Mark Duggan- Shooting was lawful

[Whitershadeofpale]

here

caketinrosie

I don't think all police officers are the same. nor do I think they are all men.

I am not basing my points on newspaper reports. Just reading the evidence/transcripts from the inquest which is available to read online.

I'm gobsmacked at those suggesting he had it coming! A lot of mud has been slung at Mark Duggan's name which is totally unsubstantiated. A career criminal with only two minor convictions: possession of cannabis and receiving stolen goods? I don't think so. If he was such an awful criminal he would have been locked up or in possession of an extensive criminal record.

Quite clearly he could not have lobbed the gun over a fence after suffering fatal injuries. There's suggestion he threw the gun away before being shot, yet none of the highly trained armed officers reported witnessing that? One of them took their eye off the ball and missed that, maybe, but all of them?

If he did have a weapon in his possession, I can see how that came to be. If I were him I too would be extremely paranoid and scared after my own cousin was murdered. I don't condone illegal gun ownership but am not surprised someone could feel they had to acquire one to protect themselves from murder. His motive would have been very different to someone psychopathic enough to want to kill for the sake of killing.

There is a difference between unsubstantiated (no evidence) and not tried in court. The police have to build a case and make judgements based on information that has not yet gone before a court.

Leaving aside comments in the papers a jury judged that the police had information to justify the marksman's belief that Duggan had a gun and would use it. Even if there had been a police cover up afterwards it wasn't necessary because the jury judged the actual shot to be lawful in the light of the information available to the police at the time; and even though it turned out to be a tragic mistake because Duggan wasn't armed.

Again, the case has not left the legal process but I am sure this point will be reviewed again.

Duggan did not have it coming because of the simple fact that he was a human in the UK.

Duggan was being followed by the police. They knew he had just picked up a gun from Kevin Hutchinson foster. Foster has since been convicted of supplying the gun.

Duggan was sent a text telling him that he was being followed. Duggan sent a text minutes before he was killed, "Trident have jammed me".

It was entirely possible for him to have thrown the gun as the mini cab pulled to a halt.

Duggan did not hold his hands up quietly but got out of the car and tried to run. In the process the police who knew who he was armed and had stopped the mini cab so they could get the gun off of the streets, he grabbed his mobile phone from his waistband.

The police thought he had reached for the weapon and shot him.

The seven women and three men jury found by a majority of nine to one that Mr Duggan had thrown the weapon he was carrying clear of the taxi as police pounced. He was shot outside the car seconds later.

...........

Duggan was not some charity worker off to do some good deed, he had just bought a gun, a converted BBM Bruni model 92, rendering it a lethal fire arm. Not the type of gun used to shoot rabbits!

Duggan chose to be involved in criminal activity. He chose not to follow police orders and in doing so he deliberately placed himself in danger and acted in a way to cause the police to believe he was a threat and the police shot him.

Duggan was not a pn upright member of society. He was involved in drugs, gangs and firearms.

Good riddance to him and best wishes to the police for keeping another scumbag off of the streets.

Again, the case has not left the legal process so I am sure this point will be reviewed again.

At least the media coverage of this event will deter others from carrying guns.
The fact that you are shot dead, not shot in the arm etc, will be a great disincentive to other youngsters who want to be seen as 'tough gun-toters' - arming yourself runs bigs risks.

Perhaps result in a reduction of the deaths of innocent bystanders or in gang violence.

The fact that Duggan did not have a vast offending history does not really matter, many gang members and dangerous people don't.

I agree with sunday good riddance!

why didn't the police kill Raoul moat? he went on a tour of the north country killing one man and blinding a police officer. the police surrounded him and allowed him to kill himself rather than shooting him on the spot. what was special about him? he was a murderer, why didn't the police shoot him?

Just been reading some of the transcript, linked to earlier and I think the assistant coroner sums it up nicely when preparing to send the jury home for the christmas break he says....

      Other people are bound  to have their views about this case, they are all ill-informed.  The only people who really know about the case are you, that's really the ten of you, you are the ones right in the heart of this looking at all the  evidence and discussing it and deciding amongst yourselves.

Can't decide which view is more muppet like: completely ignoring the realities and difficulties of being a police officer making judgements about how to manage dangerous people who aren't going to follow any rule book or decide to do the right thing; or deciding that the death of Mark Duggan was a good thing that had no wider negative consequences to that operation or the ability of police to manage crime in general.

Really it's a close run thing. Draw.

merrymouse I don't believe all police officers are corrupt. I believe some of them are. I've no idea what proportion. I guess a small one, I'd like to think that.

What I do think is that there is a larger proportion of police officers who believe things that are clearly wrong, such as the contamination of evidence by collusion or 'reminding' each other of the day's events, are right because it's always been that way and in any case is just a method of dealing with the stresses of the job.

How can anybody possibly think that comparing and copying notes, which is what happened here and in other cases, mostly recently Plebgate, is all right?

