Mark Duggan- Shooting was lawful

[Whitershadeofpale]

here

It's what the police officer thought that matters

Yeah, because police officers are judge, jury and executioners.

Yes they are....at that given moment, with the intel they had at that time that is the moment that they have to make that awful choice (& believe me it does NOT come without repercussions & a helluva lot of soul searching) that is what they are paid for & expected to do & yet the poor sods are hung out to dry every time they do what they are there for.

Debriefs and full statements are essential to learn from any procedural errors and improve operational plans for another time. If any officer is identified as having done something against orders/illegal then quite rightly they should be punished that's what enquiries are for.

I wasn't there at the time,I wasn't on the jury who clearly had FAR more accurate and detailed evidence and statements than any of us.
They also sound like they did their job thoroughly taking time to debate & consider all the FACTS and that is what juries are for.

20/20 vision in hindsight makes it easy to be critical. It is always sad that someone dies and I'm glad I'm not the one making that decision but I'm bloody glad there are others who do for us & that we have our legal system, imperfect as it is.

here's a summary

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25657206

I think the inquest jury should be given more credit but the people posting here, given that they (MN posters) did not get access to all the evidence. Not to the extend rl jury did.

"should be given more credit by the people posting here"
(stupid autocorrect)

Thanks nancy, that's interesting.

Reading some of the comments on here, I hope I never have to be judged by a jury of my 'peers'. We are all supposed to be equal under the law, but not, apparently, according to some posters. And anyone who believes that how the police treat people is not affected by how they perceive them is ridiculously naïve.

Agree with tiggy.

Presumably for the verdict to be unlawful the jury would need to be certain, based on the evidence, that either there was no reason for the police to believe that Duggan had a gun or that, believing he had a gun, their reaction was disproportionate.

Any doubt that this was the case would lead to a verdict of lawful.

I think that in this kind of case it is highly likely that somebody will be shot and it is very unlikely that there will be an unlawful verdict.

Ohmy, of course the police treat people differently. I treat old Mrs Smith at number 90 differently than the thief that broke into her house and stole her handbag.

The burden of proof is different between unlawful killing and lawful killing.

Look at the Jury's decision sheet

" Unlawful You have to be sure that the act was unlawful - that is that it was not done in lawful self defence or defence of another or in order to prevent crime. It is not for V53 to prove that he did act lawfully....Only if you are sure that Mr Duggan was killed unlawfully will you come to this conclusion and record it as such.

Lawful killing If you conclude that it was more likely than not that the fatal shot which killed Mr Duggan was the use of lawful force - then you would return a conclusion of lawful killing." [Emphasis mine]

So, the jury could only conclude it was unlawful if they were sure. If they were not sure then they had to return either a lawful killing verdict or an open verdict if they felt there wasn't enough evidence to say it was either lawful or unlawful.

Also, they were only making a decision on the fatal shot. That's the first shot, which hit the chest. They weren't asked or needed to make a conclusion as to whether the officer needed to shoot him a second time.

anyone who believes that how the police treat people is not affected by how they perceive them is ridiculously naïve.

The police argument was that the information available to them made it reasonable to perceive mark duggan as a man who was about to shoot somebody.

Nicky, do you seriously think that is an exemplar of the point I was making?

To be honest, your point didn't really have point. Everyone is treated equally, hence why there was an inquest with a jury of our peers listening and evaluating the evidence.

Also, the police have been quite clear that they thought him to be a violent member of a dangerous criminal gang. I don't think anybody has argued that their perception of his character didn't influence their actions.

I know people want to believe that police officers are not corrupt, but there is no doubt that the gun was planted. All the evidence points to this. The police officer shot MD, realised he had no weapon so the gun was planted by him or a colleague. You don't need to be Columbo to figure this out.

It's not unreasonable to expect the officer to shoot if he felt threatened, but I don't like the whole planting the gun, it reeks of corruption.

They are talking about wearing cameras, I think this will help in the transparency of it all.

Norudeshit
yes really.

I have seen key fob weapons yes (pictures not in the flesh)

Still concerns me that something the majority of people own can be acceptably mistaken for a weapon.

zippey - you can't say 'there's no doubt the police planted the gun'

It's put forward as a theory certainly but that's all.

I know I'm very late coming to this but this comment:

Back - again my understanding of Jdm is that armed police told him to stop so he ran. Horrific bombs had just gone off and he's there acting dodgy with a back pack, running for a tube. Why would someone not stop when told to by armed police? I don't get it.

shows how lying by the police at the time the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes has been very effective in leading many people to believe an untrue version, sympathetic to the police, of what went on.

I'm not sure what I think about the Duggan case in general but I despair over the fact that when the stakes are high, the first thought of some police officers, and even police forces, is for there to be a cover-up, often because there's a fair chance that it'll work (at least of a decade or two). And I despair even more that governments go along with this to avoid opening cans of worms which is why we're stuck with things like the IPCC and the ACPO.

but there is no doubt that the gun was planted.

Based on what evidence? That it was found over a fence? Was Duggan incapable of throwing it? If they were going to plant the gun I would have expected it to be closer to the body to eliminate the arguments of how it came to be on the other side of the fence.
And what about the guy oh was charged with supplying the firearm to Duggan, was that a fit up as well?
I don't believe that Columbos job is in any danger.

Still concerns me that something the majority of people own can be acceptably mistaken for a weapon.

Well not when there is intelligence to state that the person has just collected a firearm.

I think the police thought that it was a gun because they thought they had evidence that he was carrying a gun and they shot him because they they thought he would use it.

Why would they believe it to be in their interest to shoot him if this wasn't the case?

it was said by the police that some of the intelligence was on a par with something overheard in a pub.

which reminds me of Harry Stanley.

If they were going to plant the gun I would have expected it to be closer to the body to eliminate the arguments of how it came to be on the other side of the fence.

Exactly. The gun-planting theory is arrant nonsense.

I don't think the comparisons with JCDM are fair.

He was a totally innocent man on his way to work. A case of complete mistaken identity. The police set out to follow and arrest Duggan

I agree limited that shouldn't come into a jurors decision making process but of course it does. The human element is always going to mean that people's decisions are influenced by their opinion of the people involved and the potential ramifications. I think if this wasn't the case we'd had far higher conviction rates for rape, we'd also likely see an increase in the amount of cases brought for assisted suicide. As it is those kind of cases are easily swung by emotion.