Mark Duggan- Shooting was lawful

[Whitershadeofpale]

here

Why shoot straight through the chest? why not arm or leg.

Bloody phone, wouldnt be dead. Its awful for the family but its the life he chose to lead

They're trained to go for the centre of the target - the chest.

You shoot for the centre of mass as you're less likely to miss.

lots (most)police do a great job.

it isn't bleating to have concerns about them getting away with the bad stuff when the bad stuff is so Fucking terrible.

you can't go around executing people even if you do good stuff 99% of the time. Well, they can though cant they?

They shot him in the arm first, then shot him in the chest.

The police shooting of Cherry Groce precipitated the Brixton riots as I recall, and the death of Cynthia Jarrett in police custody triggered the Broadwater Farm troubles. Both women were unarmed and black. I remember these events well - especially the latter as it was almost on my doorstep at the time

donnie I also remember this. I was in my late teens and a few miles away, so watched it on the telly open mouthed. It went up in Bristol and Liverpool and Birmingham too.

I don't wish for it to happen again.

I remember Brixton burning in 1981 and the police being unable to go in for about 12 hours with the govt at the time sneering that that was all they deserved.

Terrible.

"Why shoot straight through the chest? why not arm or leg."

Because when you shoot, you believe there is imminent threat to yourself or lives of those around you. And you don't want an injured person firing at anyone. And you don't want to miss (which is why it's not a head shot). You want to hit the biggest bit of the body that will stop a person dead (literally or metaphorically).

I must give great credit to the jury. They had to be brave, knowing that if their identity become known at any time they could be subject to reprisals. But they did their job for three months, considered all the evidence, and came to their decision. Eight of them said it was a lawful killing, two left it open - they couldn't decide. That shows what a difficult job they had.

For those who didn't sit through that three months of evidence, but still think they know better, then I'm sorry but I'm with the jury.

If you think you'll be believed you shoot someone wherever you like.

The police have a split second to decide whether or not to shoot. Mark duggan had a gun- what was he going to do with that gun- some caring, thoughtful, law abiding deed? I think not.
If you play with fire you will get burned.

It's interesting how even though the jury sat through months of evidence including all the CCTV (not just 30 second edited news segments) and sat through all the witnesses testimony they have still apparently made the wrong decision?? Clearly they would have been much better advised to spend a day googling articles from national newspapers. The officers who have also waited two years for this verdict and who now also have to wait for the ipcc to finish are all trained assassins who killed a man because they felt like it?? Because they would do that in front of witnesses and CCTV cameras wouldn't they. And Duggan is clearly a much misunderstood imp who should have done the decent thing and left his gun at home like any decent criminal scumbag because kids like Reece Jones don't get killed by idiots running around with guns do they. I almost felt sympathy for duggans family until I saw them outside court doing their best to inflame an incredibly volatile situation with ridiculous sound bites. And let's hope the journalist their group of supporters punched outside of court lets the world know what happened. No sympathy

We seem to have one argument that if someone has a gun the police should be allowed to shoot them regardless. This is not the law though and if you think that's logical you should consider that some of the police have guns. By that logic the armed police should shoot each other to protect the general public.

I actually accept that a police officer who believes a gun is pointing at him should shoot first. However this is not the same as saying 'It's a good thing to shoot people who might have guns and they deserve it'. Just that a terrible mistake is understandable. I would expect a criminal court case just like any other to determine the facts.

If the officers give conflicting descriptions of what happened then I would expect a conviction since there's no need for the officers to lie if they had no intention of breaking the law.

caketinrosie actually the CCTV is usually not a problem because typically it goes missing.

you don't need to look at newspaper articles. There is massive amounts of factual evidence publicly available.

why should the duggans not speak publicly?

What was inflammatory was the police top brass reading out a statement outside the court. who thought that would be a good idea?

how you can say you no longer feel any sympathy for the family because they spoke publicly I don't know. they were remarkably restrained IMO

Criminal court cases are not to determine the facts if it has been decided that there is no criminal case to answer. The inquest has decided the killing was lawful.

Also, differing testimony does not mean that someone must be lying. It would actually be far more suspicious if all witness statements matched perfectly. Memory is highly subjective especially in stressful situations.

I don't have to take the verdict as the correct verdict because they are not always correct. That is why we have an appeals process in this country.

There have been plenty of miscarriages of justice in the past, and I believe there will be plenty more. Just because there were police involved in does not mean they were telling the truth.

Appeals are based on points of law during the legal process not to appeal the decision itself.

Backonly the CCTV didn't go missing did it?
I have no issue with anyone making comments outside the court including the police. Is it right to spit all over a man whilst he made that statement? One less gun on the streets.

you don't need to look at newspaper articles. There is massive amounts of factual evidence publicly available
LOL! Where else is the information 'publicly available'?
Blogs?
Gossip in pubs?
Let's have trial by Facebook then. Much more reliable than juries.

Makes me sick his family screeching 'no justice, no peace', there is often neither for families of the victims of gun crime perpetrated by people like Mark Duggan.

But that's ok, use the lawful (because it has been judged as being so) death of this criminal as a stick to beat the police with.

What I don't understand is Lee Rigby's killers ran at the police with guns and knives. You would suggest there was imminent danger to life there, but they didn't shoot to kill them, they shot to injure.

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

Amber leaf, why should the police not have a right to reply? The manner of the Duggan family was very inflammatory.

Was the phrase 'no peace' meant as no peace for Mark Duggan or are they trying to incite public disorder? I am sure the complete planks who rioted last time wouldn't be able to discern what they meant.

They go through lots if training as to read the immediate danger of situations and I presume they didn't think they were in immediate danger with the murdering bastards that took Lee Rigby's life.

We can second guess all we like but it is just second guessing unless you have had the same training as the police officer or was on the jury.

The police probably shot at Lee Rigbys killers in whatever way they could given they only had a matter of seconds to do it. Just luck they never got killed, in all likelihood.