Active discussions

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

Talk
News
Original poster

Mark Duggan- Shooting was lawful

430 replies

Whitershadeofpale · 08/01/2014 17:08

here

OP posts:
NorthernLurker · 08/01/2014 19:29

There is an element of live by the sword, die by the sword to this situation and of course one does rather wonder what the intent for the gun was - he wasn't collecting it to mount it on his wall was he? Death was in the situation one way or the other - but should they have shot him dead at the point they did? No I don't think so. Are the jury right? I think they had an impossibly hard job and they shouldn't be attacked for applying themselves to that.

StickEmUpBigStyle · 08/01/2014 19:43

Live by the sword .... Just what I said.

BooBudolphMeowson · 08/01/2014 19:49

I'm happy with the verdict, and feel much more sympathy with the police than his family.

wetaugust · 08/01/2014 19:56

IamInvisible - the Police have been shooting people for years and some have been innocent.

C4 news has devoted virtually the whole program to this verdict.

Overkill.

wetaugust · 08/01/2014 20:01

Here's one they got wrong back in 1983. Bit scary if you were in London and drove a Mini - like I did.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Stephen_Waldorf

IamInvisible · 08/01/2014 20:06

I know they have wetaugust. I was responding to the comment where the pp had said " it was what the police thought that matters".

Firearms officers may therefore only discharge their weapons "to stop an imminent threat to life".[24]

From this. I don't believe there was an imminent threat to life.

wetaugust · 08/01/2014 20:12

But the police firearms officer did and his view has been confirmed by a jury.

Unfortunately mistakes do happen. I don't think they set out to deliberately shoot him - not after the JC M fiasco. There would have been easier ways of doing that.

Just look at it this way - if they were right a life or lives were probably saved.

scottishmummy · 08/01/2014 20:13

minority will use this to enact a gripe against the police.all the conspiracy theories will pop up

VivaLeBeaver · 08/01/2014 20:13

I think if he hadn't gone to get a gun he wouldn't have been shot.

I know the above isn't a reason to be shot but it is the reason why the police officer said he was scared for his life. He believed duggan had a gun and was going to shoot him therefore legally he's allowed to shoot first.

Just hope there's no riots over this.

wetaugust · 08/01/2014 20:14

Too cold to riot in Jan.

VivaLeBeaver · 08/01/2014 20:15

But if they believe there's an imminent threat to life then that counts in the eyes of the law. Even if that belief is later found to be wrong.

VivaLeBeaver · 08/01/2014 20:15

Do you know I did think that, about it been too cold for rioting.

If it was July now then Croydon would be burnt down again!

wetaugust · 08/01/2014 20:19

Exactly Viva. That's the test - that it was a reasonable action taken by an officer who thought Diggan had a gun and that his life was in danger.

And that unfortunately is where circumstances and character come into play.

Had the Police shot a little old lady on her way to pick up her pension because the officer believed she was armed and posed a threat to his life - the jury would almost certainly have considered the officer was wrong, based on the circumstances and the character of the victim.

Poppy67 · 08/01/2014 20:20

If you eat uncooked foods, you risk getting food poisoning.
If you play with knives, you risk getting cut.
If you have a gun, you risk getting shot.

Simple. Don't have a gun, reduce the risk of being shot.

This was not a law abiding person. Play with fire, you'll get burnt.

IamInvisible · 08/01/2014 20:23

The jury said they were sure that Duggan did not have a weapon in his hand when the police surrounded him.

How was that an imminent threat to life?

Shellywelly1973 · 08/01/2014 20:26

No party in this case is blameless...

The whole case was flawed, indescrepancies & political motivations were paramount rather then justice or the truth.

Mark Duggan is now synonymous with Police brutality and corruption.

Poppy67 · 08/01/2014 20:27

He had a gun which was on the ground, he could have had another gun.

BackOnlyBriefly · 08/01/2014 20:27

Do we even know for sure it was his gun? I seem to recall it got about a bit in the initial statements. One minute in his hand, next over a hedge and then back again.

I'm sure they thought they were doing the right thing. Just like when they followed Menezes to the underground station and executed him.

Did they ever find the CCTV that went missing on that one btw? Funny how often that gets lost.

Sallyingforth · 08/01/2014 20:28

IamInvisible
The jury had three months to consider the matter.
The officer knew that Duggan had been given a gun, and had to make a split second decision. Could you have done any better?

Poppy67 · 08/01/2014 20:30

It was confirmed he had a gun. The guy who sold it to him was charged. He was a drug dealer, known to possess guns and didn't stop. He took the risks in his life and paid the ultimate price.

IamInvisible · 08/01/2014 20:30

The gun that was 20 feet away from him had none of his DNA on it Poppy. It was in a sock that also had none of his DNA on it.

IamInvisible · 08/01/2014 20:32

Are you saying there are never miscarriages of justice in this country Sallying?

limitedperiodonly · 08/01/2014 20:33

Has any Met officer ever been convicted of killing anybody whether in custody or not?

Norudeshitrequired · 08/01/2014 20:34

I feel it was the correct verdict. He left a house and got into a taxi carrying a gun. It isn't lawful to carry a gun in this country and he wasn't carrying it to go and shoot empty tin cans in the forest.
If he hadn't got into a cab carrying a gun then he would probably still be alive today.

BackOnlyBriefly · 08/01/2014 20:34

Poppy, I'm actually in favour of the death penalty for cases that are proven beyond a shadow of doubt. I think the decision by the police to cut out the middleman and just shoot people is not the right way to do it.

How did you feel about the Menezes case when it was proved the guy was totally innocent?