Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Mark Duggan- Shooting was lawful

430 replies

Whitershadeofpale · 08/01/2014 17:08

here

OP posts:
AmberLeaf · 09/01/2014 16:54

Isn't it just Limited!

Some will class that as all 'conspiracy theory' though no doubt.

niceguy2 · 09/01/2014 17:23

Ah ok, hadn't read that bit. That would explain that then. So then to me it's a case of whether or not he 'reached' for anything.

If he was on the phone, there's no need to reach for anything.

IamInvisible · 09/01/2014 17:29

Just a few seconds before the shooting he had been on the phone to his brother according to this article!

limitedperiodonly · 09/01/2014 17:40

That is an interesting report.

Especially this bit: 'an independent pathologist said that because of Mr Duggan's injuries it was "very unlikely" - but not impossible - that he would have been able to throw the gun such a distance after he had been shot.'

I too find Witness B's powers of observation to be almost superhuman.

But I suspect he wasn't the only one fibbing yet the jury appeared to forgive police officers for misremembering.

In the history of members of the public vs The Met - Police: quite a few; dead civilians: nil - officers have always been given the benefit of the doubt.

Sometimes very strongly indeed.

It's understandable. It's a difficult job.

There have been cases such Menezes, Mark Saunders, Harry Stanley and those two brothers in Forest Gate, east London, who were shot but thankfully managed to survive during a terrorism raid which turned out to be a bit of a mistake, where I backed the officers.

And then things came out that made me think: hang on a minute.

I resent having my sympathies manipulated. But feeling you've been fooled is nothing to standing over a grave.

limitedperiodonly · 09/01/2014 18:01

Also, I know nobody died, but Plebgate?

Some of them are so used to being believed they're not even very good liars.

AmberLeaf · 09/01/2014 18:04

It is interesting how one persons misrembering is ok, but a witness can be deemed as not credible for the same thing.

Below is the transcript from 5th November 2013.

A IPCC person mr Oshimoto is up first. what he says is interesting.

dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/1409.htm

merrymouse · 09/01/2014 18:21

The jury found that he did not have the gun when the shot was fired.

My impression is that the best outcome for the police would have been to catch him alive with the gun. (There doesn't seem to be any argument over whether he had the gun in the taxi when he started the journey).

They had caught him.

Perhaps they were all completely incompetent. However I can't see the benefit to the police of shooting a suspect if they didn't believe he was dangerous.

limitedperiodonly · 09/01/2014 18:34

I can't see the benefit to the police of shooting a suspect if they didn't believe he was dangerous

Who knows why any of us do anything except us?

And though they knew he didn't have the gun when he was shot, they accepted the theory that he threw it a long way away, even though no one saw him do it and a pathologist said it would be difficult, though not impossible, for him to do it.

MadIsTheNewNormal · 09/01/2014 18:40

I'd rather see ten Mark Duggans dead than one more decent police officer killed in the line of duty by some scumbag low-life with gangster pretensions.

You live by the sword, and all that...

merrymouse · 09/01/2014 18:59

They thought he had thrown it before the car stopped I think, presumably to get rid of the evidence, the point of the operation to be to catch him with the gun.

In this case the motive for shooting Duggan and whether or not it was reasonable were being judged by the jury. However difficult it may be to establish what was going on in somebody else's head, this is what the jury were asked to do.

YouAreMyFavouriteWasteOfTime · 09/01/2014 19:02

Witness b was interviewed by a journalist, who took notes, shortly after the killing. The journalists notes are different than his testimony.

witness b was 100m away. He is bullshittingg. Mind you, I might in his circumstances. Held couldn't agree with the police could he?

AmberLeaf · 09/01/2014 19:54

how would it be where it was found if he had thrown it before his moving car was stopped?

witnesses (inc the officers) said that he wasn't seen to throw it once he was stopped and out of the cab.

a police officer said that the police threw the gun. (that is in the inquest transcript of 05/11/13)

a witness said a police officer took the gun from the boot and put it where it was found.

that is all part of the evidence but it doesn't seem to have been much of an issue to establish the location and movements of the gun. seems odd because that all forms part of the final decision.

BackOnlyBriefly · 09/01/2014 20:03

I'd rather see ten Mark Duggans dead than one more decent police officer killed in the line of duty by some scumbag low-life with gangster pretensions.

Except you see if the police did kill him deliberately while knowing he was unarmed and then lied about then they are not 'decent police officers' but actually more Mark Duggans in disguise.

Think how you feel about Mark Duggan and ask yourself. Do you want the police force infiltrated by people like him?

merrymouse · 09/01/2014 20:05

"Of the 9, 8 have concluded that it is more likely than not, that Mark Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement.
1 concluded that Mark Duggan threw the firearm whilst on the pavement and in the process of evading the police.
1 juror was not convinced of any supposition that Mark Duggan threw the firearm from the vehicle or from the pavement because no witnesses gave evidence to this effect."

Sorry, before police officers on pavement, after car stopped. I don't know what led them to reach this conclusion - I haven't seen all the information they have. Unless they were under pressure to reach a particular verdict, I have no reason to assume that their analysis of events is not reasonable.

Starballbunny · 09/01/2014 20:13

Sorry I don't care

Starballbunny · 09/01/2014 20:14

A criminal with illegal firearms in his car got shot, good, he isn't out shooting anyone else.

merrymouse · 09/01/2014 20:18

Also, presumably even if the gun had been in the boot of the car, the jury would still have found the killing lawful because their judgement is based on what was reasonable for the police to believe - he had a gun and was armed - not what actually happened - he had gun when he entered the car but not when he was shot.

MadIsTheNewNormal · 09/01/2014 20:19

Think how you feel about Mark Duggan and ask yourself. Do you want the police force infiltrated by people like him?

Of course I don't but I am not sure how defending him and wasters like him prevents that. I cannot find it in myself to care about people like that. I really can't. I'm sick of them and the damage they cause.

IamInvisible · 09/01/2014 20:35

The more I read this thread, the more fearful I become of anyone close to me ever being tried by a jury!

"Sorry I don't care" Shock

That is an appalling thing to say.

You can not kill someone "just incase they do some thing. He had never been in prison. He had a criminal record for minor offences. Some of the "intelligence" they had on him was the equivalent of overhearing something in a pub!

AmberLeaf · 09/01/2014 20:40

It doesn't even have to be about caring about 'people like him'

The issue is whether or not the police should be accountable when they make catastrophic mistakes, regardless of the character of the civilian involved.

AmberLeaf · 09/01/2014 20:42

Some seem to be of the opinion that because he was a 'wrongun' it doesn't matter that the police fucked up

IamInvisible · 09/01/2014 20:43

It's shocking isn't it, Amber?

merrymouse · 09/01/2014 20:43

As discussed before, the decisions were based on all the evidence, not some.

The jury had to decide whether it was more likely than not that the officer wasn't acting on the belief that the suspect had a gun and was likely to use it, not whether he made the right decision.

MadIsTheNewNormal · 09/01/2014 20:44

I don't think it doesn't matter, I just don't think I care quite so much about the outcome. Smile

Nicknacky · 09/01/2014 20:54

Iam, I did explain the whole point of "intelligence" a couple of pages back.