Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Mark Duggan was killed lawfully, inquest decides - Telegraph
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15918
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by Bryn Mawr »

oscar;1444141 wrote: Mark Duggan was killed lawfully, inquest decides - Telegraph


How the jury could come to the conclusion that he was unarmed at the time he was shot and that he was shot lawfully I don't quite understand - at least the jury agreed that the Police botched it.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Bryn Mawr;1444145 wrote: How the jury could come to the conclusion that he was unarmed at the time he was shot and that he was shot lawfully I don't quite understand - at least the jury agreed that the Police botched it.


Because the jury agreed that Duggan had the gun when he got In the taxi... he was armed. The Jury decided that the police had to make split second decisions based on knowing he had been armed. Therefore, they believe the police did not unlawfully shoot an Innocent unarmed man... that's the way they saw.

I have just watched an Interview with a Met police spokesman and I can't help but agree to some of the points he made. One being that gun crime Is a major Issue In London and armed police deal with thousands of Incidents where suspects are armed and they don't all end like Duggan as police do all they can to disarm first,
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15918
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by Bryn Mawr »

oscar;1444147 wrote: Because the jury agreed that Duggan had the gun when he got In the taxi... he was armed. The Jury decided that the police had to make split second decisions based on knowing he had been armed. Therefore, they believe the police did not unlawfully shoot an Innocent unarmed man... that's the way they saw.

I have just watched an Interview with a Met police spokesman and I can't help but agree to some of the points he made. One being that gun crime Is a major Issue In London and armed police deal with thousands of Incidents where suspects are armed and they don't all end like Duggan as police do all they can to disarm first,


So the Police lied in their testimony but that's OK?

We are not talking about generalised and hypothetical incidents, we are talking about specific actions in a specific case, that the Police attempted to change the subject in the interview was a common and deliberate ploy. The Police made NO attempt to disarm him - he wasn't armed.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Bryn Mawr;1444149 wrote: So the Police lied in their testimony but that's OK?

We are not talking about generalised and hypothetical incidents, we are talking about specific actions in a specific case, that the Police attempted to change the subject in the interview was a common and deliberate ploy. The Police made NO attempt to disarm him - he wasn't armed.


There Is still the big question of how the gun ended up where It did but going by the previous IPCC Inquiry, didn't the police say that they had observed him being handed a gun In a shoebox. He then got Into the taxi and from there he was tailed. The IPCC Inquiry said Duggan's fingerprints were on the gun when It was found so surely he must have taken the gun from the shoe box? That's according to the IPCC Inquiry. However, the Jury's decision today Is based on what officers believed at the time.

This Is Interesting,

What is known and what is not known about the shooting of Mark Duggan? | The inquest into the death of Mark Duggan
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15918
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by Bryn Mawr »

oscar;1444151 wrote: There Is still the big question of how the gun ended up where It did but going by the previous IPCC Inquiry, didn't the police say that they had observed him being handed a gun In a shoebox. He then got Into the taxi and from there he was tailed. The IPCC Inquiry said Duggan's fingerprints were on the gun when It was found so surely he must have taken the gun from the shoe box? That's according to the IPCC Inquiry. However, the Jury's decision today Is based on what officers believed at the time.

This Is Interesting,

What is known and what is not known about the shooting of Mark Duggan? | The inquest into the death of Mark Duggan


The jury's statement was very specific, the concluded that he had thrown the gun away the moment he stepped out of the car, this directly contradicts what the Police said in evidence therefore the jury believed that the Police lied under oath.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Bryn Mawr;1444156 wrote: The jury's statement was very specific, the concluded that he had thrown the gun away the moment he stepped out of the car, this directly contradicts what the Police said in evidence therefore the jury believed that the Police lied under oath.


Yes It does... During the IPCC Inquiry, didn't police testify that Duggan had pointed the gun at officers as he exited the taxi If I recall ?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by gmc »

It is significant, then, that a jury of Londoners, who have seen and heard all the evidence, have today concluded that not only was the operation to stop Mark Duggan in the taxi conducted in a way which minimised to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force, but that Mark Duggan had a gun, and also that our officer had an honest and reasonable belief that Mark Duggan still had the gun when he shot him.


Seems simple enough. He had a gun so the stop was lawful, he police marksman had reason to believe the object he was holding was the gun. It was a jury of bhis peers are you suggesting it was somehow "got at"
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by Oscar Namechange »

gmc;1444173 wrote: Seems simple enough. He had a gun so the stop was lawful, he police marksman had reason to believe the object he was holding was the gun. It was a jury of bhis peers are you suggesting it was somehow "got at"


That's what I meant... If the marksman believed Duggan was holding the gun, then he did not deliberately assassinate him.

But somewhere between being handed the gun In a shoebox and being shot, he threw the gun.

Still, I'm sure the Jury heard far more than we know.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15918
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by Bryn Mawr »

gmc;1444173 wrote: Seems simple enough. He had a gun so the stop was lawful, he police marksman had reason to believe the object he was holding was the gun. It was a jury of bhis peers are you suggesting it was somehow "got at"


Where is that quoted from?

