Mark Duggan "Lawfully Killed" According to Jurors

[Leekbrookgull]

Long campaign by Duggan supporters for a Judicial review, resulting in an overturned verdict in the interests of community relations. Followed by a royal pardon & a Posthumous knighthood, bet in play NOW.

Paddy Power offering 3/1.

 

[fat old seagull]

Live by the sword...

You can't argue with that. That said I don't want our bobbies to start going gung-ho. They are trained to be more restrained than that. This cop was clearly seeing the red mist and I would query the verdict. But you'll lessen your chances of getting shot if your not in possession of a dangerous weapon...... I'll leave the Mrs at home in future.

 

[drew]

You can't argue with that. That said I don't want our bobbies to start going gung-ho. They are trained to be more restrained than that. This cop was clearly seeing the red mist and I would query the verdict. But you'll lessen your chances of getting shot if your not in possession of a dangerous weapon...... I'll leave the Mrs at home in future.

Why was he seeing the red mist, can you read minds? I don't claim to know all the facts but the cab driver said Duggan got out and ran. He was told to stop and didn't however the pathologist stated that the trajectory of the bullet in the chest wound that killed him supported a scenario in which Duggan was turning back towards the officer. Now he may have had the gun then or he may not. A witness gave a statement to the BBC that stated he had a phone (which contradicted an earlier statement the same person had given saying it was a gun!). Now if that officer, believing that Duggan had a gun and seeing him turn towards him with the phone in his hand may have believed that to be a gun in that split second and opened fire. That is a possible scenario.

However, you seem to know the officer saw red mist so that must be correct then!!!!!!

 

[Bwian]

Im going by what we know. We know (and it has been proven) that Duggan did NOT have a firearm on him when shot so armed police therefore shot an unarmed man.

As ive already said, if they werent sure - why couldnt a taser have been used instead - we wouldnt be in this position today if one had been used and its very much likely the 2011 riots wouldnt have happened either.

We wouldn't be in this position if these gang members didn't carry illegal firearms which they aren't afraid to use-we see the reports on the news with depressing regularity.

Duggan was not your everyday normal, nice person. He was an armed criminal who had a gun at the beginning of the incident. If I was a cop confronted with somebody I didn't trust, who had a gun and had previous and I thought he still had one I'm damned if I would rely on a tazer to protect my life.

 

[Bwian]

Nobody as far as I can see is saying that if you commit a crime you should expect to be shot dead. But if you break the law then that may be a consequence.

Especially if you are a convicted gang member known to carry illegal firearms and have been seen to have a gun moments earlier.

 

[Justice]

I heard a good point today, Whenever there is a case of Police brutality we always get to hear how bad a criminal the victim was or why the victim deserved to beaten/shot. Oddly we never hear the background of the police officer in question, in the Duggan case the officer that shot him has not even been named.

Look over this thread the majority have Mark Duggan down as no good gangster who deserved to be shot. How did you know this? the police released this information to the press. The same with Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes the most recent high profile recent examples. So now the members of the jury have Mark Duggan down as gang member with a gun, some have stated on here already he deserved to be shot one less dangerous person off the streets etc. What they don't have is full background of the police officer involved, were they recently divorced, did they have debts were they under stress, have they been disciplined before? Hardly a fair trial is it?

 

[Bwian]

I heard a good point today, Whenever there is a case of Police brutality we always get to hear how bad a criminal the victim was or why the victim deserved to beaten/shot. Oddly we never hear the background of the police officer in question, in the Duggan case the officer that shot him has not even been named.

Look over this thread the majority have Mark Duggan down as no good gangster who deserved to be shot. How did you know this? the police released this information to the press. The same with Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes the most recent high profile recent examples. So now the members of the jury have Mark Duggan down as gang member with a gun, some have stated on here already he deserved to be shot one less dangerous person off the streets etc. What they don't have is full background of the police officer involved, were they recently divorced, did they have debts were they under stress, have they been disciplined before? Hardly a fair trial is it?

