Mark Duggan- Shooting was lawful

[Whitershadeofpale]

here

Brand new sock, wearing gloves when handling it? Clean sock just out the wash?

Either way, no surprise there was no DNA or prints of anyone.

I have every sympathy for the police officers involved in this one. They have an extremely difficult job to do and have to make difficult decisions with just seconds to think. I think they did the right thing.

I would have shot the dick head for fun. - that's why I'm not a police officer

I know you're a police officer viva.

I don't know where you work but i've grown tired of Met officers who've claimed that people stabbed themselves like Smiley Culture or fell over like Ian Tomlinson or were in possession of a suspicious table leg.

I could go on. Really. I could.

if, as is claimed, mark duggan was holding the gun in the sock when he was first shot, there should have been some gun shot residue on it as there was on his clothing. There wasn't.

Hear hear limitedperiod

Amber, i have to admit with not being totally up to date with the evidence. But I'm a bit confused as to what point you are making? Do you mean there was no residue in the sock?

I know the police have a very hard job. I am certainly not anti police. But them doing a difficult job shouldn't mean they are untouchable when they get it wrong.

If I was a member of the jury I think I'd be worried about my personal safety

Why? His family were angry. It's reasonably unusual for an inquest but not unusual for a criminal trial.

Nicknacky. yes there was no residue on the sock. despite him apparently having it in his hand when he was shot the first time.

But a jury has listened to the evidence. If there was criminality established then the officers would had rightly faced the consequences of that. They are not untouchable.

I'm still uncertain as to your point. There is no doubt the sock contained the gun. And the officers believed he was holding a gun and a jury has accepted that.

Nickynacky establishing criminality on their part is the issue

What do you mean? I'm not being obtuse, btw!

Limited - none of those deaths you have linked to involved the deceased roaming the streets of London with a gun. Whether the gun was in Duggans hand or not at the time the shot was fired by the police officer, the fact remains that he had a gun and I still don't believe that he was off to find a forest to shoot tin cans.
There's an old saying: you play with fire and you might get burned.

IamInvisible
You can't have it both ways!
If you accept one of the jury's statements then you have to accept the other one. Stop trying to pick it to pieces.

they claimed the gun in the sock ended up over the fence 10-20ft away after he threw it after having been shot once.

If it was in his hand when he was shot., then it is surprising for it not to have any residue on it.

Nickynacky I would like to post some links to back my posts/explain my points but my laptop is broken and I can't copy and paste on my phone sorry!

I sure the experts have examined all possibilities. It is now accepted that it was not in his hands however at the time the officers believed he was holding it when he was shot.

My guess is that the gun was thrown as soon as Duggans got out of the taxi - it's a five year minimum sentence for being found in possession of a firearm, so he had reason to try and get rid of it. However, the police might not have seen him chuck it over the fence and believed he still had the gun in his possessions; after all he's not exactly going to let the police clearly see that he has attempted to dispose of it.

The Jury text

The jury are sure at a majority of 8 to 2 that he didn't have the gun in his hand when he was shot. There is no denying that.

Sallying With respect, don't tell me what to do. It is incredibly confusing to say he was lawfully killed when they are sure he didn't have a gun in his hand when he was shot!

but the point of it not being in his hand when he was shot contradicts the explanation of how the gun he had in the cab came to be over that fence.

Norudeshit that contradicts the statements of both the police and the witnesses

Not really. He threw it! How do you think it got there? Baring in mind an associate of Duggan's has been convicted of supplying him with it.

really wish I could link to the statements particularly those of the witnesses

I think you should read the statements Nickynacky.

how do I think it got there? I don't think mark duggan put it there