Mark Duggan- Shooting was lawful

[Whitershadeofpale]

here

The police must have one of the most complicated jobs out there.

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.

Police officers don't always look like police officers.

A fine upstanding member of the community with a stable and loving home life - NOT

Just because someone doesn't have a nice, middle class existence with no previous doesn't mean they deserve to be shot dead.

I am at some of the posts on this thread.

The jury weren't deciding whether he deserved to be shot dead. They were being asked to decide whether in the circumstances it could be said with certainty that the actions of the police officers was unlawful.

Why would you buy a gun to protect yourself from the police out of nervousness and then when you were stopped by the police throw the gun away? That to me doesn't make sense

How would the police know that the gun was in a sock nd therefore not shiney? They saw a shiney object which was the phone but mistook it for a gun

ivykatey guns tend not to be shiny.

I find it worrying that a phone can be mistaken for a gun.

Especially when witnesses further away alleged that they could see it was a phone in his hand.

Pretty poor eyesight, some of these police have.

I honestly do not see what other decision the jury could have come to based on the information that is in the public eye.

At the end of the day a human had to make a split second decision based on the situation in front of them.

Given the lifestyle that Duggan led it isn't hard to see how the police officer in question came to that decision. This isn't a "live by the sword" suggestion but a fact - the way people live their life colours how people see them and how people perceive their actions.

have you read the transcripts tiggy?

witnesses said he had his hands up too.

Is that like the same IPCC who said within hours of the shooting that Duggan had shot first, only to retract it soon after.

As far as I can tell the reason Duggan was being followed was because he was a known threat and the police had reason to believe he was on his way to pick up a gun.

The jury seemed satisfied that he had, indeed, picked up a gun. When the police stopped him he had a black object in his hand. I don't think it's unreasonable to accept that the marksmen believed it to be a gun.

The judge directed the jury that if they accepted that the police thought the object in Duggan's hand could be a gun (even though it wasn't) than a verdict of lawful killing must be returned.

In those circs. I think it's the right verdict.

More than one witness too.

I'm old and gnarly enough to remember the Stoke Newington Police issues. And not a lot has changed.

But didn't the jury find that they felt it likely the Police knew he didn't have a gun and that it had been thrown away?

It's complicated. But I think the jury accepted that he did not have a gun but that the marksman could not have known this.

Out of interest, does anyone know where these witnesses were when the shooting occurred?

The Jury delivered their conclusions at approximately 16:00 on 8 January, concluding (by an 8–2 majority) that Duggan's death was a lawful killing, although he had already disposed of his firearm before he was shot by police.

Correct verdict.

*Especially when witnesses further away alleged that they could see it was a phone in his hand.

Pretty poor eyesight, some of these police have.*

It isn't as straight forward as that though is it? The witness and the police are seeing it from two completely different view points.

1. The police officer - in the position of responsibility of protecting the public - who sees an individual known to them, who they know is in possession of a firearm. He is brandishing something and they have to make a split second decision as to the best course of action.

1. The witness who doesn't have to make a decision. They aren't in any position of responsibility and do not have to make any instant decision - they have time to process the situation in more time.

It isn't too difficult to see how the situation could occur?

I find it worrying that a phone can be mistaken for a gun.

Really? Did you click on my link above showing a key fob gun?

wetaugust, I was just thinking about the Stephen Waldorf case. I lived in Earls Court at the time and I remember one of the local 'rent boys' running up to us and saying, "Don't go up there! The police are shooting people!!!"

As for this case, the guy had form and was known as an extremeley violent individual. Police officers are not superhuman. If they thought he had a gun in his hand, and they were scared, I am not surprised they shot him.

As others have said: Life by the Sword, Die by the Sword.

Do you not think that if you were on that jury you'd worry about police officers who generally do a good job and are on the 'right side' having their career destroyed and possibly going to prison? All because a scumbag is dead, someone who would have potentially (probably?) go on to kill others?

I've no idea about these jurors but that's exactly how some jurors do think, notably on rape cases.

That's not the job in hand.

If I had been on the jury I wouldn't have found the evidence of Witness B very convincing.

Nancy, I don't mean to be lazy but could you summarise or link to his testimony? The earlier link is extensive and I'm not able to go through it right now. Thanks.