That is understandable given the family's reaction to the jury. It doesn't bear thinking about what they might do to the cop or his family if they knew his name.

 

[Baldseagull]

Early reports claimed a Police Officer was shot by Mark Duggan in this incident, but was saved from serious injury as the bullet hit his radio.
If this Officer was actually shot by one of his colleagues, he was either very close to Mark Duggan at the time (and could have used a taser on him), or was unlucky with a ricochet, or should sue the Met for giving a gun to an Officer that has eyesight worse than Mr Magoo.
If it never happened at all, who made the story up?

 

[sams dad]

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.

Totally this.

 

[smeariestbat]

i'd rather blokes like this got shot every day by our police, than some innocent person, be it father/mother/child got killed in the crossfire.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I heard a good point today, Whenever there is a case of Police brutality we always get to hear how bad a criminal the victim was or why the victim deserved to beaten/shot. Oddly we never hear the background of the police officer in question, in the Duggan case the officer that shot him has not even been named.

Look over this thread the majority have Mark Duggan down as no good gangster who deserved to be shot. How did you know this? the police released this information to the press. The same with Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes the most recent high profile recent examples. So now the members of the jury have Mark Duggan down as gang member with a gun, some have stated on here already he deserved to be shot one less dangerous person off the streets etc. What they don't have is full background of the police officer involved, were they recently divorced, did they have debts were they under stress, have they been disciplined before? Hardly a fair trial is it?

Eh ? Both these cases were completely different. In neither case was the victim suggested to be a criminal. In the Tomlinson case there was ALOT of information provided about how corrupt the police officer was. In the de Menezes case it was a tragic misjudgement by the police ( although personally I think the police are taking the fall for another government organisation in this case ). Where have either of these two victims been painted as criminals ?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Early reports claimed a Police Officer was shot by Mark Duggan in this incident, but was saved from serious injury as the bullet hit his radio.
If this Officer was actually shot by one of his colleagues, he was either very close to Mark Duggan at the time (and could have used a taser on him), or was unlucky with a ricochet, or should sue the Met for giving a gun to an Officer that has eyesight worse than Mr Magoo.
If it never happened at all, who made the story up?

Early reports of 9/11 blamed pilot error. Early reports of 7/7 suggested a gas explosion on the underground - this was only revoked when a bus a few miles away exploded. Conspiracy or just confusion in the heat of the moment ?

 

[keaton]

I heard a good point today, Whenever there is a case of Police brutality we always get to hear how bad a criminal the victim was or why the victim deserved to beaten/shot. Oddly we never hear the background of the police officer in question, in the Duggan case the officer that shot him has not even been named.

Look over this thread the majority have Mark Duggan down as no good gangster who deserved to be shot. How did you know this? the police released this information to the press. The same with Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes the most recent high profile recent examples. So now the members of the jury have Mark Duggan down as gang member with a gun, some have stated on here already he deserved to be shot one less dangerous person off the streets etc. What they don't have is full background of the police officer involved, were they recently divorced, did they have debts were they under stress, have they been disciplined before? Hardly a fair trial is it?

Duggan definetley collected a gun, no-one is disputing this, not even his family

 

[vegster]

This one will run and run for quite a while, overall he was "known to the Police " and the Police may have overreacted. However, I'm genuinely surprised there are not more deaths or serious injury as there is a class of criminal/ gang culture whereby people carry guns and the police have specialist firearms units on call at all times.
The talk is that police firearms units always " Shoot to Kill " if forced to fire by circumstances yet the two men who killed Drummer Rigby ran at armed police officers while armed with a gun ( inoperable actually ) and machetes and were shot but both survived.

 

[drew]

I heard a good point today, Whenever there is a case of Police brutality we always get to hear how bad a criminal the victim was or why the victim deserved to beaten/shot. Oddly we never hear the background of the police officer in question, in the Duggan case the officer that shot him has not even been named.

