somerset
New member
You do know what considering the available evidence actually entails do you?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Mark Duggan "Lawfully Killed" According to Jurors
- Thread starter HawkTheSeagull
- Start date
An illegal firearm yes.
I'm sorry, but I don't see reports of our police force shooting people on a whim day in day out.
The jury made a decision based on the information they had. The guy was carrying a gun, then wasn't carrying a gun because he threw it away. How were the police to know he had thrown it away. How were they to know how many guns he was carrying?
It's a jury that has passed the verdict. Clearly he was shot because the police and the jury came to the conclusion that he posed a danger to life.
The jury made a decision based on the information they had. The guy was carrying a gun, then wasn't carrying a gun because he threw it away. How were the police to know he had thrown it away. How were they to know how many guns he was carrying?
It's a jury that has passed the verdict. Clearly he was shot because the police and the jury came to the conclusion that he posed a danger to life.
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,399
I know that's it's too easy for the police to harm a person and get away with it on certain grounds yes. I'm not saying this guy was a perfect person however just because he had a gun, in MY OPINION, is not reason enough for a police force to put 2/3 bullets in him
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
Mixed feelings about this. It's just another story in a long line of police shooting people not carrying weapons and getting away with it.
I'm not sure how it can be deemed ok to shoot someone when it later transpires that they haven't got a gun, that in effect makes it ok for the police to shoot people on suspicion of carrying a gun. If they can't see the gun then they shouldn't be able to shoot, and even if they can see a gun surely they shouldn't be shooting unless it's raised
On the other hand he did actually buy a gun and chuck it out the window, so if you're going to get involved in things like that...................
I'm not sure how it can be deemed ok to shoot someone when it later transpires that they haven't got a gun, that in effect makes it ok for the police to shoot people on suspicion of carrying a gun. If they can't see the gun then they shouldn't be able to shoot, and even if they can see a gun surely they shouldn't be shooting unless it's raised
On the other hand he did actually buy a gun and chuck it out the window, so if you're going to get involved in things like that...................
Intel on him was that he was known to use firearms, the bloke he visited prior to the shootings was convicted of supplying him a firearm, gun was found after being thrown from car just before police were able to apprehend him, police only have to a reasonable fear that their or publics life could be in danger to justify shooting. He didn't have to have the gun in his hand to be considered a danger or threat. Completely justified.
somerset
New member
So, how long exactly is that line you refer to?.... and of those in that line, how many got away with it? .... I would hazard a guess without even doing any research, that the line you are sure is long, is in fact very very short.
HawkTheSeagull
New member
- Thread starter
- #28
He was found to have no firearm on him when shot as he threw it over a fence - there was no need to the police to shoot.
If they were unsure - why couldnt a taser have been used ?
I dont believe the racist card is correct here - especially as the Jury was made up of people from varying backgrounds in London who may well have been black too. I dont believe the racist card is appropriate here. He did have a gun on him (which was thrown over a fence before he was shot) so the police suspicion was correct. BUT the call to shoot him with live ammunition was unlawful.
Dan Aitch
New member
- May 31, 2013
- 2,287
Jury agreed the evidence proved that Duggan didn't have the gun in his possession when he was shot. They also agreed that the Police officer who said that he thought Duggan was pointing a weapon at him was telling the truth. QED - Duggan had no weapon, but the Police officer believed AT THE TIME that he did have one and shot him lawfully.
Love the way you group the british police with every single force around the world to try and justify your ludicrous comment. They are not perfect but i'd rather live in a society with our police rather than many others around the world. Duggan chose a life of crime and suffered the ultimate because of that and from the reports, sounds like the rest of his family are scum to.
HawkTheSeagull
New member
- Thread starter
- #31
So if armed police had suspicion to believe any member of the public had a firearm on them - they could shoot them and that is lawful ?
glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
did anyone expect any other result than this one
Not just for having a gun but also strong belief they may use it either on the police or members of the public.
Billy the Fish
Technocrat
Pretty sure everyone remembers this one, bloke in hastings was in bed
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/mar/05/police-shooting-james-ashley
Another high profile one
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1496382/Shot-Brazilian-did-not-jump-barrier-and-run.html
Pretty sure I could find some more on google.
Not really. Having seen some of the evidence reported, would have been disappointed if it had been a different verdict.
brightn'ove
cringe
All the while apparently soldiers in Afghanistan can't fire on insurgents unless they are fired upon?
mikeyjh
Well-known member
If they that thought either they were doing so to defend themselves, or another and that the force was reasonable, yes.
HawkTheSeagull
New member
- Thread starter
- #38
Again, so just because they "believe" i may have a firearm which i may use on myself - that gives them reason to shoot me despite the fact I dont ?
Im not defending Duggan who was a proven criminal and certainly isnt an "angel" as his family are portraying, but im simply saying to say his killing was lawful is simply wrong.
This, its simply wrong.
But with live ammunition ? Why couldnt a taser have been used ?
But neither of those were found to be lawful killings so whats your point. The police do not go round shooting people 'on a whim' but yescthey have made mistakes.
A spokescum for the family said outside of the court, 'No justice, no peace', hopefully a few more will come to the same end as their hero.