Either those people are corrupt or they do not understand the nature of evidence, both of which I find worrying in someone who is supposed to be upholding and enforcing the law.

There is a camaraderie in the police which is unavoidable and which in many respects I would support because it is a difficult job.

But it does lead police officers into thinking that they are a special case with special insights and that no one else is entitled to comment on their behaviour because they don't understand.

I said I would bow out, but hey I will bite seeing that is a direct dig at what I have posted.

I have never said officers compare notes. They don't and as I have asked time and time again, where is the suggestion they have in the Duggan case?

When I am compiling a case to the pf I have to know what my colleagues saw/did. So I have to discuss the case with them in able to forward all evidence for any potential prosecution.

Not collusion, not copying, not cooking up a story. But making sure I am in possession of the full facts. And no, you obviously don't understand this.

And if I was to be asked this in court, which I have been previously then I state that and if there is an issue with this I will be questioned on it and if my evidence is found to be unreliable then the correct result will follow.

Does that make it any clearer?

Agree with that, merrymouse.

But I also think that police officers being permitted to compare notes (literally) and arrive at a joint understanding of what happened, however much they may feel it is a valid, good faith exercise in getting to the truth, is wrong and needs to be stopped.

It's not doing police credibility any good and it has the obvious potential to allow unfair and improper tailoring of evidence.

Angela, did you read my last post? Think about it for one second.

With any case which is being reported to pf or cps you have a reporting officer who submits the case. That officer pulls together all the information, including that of civilian and police actions. Therefore they need to know what happened.

Depending on the type of case, police statements will be submitted either at the time or when later requested. I have submitted statements to pf months after an incident, and more often than not I've moved department and working with new colleagues.

Obviously I am taking in general terms and not in the Duggan case.

I have read all your posts.

You are hectoring but not very persuasive, notwithstanding your experienced as a police officer (or perhaps, because of that, as you are partie pris).

Nicknacky Counsel to the inquest Ashley Underwood asked officer V48 why the accounts of officers were very close and contained the same mistakes - the colour of Duggan's mini cab and the number of shots fired.

A number of times V48 was asked whether he had discussed the incident. The officer maintained that the only discussions were about the welfare of the officers after a traumatic incident where someone had died.

Given the nature of the mistakes I do not believe that's all that was discussed. And V48 is saying something different to you. He said that they did not discuss the facts of the case in order to compile their accounts.

In any case yesterday Asst Commissioner Mark Rowley of The Met accepted that this might be a problem and said they would be looking at the practice.

At the end of the day he had a gun. He had a gun illegally. Simple as that. A fact. He decided to take the risks associated with possessing an illegal gun. He lost.

If he didn't want to get shot by an armed cop, he shouldn't have taken the risk by having a gun!

I survive without owning a gun. Why couldn't he if he was oh-so-innocent?

And when will people stop claiming that all police are corrupt. Bollocks. There will be some who aren't so ethical, just like there are some nurses who kill their patients, or builders fleecing old ladies. Every industry has its fair share of scum ... and the public also has its fair share of scum too.

I'm trying to imagine having a cousin who was in contact with police, engaged in activity that could possibly lead them to being shot by them.

I'm trying to imagine reacting, by acquiring a gun to 'defend' myself against the police.

I'm drawing a blank

Limited. I do not consult colleagues to compile my personal statement. I consult colleagues when I am compiling a case. There is a difference.

what are you talking about lougle?

mark duggans cousin was murdered. he was stabbed to death on a night out.

Mark duggan was understandably affected by that. he was paranoid. it seems he illegally acquired a gun because of that.

we know the rest...

Just joined in this, and have read all 16 pages! Very coherent arguments at all times, with bias shown by certain posters. It is interesting that the Police are being fingered verbally for being corrupt, yet the Gangster word has not been mentioned. Anyway, if this debate continues, no officer will be armed in the future, as the potential ensuing negative publicity in the event of a dodgy shot (and they will never will be a 100% sure target) will make damned sure that no officer will ever want the responsibility.

Amberleaf I read this post:

" CrispyHedgeHog Thu 09-Jan-14 08:17:46

I didn't know Mark Duggan personally but we used to go to the same pub occasionally so I've seen him around.

Friends of mine who did know him have said that he was incredibly nervous and paranoid for the couple of months leading up to his death because his cousin had been killed by the police and he feared that he was in their sights too - hence him buying the gun."

So as CrispyHedgeHog knew people who knew him, and stated that his cousin had been killed by the police and no-one refuted it, I thought it was possibly true...

My fault for believing a post, but I was simply responding to the discussion on the thread.

And that neatly shows the danger of 'give a dog a bad name'.

grabagran, do a search for the word 'gangster', you'll find it has been used. And Duggan's been accused of all sorts, despite his criminal record being extremely minor for someone the police are determined to paint as a serious gangster.

No officer will want to be armed is rubbish - NO officer has ever been found responsible for shooting someone dead, either on the balance of probabilities at an inquest or in a criminal court. They are always cleared.