Mark Duggan- Shooting was lawful

[Whitershadeofpale]

here

Oops sorry posted too soon. I'm not surprised but I don't think it was the right verdict. Based on everything I've read I'm in no doubt that he was in possession of a gun however, I'm sure he disposed of it when he saw the police coming. I do not believe he was armed when he was shot.

I think the jury felt that he was a career criminal who is no loss yo the world (quite frankly I agree). But that does not make shooting and killing him ok, it is the police's job to apprehend him and build good enough evidence for the CPS to be able to prosecute . It is not their job to dish out what they see as justice.

I'm watching Asst Commissioner Mark Rowley being furiously barracked outside the court.

I don't know what to think. I wasn't in court. I wasn't on that jury.

Mark Duggan doesn't sound like a very nice man but the circumstances of his death sound a bit odd.

I'm a middle-aged white woman so I'm unlikely to be a victim of the Met's armed officers except for in cross-fire.

But my trust in the Met has been shaken over recent years and isn't bolstered today.

Posted before I saw your second post OP.

I completely agree. Apart from being in no doubt he was in possession of a gun. I know someone was convicted of supplying him with it, but curiously his fingerprints weren't on it.

The question that I thought was important was at the point the police fired the gun, did the jury think there was a risk to the lives of others (or something like that)? I think that at that instant the police probably did think there was a risk, from him or from others, and though it's awful I can understand why they shot him.

My understanding about why his fingerprints weren't in the gun was that it had been in a shoebox which was found with his fingerprints on. When he was stopped he chucked the box out of the cab and the gun fell out. I don't think he ever touched the gun only the box.

Lyndie The 2 police officers stated that he held a gun in the air. All other eyewitnesses said that it was a mobile phone.

I think it's the wrong verdict. He was undoubtedly a scrote, but we don't have the death penalty in this country. He should have been tried and convicted by a jury of his peers. It seems to be a pattern - Met kills someone, their press office releases lies about them, the inquest finds in their favour.

I have sympathy for the inquest jury. They knew that their decision, whatever it was, would have implications beyond this case and potentially cause ructions.

I would be more comfortable with the opposite verdict than this one.

But they only had to find on balance of probabilities but to record an unlawful killing verdict they would have had to have found that the armed officer knew for sure that he was unarmed and defenceless and went ahead anyway.

Clearly this was too uncomfortable a decision for them to countenance.

Whether Duggan was a good/bad person in deed or thought is an irrelevance (unless you are that twat Louise Untermensch who keeps referring to Duggan as armed when shot). Today it seems it is lawful to shoot somebody you merely believe to have a gun.

But I wasn't in court and am not a PO.....

I believe the police had sufficient reason, based on intelligence, the movements that were made, and the split second timing to act as they did. So did an independent jury who heard all the evidence. And despite working for the 'right side' I don't automatically assume they are right, or have acted with the best interests.
On a personal note, I simply can't summon up sympathy for him. If you run with wolves, etc.

Trouble is the jury found the Police had not acted correctly upon the intelligence (correct me if i have phrased that incorrectly) and the overall verdict seems incompatible with the subsidiary verdicts.

It was the wrong verdict. Fire arms officers have to get it right when they fire.

Was the Officer panicked? did he truly think Mark Duggan was armed.

If not it starts to look like an extra-judicial killing.

What kind of man Mark Duggan was doesn,t matter.

What happens if the far-left/far-right/ radical Islamists/insert your own nightmare here were ever to gain political power here?
Not every Government is benign. It,s bad for justice, it,s rotton for democracy.

I have plenty of shoeboxes with my fingerprints on them. I have often travelled with them in my car. I guess other people on shopping sprees have too.

I have plenty of socks too. I don't know how easy it is to take a fingerprint off a sock. I guess it would be easy to get DNA evidence off a sock and maybe they did. I don't know.

Anyway, so a shoebox with Mark Duggan's fingerprints on it was found, as was a clean gun in a sock, 20 feet away from his body.

They could have reached an Open Verdict I believe too. I'm glad that I wasn't on that jury, especially as they were shouted at in court by members of the public. But I haven't seen the evidence so can't comment on whether they got the verdict right.

The police have to make snap judgements in these situations - they don't always necessarily make the right one. The jury were critical of the way intelligence (or lack of it was used). I hope that we don't see a repeat of the riots after his death though.

I don't doubt that this will be used as an excuse to go on a robbing spree

The police have to make snap judgements in these situations - they don't always necessarily make the right one

That's what I felt about Jean Charles de Menezes and Mark Saunders - the solicitor who went postal in Chelsea.

And then other stuff came out.

If any of the other eyewitnesses had said that it might have been a gun in his hand I would have been more in favor of the police but they all said the same; it was a phone .

Not entirely relevant but I'm not sure if his family are liars or just totally deluded.

His family aren't the most upright or convincing people, tbh.
As for riots - wet January isn't as suited as hot August so I'd certainly not expect much.

The fact he was unarmed is almost irrelevant really. It's what the police officer thought that matters. And whether it was reasonable to think it.

And unfortunately, the kind of man he was does matter. The police knew him as a career criminal, involved in gangs, drugs and violence including a couple of previous firearm incidents (alleged). All of which contributes to how the officer perceived the situation.

Of course with hindsight the officer was wrong but it's about what he was faced with at the time.

Sad for his family as it shouldn't have happened but the right verdict IMO.

It's what the police officer thought that matters

Yeah, because police officers are judge, jury and executioners.

It was the wrong verdict.

I honestly don't care what sort of a man he was, if he was out for a stroll or on his way to work or not, he did not deserve to be killed. Armed police have to get it right before they shoot.

They can not make the judgement that he needs to be off the streets, or the streets need cleaning up, that is the job of the CPS.

I don't think this is the last we will hear of this tbh.

If the police in this country can start shooting because they think someone is armed, I don't think I want to live here anymore.

Wrong verdict but no surprise.

Yes, I agree IamInvisible; I am very anxious about this verdict. It does not sit well at all IMO.

I have no doubt that MD was an unsavoury type but that does not negate the fact that he was unarmed and the jury has accepted this.

The police will have closed ranks on this one. IMO.

Too many other deaths in police custody which are far less high profile as well.

Wrong verdict, but it was only going to go this way.

Great excuse for a bit of violent shop lifting.

I agree with everything Orange Pixie says. It was the correct verdict.