Mark Duggan "Lawfully Killed" According to Jurors

[HawkTheSeagull]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25657949

According to a majority 8 to 2 verdict, Mark Duggan was lawfully shot dead by the Met Police in the inquest into the shooting. The jury also concluded that Duggan wasnt carry a gun on him when shot.

Unsure its the correct verdict myself, especially when they were sure he didnt have a gun - so just why is the killing classed as lawful ?

The Duggan family have also reportedly abused the jury after the decision too which doesnt show them in a great light either.

Also, no doubt idiots will now try and incite what we saw in 2011 again. Met Police already reported to be stepping up policing in the Tottenham area tonight.

 

[The Wizard]

Another police cover up I bet, on what grounds did they find it 'lawful' I wonder? because they are the Police? Oh that's alright then.

 

[Ernest]

Riots again tonight

 

[HawkTheSeagull]

Another police cover up I bet, on what grounds did they find it 'lawful' I wonder? because they are the Police? Oh that's alright then.

Not sure how they could cover it up when all the evidence was heard in front of an unbiased jury, but they have got this badly wrong.

Reports now that the Jury were also chased out of the court - they may have got the decision wrong but their is no excuse for that and isnt going to reflect well on the family.

 

[Driver8]

Another police cover up I bet, on what grounds did they find it 'lawful' I wonder? because they are the Police? Oh that's alright then.

He had a gun moments before and threw it away just before he was shot. How would they have know he had thrown it away?

If you go around with illegal firearms don't complain when you get shot.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Live by the sword...

 

[Gullflyinghigh]

Another police cover up I bet, on what grounds did they find it 'lawful' I wonder? because they are the Police? Oh that's alright then.

I'm sure certain posters will say something to the contrary (with accompanying youtube links) but surely it's hard to level that claim when it was a jury decision?

 

[pastafarian]

He had a gun moments before and threw it away just before he was shot. How would they have know he had thrown it away?

If you go around with illegal firearms don't complain when you get shot.

exactly this

 

[somerset]

Another police cover up I bet, on what grounds did they find it 'lawful' I wonder? because they are the Police? Oh that's alright then.

....can you not read, a Jury reached the verdict did it not?, thats not the police, its a JURY of seven women and three men.... they would have had all the evidence FOR and AGAINST, then this verdict would have been reached.... clear now??

 

[somerset]

Not sure how they could cover it up when all the evidence was heard in front of an unbiased jury, but they have got this badly wrong.

Reports now that the Jury were also chased out of the court - they may have got the decision wrong but their is no excuse for that and isnt going to reflect well on the family.

Oh pray tell me how they got it wrong, you seem to have information that the Jury didnt,..... I am waiting.

 

[spongy]

He had a gun moments before and threw it away just before he was shot. How would they have know he had thrown it away?

If you go around with illegal firearms don't complain when you get shot.

This.

If he had a gun how would the police know if he didn't have another one or some other weapons on him?

 

[The Wizard]

Not sure how they could cover it up when all the evidence was heard in front of an unbiased jury, but they have got this badly wrong.

Reports now that the Jury were also chased out of the court - they may have got the decision wrong but their is no excuse for that and isnt going to reflect well on the family.

That is true yes, unacceptable behaviour but I'm sure it's an exceptionally difficult thing for them to accept but I find it difficult to believe they can find this 'lawful' countless times over the years the police have got away with shooting innocent people on a whim or physically injuring people, it's something that needs to be addressed and after reading through the circumstances of this crime, it just isn't a lawful killing. And I think it's fairly easy for police to 'cover' things up when they really want too, we already know that from past events.

Also, he may have had a gun on him, or more weapons for all we know but that does not make it lawful to shoot 3 bullets and kill a man.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Reports now that the Jury were also chased out of the court -.

That alone goes an awfully long way in helping to come to a conclusion about the whole case. A legally appointed jury made up of members of the general public are chased/harassed/harangued out of a court of law by the family and friends of a known criminal who was known to carry firearms on occasion. And some people believe that he may have been unlawfully killed? Probably best for all if we get rid of a few more like him.

 

[Footsoldier]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25657949

According to a majority 8 to 2 verdict, Mark Duggan was lawfully shot dead by the Met Police in the inquest into the shooting. The jury also concluded that Duggan wasnt carry a gun on him when shot.

Unsure its the correct verdict myself, especially when they were sure he didnt have a gun - so just why is the killing classed as lawful ?

The Duggan family have also reportedly abused the jury after the decision too which doesnt show them in a great light either.

Also, no doubt idiots will now try and incite what we saw in 2011 again. Met Police already reported to be stepping up policing in the Tottenham area tonight.

He did have a gun but launched it over the railings before being shot.

 

[somerset]

.....countless times over the years the police have got away with shooting innocent people on a whim......

You are hilarious, on a whim?!?!!...... I dont know what to say to be honest.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

That alone goes an awfully long way in helping to come to a conclusion about the whole case. A legally appointed jury made up of members of the general public are chased/harassed/harangued out of a court of law by the family and friends of a known criminal who was known to carry firearms on occasion. And some people believe that he may have been unlawfully killed? Probably best for all if we get rid of a few more like him.

Good post

 

[The Wizard]

You are hilarious, on a whim?!?!!...... I dont know what to say to be honest.

I suggest you research how many people police forces around the world shoot &/or are over zealously violent with, maybe on 'whim' was worded wrongly but it's so easy for the police to kill a person as there's always a reason they can use (there's always a reason someone is involved with the police). I don't see how anyone can think this is acceptable, but that's just me.

 

[Driver8]

I don't see how anyone can think this is acceptable, but that's just me.

With regard to this particular case I can't see how anyone can think it wasn't acceptable.

 

[The Wizard]

With regard to this particular case I can't see how anyone can think it wasn't acceptable.

Why do you think it's acceptable then? Simply because he had a weapon?

 

[Husty]

Unsure its the correct verdict myself, especially when they were sure he didnt have a gun - so just why is the killing classed as lawful ?

Because he was poor and black and living in London, not rocket science.