Mark Duggan "Lawfully Killed" According to Jurors

[portlock seagull]

They are wrong, on more occasions than they should be. But this was a lawful killing that was correct. That's what the jury, who unlike you, heard all the evidence, decided.

They were at pains to say in the radio 5 debate today that he jury said the killing was not unlawful. Rather than it was a lawful killing as you've said above. Don't know what the difference is but they were really stressing this and the exact words used are extremely important in legal cases. Have to say this sort of word play in business and legal worlds drives me nuts and you're made to feel stupid when others pull you up as if means something entirely different and people argue that's not what they said. But really, it is...IMO!

 

[topbanana36]

Remember - "No justice, no peace"


Lets see how peaceful it is on Saturday night in Tottenham.

Reminder to Mark Duggan's Aunt. A jury found it a lawful killing.

 

[1066familyman]

you have no truer picture though. does seem that some a happy to ignore they are questioning the whole judicial process here. i dont have time to go over all the details and conflicting stories. the jury did and came to a conclusion which i think we should be respecting a bit more rather than get bogged down in arguments about policing.

another conclusion seems to be that we should remove all armed police, as we cant be sure they will never make a mistake.

I think the suggestion made today that perhaps in future all armed officers should record on video what they do is an entirely sensible one. In fact, some police recording from the Azelle Rodney case might prove quite telling. It didn't do Rodney King any favours of course, but then we're not talking about the US, just yet. The public with mobile phones might just be a saving grace for justice too.

I think it's quite healthy to question our whole judicial process (again, read the Azelle Rodney case) and our policing. I'm not in favour of removing all our armed police. Nor do I expect them to be superhumans incapable of making mistakes, especially in such a high pressure environment. But I do want them to be held accountable when and if they make mistakes and hold their hands up rather than close ranks with the not so IPCC in flawed investigations.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

They were at pains to say in the radio 5 debate today that he jury said the killing was not unlawful. Rather than it was a lawful killing as you've said above. Don't know what the difference is but they were really stressing this and the exact words used are extremely important in legal cases. Have to say this sort of word play in business and legal worlds drives me nuts and you're made to feel stupid when others pull you up as if means something entirely different and people argue that's not what they said. But really, it is...IMO!

The jury were offered possible verdicts of lawful killing, an open verdict, or unlawful killing.

They voted 8-2 for lawful killing, not "not unlawful". If they weren't sure but hadn't wanted to go for unlawful killing, they could have gone for the open verdict. The majority of them didn't.

I know no more of this case than you do, by the way, but you should be aware of that.

 

[Questions]

you have no truer picture though. does seem that some a happy to ignore they are questioning the whole judicial process here. i dont have time to go over all the details and conflicting stories. the jury did and came to a conclusion which i think we should be respecting a bit more rather than get bogged down in arguments about policing.

another conclusion seems to be that we should remove all armed police, as we cant be sure they will never make a mistake.

The police f.uck up just like everyone else . I can accept that , no problem. If you really want to learn lessons though you have to come totally clean. No protecting each other, no manipulation of facts, no leaking of false information to the press or the public and just because a 'wrong un' has been shot, maybe popping round and telling his family within 48 hrs might be deemed the right thing to do.I would never advocate taking firearms away from certain police officers obviously.

 

[METALMICKY]

Complete and utter patronising bollox, plenty of people grow up in rough areas and don't end up like duggan.

Absolutely spot on. Its the classic cop out to suggest that they are products of their environment. They are simply products of a whole new generation of feckless parents who fail to teach a sense of right and wrong and a responsibility and sense of consequence for their actions.

 

[beorhthelm]

I think the suggestion made today that perhaps in future all armed officers should record on video what they do is an entirely sensible one.

agree, but it would stop an accident. only allow people to review the incident and probably come to the same conclusions.

The police f.uck up just like everyone else . I can accept that , no problem. If you really want to learn lessons though you have to come totally clean. No protecting each other, no manipulation of facts, no leaking of false information to the press or the public and just because a 'wrong un' has been shot, maybe popping round and telling his family within 48 hrs might be deemed the right thing to do.I would never advocate taking firearms away from certain police officers obviously.

i dont think anyone thinks they handled the PR of the incidnet right and someone outright lied about the initial circumstances to cover up. but that is secondary to the incident itself and should be seperated (afterall there must be plenty of it going on at a lower level but effecting people). what im hearing is (not literally), because some police lied and some others didnt fix the information or visit the family, that means the police as good as shot him deliberatly. you say about manipultion of facts, what about the pro-Duggan people who said there wasn't a gun in the car? some make out like it was a heavy handed stop and search. it was a targeted operation, a gun was present and something of how he behaved caused someone to react and it ended badly.

