all the usual suspects spouting across the media.
You think they were on a "shoot on sight" order? Maybe, but unlikely.
The stories might stink, the way things changed might stink, the verdict might stink but the fact remains is that the jury had all of the available evidence, statements (both for and against a lawful killing) and decided it was lawful. That's why I find it hard to understand why people have difficulty accepting the verdict.
The jury had evidence, everyone else has hindsight.
I'm a compassionate guy, I hate injustice, particularly when it ultimately results in someone loosing their life. When it involves the police and members of the public then it is essential that procedures are followed correctly and scrutinized in the right way, by the right.people.
Mistakes will always occur, that is life. I'm glad we live in a society where they are rare and you can name the number of similar instances in the last decade (Duggan, Tomlinson, De Menezes).
I'm also a law abiding father, who detests the scum that make parts of London a nasty, fearful almost no-go place to live. I'm sure he didn't deserve to die, but I've no sympathy for him.
Shine166 - you say that the three points you mentioned 'are the changes in Police story from day 1 to now' but where do you get that from? The first public mention that Duggan fired came from a spokesperson for the IPCC, not the police. This was subsequently retracted by the IPCC. The officer who fired always maintained that Duggan had a gun. A gun was found 20 feet from Duggan's body (not 20 yards as you posted). I don't recall the police ever claiming he probably threw it from the taxi.
You are entitled to your opinion but you seem to be mixing up different accounts by different individuals and coming up with the less than incisive conclusion that 'it just all stinks to me'.
I am always reminded of any game at the Valley where everyone is focussed on the action and even then there are many, many different views as to what took place.
Glad that his wonderful family and supporters made a statement asking for calm and no repeat of the previous troubles. Oh hang on, they smashed the door of the coroner instead.
They're grieving, of course they're going to be emotional and irrational at this time. The fault lies with the media that stuck them in front of a camera hoping to rile people up for a good news story.
For the sake of completeness, it might be worth seeing the jury's scoring on the various questions they were asked.
1. "...did the MPS and SOCA do the best they realistically could have done to gather and react to intelligence about the possibility of Mr Duggan collecting a gun from Mr Hutchinson Foster?" Yes 10 No 0
2. "Was the stop conducted in a location and in a way which minimised to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force?" Yes 10 No 0
3. "Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the stop?" Yes 10 No 0
4. "How did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found?" The Jury, in a majority of 9:1, concluded that Mark Duggan threw the firearm onto the grass. Of the 9, 8 have concluded that it is more likely than not, that Mark Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement. 1 concluded that Mark Duggan threw the firearm whilst on the pavement and in the process of evading the police. 1 juror was not convinced of any supposition that Mark Duggan threw the firearm from the vehicle or from the pavement because no witnesses gave evidence to this effect.
5. When Mr Duggan received the fatal shot did he have the gun in his hand? 8 - We are sure he did not have the gun in his hand 1 - We believe it is more likely than not that he did have a gun in his hand 1 - We believe it is more likely than not that he did not have a gun in his hand
Re: my earlier post. It was media reports purporting to quote the IPCC for the initial allegation that Duggan had fired a shot - not the IPCC. Even less reason therefore to blame the police for that.
It seems to me that this jury have given great care to the issues and have been as impartial as anyone could have wished. Sadly not everyone welcomed an impartial jury.
When a innocent person/Police officer gets shot by a criminal in similar circumstances in the future people like Shine will no doubt blame the police for not acting quick enough. I'm almost certain I won't die from a police officer shooting me because I'm not silly/evil enough to go round carrying an illegal fire arm. Good Decision.
Glad that his wonderful family and supporters made a statement asking for calm and no repeat of the previous troubles. Oh hang on, they smashed the door of the coroner instead.
They're grieving, of course they're going to be emotional and irrational at this time. The fault lies with the media that stuck them in front of a camera hoping to rile people up for a good news story.
Don't agree. Would have known they'd be in the spotlight whatever the outcome and should have been the first thing they said. Then again, people like that are not like you and I & only have the ability to think about themselves.
Diane Abbott MP @HackneyAbbott 4h If the #duggan jury believe that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot, how can they find it was a lawful killing? #baffled
edit: just noticed it's already been mentioned earlier.
...seems to me like it might of been a bit of old fashioned john McClain cop attitude. Lets kill the bad guys. Fight fire with fire.
I'm sorry but to me this view that they went there intending to kill him is just so remote to be virtually impossible. I suppose you might have one or even two rogue coppers who fancy themselves as some sort of Charles Bronson style avenging angels ridding society of bad guys, but what about everybody else involved? If I remember rightly there were maybe as many as a dozen involved in stopping the vehicle, are you seriously suggesting that they were all briefed in advance and prepared to risk their career, their livelihood, their families and their liberty in order to take out a no mark scumbag like Mark Duggan?