Look over this thread the majority have Mark Duggan down as no good gangster who deserved to be shot. How did you know this? the police released this information to the press. The same with Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes the most recent high profile recent examples. So now the members of the jury have Mark Duggan down as gang member with a gun, some have stated on here already he deserved to be shot one less dangerous person off the streets etc. What they don't have is full background of the police officer involved, were they recently divorced, did they have debts were they under stress, have they been disciplined before? Hardly a fair trial is it?

Eh ? Both these cases were completely different. In neither case was the victim suggested to be a criminal. In the Tomlinson case there was ALOT of information provided about how corrupt the police officer was. In the de Menezes case it was a tragic misjudgement by the police ( although personally I think the police are taking the fall for another government organisation in this case ). Where have either of these two victims been painted as criminals ?

Thanks, saved me the bother. However, another point is that in the case of Tomlinson, after due process, it was found to be an unlawful killing and with regard to De Menezes, it was an open verdict, probably because the coroner refused to allow an unlawful verdict and an open one was the next best thing.

Early reports claimed a Police Officer was shot by Mark Duggan in this incident, but was saved from serious injury as the bullet hit his radio.
If this Officer was actually shot by one of his colleagues, he was either very close to Mark Duggan at the time (and could have used a taser on him), or was unlucky with a ricochet, or should sue the Met for giving a gun to an Officer that has eyesight worse than Mr Magoo.
If it never happened at all, who made the story up?

I believe all the witness statements concur there were only two shots. Duggan had two injuries, one in the arm and the fatal wound in the chest. The supposition is that the bullet causing the arm injury was the one that lodged in the other policeman's radio. There could be a question about whether a taser could have been used but what would have happened if the muscle spasms caused a reflex to pull a trigger. In the Raul Moat case, it was never decided whether the tasers were fired before or after he shot himself. It is conceivable that they were fired before and the reflex pulled the trigger that killed him.

 

[drew]

Duggan definetley collected a gun, no-one is disputing this, not even his family

Quite right but isn't a gun essential for the work of a clothes retailer?

 

[hybrid_x]

I heard a good point today, Whenever there is a case of Police brutality we always get to hear how bad a criminal the victim was or why the victim deserved to beaten/shot. Oddly we never hear the background of the police officer in question, in the Duggan case the officer that shot him has not even been named.

Look over this thread the majority have Mark Duggan down as no good gangster who deserved to be shot. How did you know this? the police released this information to the press. The same with Ian Tomlinson, Jean Charles de Menezes the most recent high profile recent examples. So now the members of the jury have Mark Duggan down as gang member with a gun, some have stated on here already he deserved to be shot one less dangerous person off the streets etc. What they don't have is full background of the police officer involved, were they recently divorced, did they have debts were they under stress, have they been disciplined before? Hardly a fair trial is it?

so this.

 

[keaton]

Quite right but isn't a gun essential for the work of a clothes retailer?

I believe it's the easiest way to do buttonholes

 

[narly101]

As others have commented - Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The "No justice, no peace" comment from the family is a crock of shit. He had an "unlicenced" firearm in his possession moments before he was shot and killed.

He was therefore shot "lawfully" by the police.

End of.

Anyone else suggesting that the police "unlawfully" killed Duggan need their heads read.

 

[Billy the Fish]

In the de Menezes case it was a tragic misjudgement by the police ( although personally I think the police are taking the fall for another government organisation in this case ). Where have either of these two victims been painted as criminals ?

I think the De Menezes case is a perfect example of why we should all be asking questions every time a copper shoots and kills someone. All the time Police are allowed to shoot and kill unarmed people and then use the get out of jail free card "I believed he was armed", innocent people are at risk of more tragic misjudgements.

If we just allow it to unchecked you can be pretty certain there will be more incidents like this. At the very least by keeping discussion public it might make them think a split second longer before they pull the trigger.