 

[Nibble]

I think the suggestion made today that perhaps in future all armed officers should record on video what they do is an entirely sensible one. In fact, some police recording from the Azelle Rodney case might prove quite telling. It didn't do Rodney King any favours of course, but then we're not talking about the US, just yet. The public with mobile phones might just be a saving grace for justice too.

I think it's quite healthy to question our whole judicial process (again, read the Azelle Rodney case) and our policing. I'm not in favour of removing all our armed police. Nor do I expect them to be superhumans incapable of making mistakes, especially in such a high pressure environment. But I do want them to be held accountable when and if they make mistakes and hold their hands up rather than close ranks with the not so IPCC in flawed investigations.

Whatever anyone's opinions of Duggan are, and for the record, despite some jovial posts I would rather he not have died but the Police and the shooting were put to a jury, the case was heard in an open court in front of a judge with both parties represented. In the British judicial system you cannot really be held to any more account than that.

 

[Gullys Cats]

I'm sure last time I checked guns were illegal in this country??

 

[drew]

2005, amazing isn't it. Don't forget though he'd was getting a lift to have his haircut that day. He wasn't completely innocent.

That's a very generous description of taking a ride with know criminals in a car with three guns in it. Talk about disinformation.

Well I'm saddened (liberal alert) to hear that I disgust you. Slightly surprised to learn that I'm a "Bleeding heart liberal". But never mind, life goes on, and so does the debate.

Remember - "No justice, no peace"





By the way, to save you the bother. That slogan was around donkeys years before Mark Duggans auntie used it.

Doesn't matter when the slogan came about, it was used as a rallying call by the Aunt after the decision. Some people might have taken it to mean let's riot again, ie no peace till we get what we want.

 

[BadFish]

I'm sure last time I checked guns were illegal in this country??

So is shooting people.

 

[Gullys Cats]

So is shooting people.

Not if your a police officer! (If their life is in danger or the public) the last time I checked!

 

[BadFish]

Not if your a police officer! (If their life is in danger or the public) the last time I checked!

If they 'think' their life is in danger. I think this case has proven this pretty well.

 

[Gullys Cats]

If they 'think' their life is in danger. I think this case has proven this pretty well.

I'm on the side of the police with this one!, duggen wasn't an angel!, live by the gun die by the gun!

 

[BadFish]

I'm on the side of the police with this one!, duggen wasn't an angel!, live by the gun die by the gun!

I am on neither side really, it is what it is, it happened they thought he had a gun and opened fire. So the law must now be that if the police have reasonable grounds to beleive someone is armed and dangerous then they can shoot people. The president has now been set.

The character of the bloke is neither here nor there (just like the character of the policeman).

 

[pastafarian]

I am on neither side really, it is what it is, it happened they thought he had a gun and opened fire. So the law must now be that if the police have reasonable grounds to beleive someone is armed and dangerous then they can shoot people. The president has now been set.

The character of the bloke is neither here nor there (just like the character of the policeman).

No precedent has been set here,if the police believe someone is armed and a danger then they are within their rights to open fire,something that has with regards to this specific incident been upheld by the court with a lawful killing verdict.Nothing has changed with this regard.

All that has been brought into question and is a direct result of the case is how the police deal with evidence after a shooting,how they deal with the families of the person that has been shot and what can be improved.You cant argue about trying to improve these factors.

However the fact remains Duggan was a bad bloke who used guns and it unsurprisingly ended in tears.There are some that are trying to deflect from this and move the story on to a blame of police practice in general,usual suspects is all i can say.

 

[BadFish]

There is a fine line between it being unsurprising that it ended in tears and that he deserved to die. A line which as ever nsc is dancing around.

Hopefully the courts to less interest in if he was a wrong un than we do here.

 

[Bwian]

Doesn't matter when the slogan came about, it was used as a rallying call by the Aunt after the decision. Some people might have taken it to mean let's riot again, ie no peace till we get what we want.

A middle aged, white woman doing a 'Black Power' salute would suggest to many that that was exactly what she was promoting.

 

[pastafarian]

There is a fine line between it being unsurprising that it ended in tears and that he deserved to die. A line which as ever nsc is dancing around.

to be fair some people have expressed their views and dont seem to be dancing around the issue,i like to think im more in the i wont be shedding any tears camp the same way i will feel about Mugabe when he shuffles off(and im not comparing the two)

 

[Bwian]

There is a fine line between it being unsurprising that it ended in tears and that he deserved to die. A line which as ever nsc is dancing around.

Hopefully the courts to less interest in if he was a wrong un than we do here.

Sorry, you'll have to help me with this bit-I've read it and re-read it numerous times and still cannot make sense of it.