I say this as someone who knows more than one firearms trained police officer and was chatting to two only a few weeks ago. They are acutely aware they are under so much scrutiny it's unreal, knowing that even if it's a perfectly proper, legit, 100% by the book, shooting they are looking at months of paperwork, questioning from superiors, independent investigations, inquests, trial by media, potential private prosecutions, etc, etc.
If they wanted to take Duggan out, even his family would never have known where he ended up let alone doing it on a public road in the middle of the day.
Comments
The jury acknowledged he was not holding a gun at the time he was shot BUT still found it a lawful killing for whatever other reasons/evidence they were presented with.
The inquest ran for 4 months and therefore the jury, unlike all of Mr Duggan's charming family and supporters, have heard all the evidence and made their decision based on that rather than hearsay, prejudices and preconceptions.
Got to say, I agree with this. No loss to a decent society and was the nephew of Desmond Noonan - the drug dealer, gun runner, etc, etc from Manchester.
Sorry, maybe I'm being thick but I don't get what you were saying.
Doesn't totally defend it just cos he was a nasty bloke. we don't know all the details of his criminal career anyway.
maybe they couldn't get enough evidence to get him done though they know he had done certain things. seems to me like it might of been a bit of old fashioned john McClain cop attitude. Lets kill the bad guys. Fight fire with fire.
doubt after what happened with the riots the police will be doing something like that any time soon, if true.
If that's not trying to incite unrest I don't know what is.
Yet her and his brother were claimimg that Mark Duggan was a lovely guy & they wanted to disassociate themselves from any of the subsequent unrest that occured in 2011.
It's becoming a business.
The stories might stink, the way things changed might stink, the verdict might stink but the fact remains is that the jury had all of the available evidence, statements (both for and against a lawful killing) and decided it was lawful. That's why I find it hard to understand why people have difficulty accepting the verdict.
The jury had evidence, everyone else has hindsight.
Mistakes will always occur, that is life. I'm glad we live in a society where they are rare and you can name the number of similar instances in the last decade (Duggan, Tomlinson, De Menezes).
I'm also a law abiding father, who detests the scum that make parts of London a nasty, fearful almost no-go place to live. I'm sure he didn't deserve to die, but I've no sympathy for him.
You are entitled to your opinion but you seem to be mixing up different accounts by different individuals and coming up with the less than incisive conclusion that 'it just all stinks to me'.
I am always reminded of any game at the Valley where everyone is focussed on the action and even then there are many, many different views as to what took place.
London is a safer place without him in it.
1. "...did the MPS and SOCA do the best they
realistically could have done to gather and react to intelligence about the
possibility of Mr Duggan collecting a gun from Mr Hutchinson Foster?"
Yes 10 No 0
2. "Was the stop conducted in a location and in a way which minimised to the
greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force?"
Yes 10 No 0
3. "Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the
stop?"
Yes 10 No 0
4. "How did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found?"
The Jury, in a majority of 9:1, concluded that Mark Duggan
threw the firearm onto the grass.
Of the 9, 8 have concluded that it is more likely than not, that
Mark Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came
to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement.
1 concluded that Mark Duggan threw the firearm whilst on the
pavement and in the process of evading the police.
1 juror was not convinced of any supposition that Mark
Duggan threw the firearm from the vehicle or from the
pavement because no witnesses gave evidence to this effect.
5. When Mr Duggan received the fatal shot did he have the gun in his hand?
8 - We are sure he did not have the gun in his hand
1 - We believe it is more likely than not that he did have a gun in his hand
1 - We believe it is more likely than not that he did not have a gun in his hand
Conclusion of the jury as to the death:
0 - Unlawful killing
2 - Open conclusion
8 - Lawful killing
http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/index.htm
(c) Crown copyright 2014
It seems to me that this jury have given great care to the issues and have been as impartial as anyone could have wished. Sadly not everyone welcomed an impartial jury.
Diane Abbott MP @HackneyAbbott 4h
If the #duggan jury believe that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot, how can they find it was a lawful killing? #baffled
edit: just noticed it's already been mentioned earlier.
I say this as someone who knows more than one firearms trained police officer and was chatting to two only a few weeks ago. They are acutely aware they are under so much scrutiny it's unreal, knowing that even if it's a perfectly proper, legit, 100% by the book, shooting they are looking at months of paperwork, questioning from superiors, independent investigations, inquests, trial by media, potential private prosecutions, etc, etc.
If they wanted to take Duggan out, even his family would never have known where he ended up let alone doing it on a public road in the middle of the day.