It certainly does not match the reports that were coming out at the time the jury were giving their verdicts
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by gmc »

Bryn Mawr;1444177 wrote: Where is that quoted from?

It certainly does not match the reports that were coming out at the time the jury were giving their verdicts


First post has a link to the telegraph. Read the article.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by Oscar Namechange »

He was a senior member of North London’s notorious Tottenham ManDem gang, which traded in violence, intimidation and drugs.

In the eight years before his death, Duggan was repeatedly arrested over a raft of serious crimes, including murder, attempted murder and a range of firearms offences.



Read more: Mark Duggan: Arms draped around two violent gangsters, thug whose death sparked riots | Mail Online

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



Apparently, In the past 4 years, firearms officers have dealt with 10,000 call outs to armed members of the public, one of which was the Killer of Lee Rigby. They are trained to disarm as they did with Lee Rigby's killer.

So the Incident with Duggan ended In a death because the officers had to make a split second decision as to weather he was a threat to life.

Rather than blame the officers, look to his way of life... he was a thug who dealt In guns and drugs... The police officers did not put Duggan Into that way of life, It was a path he chose to take himself.... That's the risk you take when you get Into a taxi with a gun...... In a country where guns are Illegal.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 15918
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by Bryn Mawr »

gmc;1444200 wrote: First post has a link to the telegraph. Read the article.


I have re-read the article and I can see where the Police interpret what the jury said in that way. I was also watching as they reported the verdicts coming out, the questions and the responses, and they did not say that the Police had reason to believe that the object he was holding was a gun - that was not one of the questions that they were asked.

One of the things they did say, the the Police Commissioner conveniently overlooks, was that they believed that the Police operation had been botched.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by Oscar Namechange »

Bryn Mawr;1444213 wrote: I have re-read the article and I can see where the Police interpret what the jury said in that way. I was also watching as they reported the verdicts coming out, the questions and the responses, and they did not say that the Police had reason to believe that the object he was holding was a gun - that was not one of the questions that they were asked.

One of the things they did say, the the Police Commissioner conveniently overlooks, was that they believed that the Police operation had been botched.




All 10 jurors believed Mark Duggan had a gun with him, coroner's office confirms - London - News - London Evening Standard
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
gmc
Posts: 13566
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 9:44 am

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by gmc »

Bryn Mawr;1444213 wrote: I have re-read the article and I can see where the Police interpret what the jury said in that way. I was also watching as they reported the verdicts coming out, the questions and the responses, and they did not say that the Police had reason to believe that the object he was holding was a gun - that was not one of the questions that they were asked.

One of the things they did say, the the Police Commissioner conveniently overlooks, was that they believed that the Police operation had been botched.


From oscars link

All ten jurors believed that the stop was conducted in a location and in a way which “minimised to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force.”


They criticised the intelligence gathering.

But all ten were also critical of the intelligence gathering by police.

The jury said that Operation Trident did not gather enough “current intelligence and information” on Kevin Hutchinson Foster – who supplied the gun to Duggan.

It said : “There was no emphasis on exhausting all avenues which could have affected reaction and subsequent actions. “




The actual operation they did not say was botched.

The jury all agreed duggan had a gun. That to me seems a pretty good reason to believe the object was a gun Armed policeman involved in stopping someone they suspect of having a firearm with a split second to decide whether the object being pointed at him was a firearm do you really expect him to say "hang on a minute squire is that a gun?"

People are ready to criticise the police and accuse them of lying - which indeed they do at times - The thing is gang members and their families also tell lies and delude themselves they are being picked on. As a general rule of thumb I think it can be taken as a given that thieves, gang members and violent criminals of all kinds will all tell lies when ever they are accused of something.

I remember (while working in a retail store) standing next to the family that had just been arrested for shoplifting watching security video of them in the act while they denied all culpability - indeed they pleaded not guilty at the trial. According to them they were innocent victims and I suspect they actually believed, after all it if it hadn't been for good security they would have got away with it. Duggan may have been a good family man most criminals are but they are still criminals.
User avatar
Oscar Namechange
Posts: 31842
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am

Mark Duggan was LAWFULLY killed

Post by Oscar Namechange »

gmc;1444263 wrote: From oscars link



They criticised the intelligence gathering.



The actual operation they did not say was botched.

The jury all agreed duggan had a gun. That to me seems a pretty good reason to believe the object was a gun Armed policeman involved in stopping someone they suspect of having a firearm with a split second to decide whether the object being pointed at him was a firearm do you really expect him to say "hang on a minute squire is that a gun?"

People are ready to criticise the police and accuse them of lying - which indeed they do at times - The thing is gang members and their families also tell lies and delude themselves they are being picked on. As a general rule of thumb I think it can be taken as a given that thieves, gang members and violent criminals of all kinds will all tell lies when ever they are accused of something.

I remember (while working in a retail store) standing next to the family that had just been arrested for shoplifting watching security video of them in the act while they denied all culpability - indeed they pleaded not guilty at the trial. According to them they were innocent victims and I suspect they actually believed, after all it if it hadn't been for good security they would have got away with it. Duggan may have been a good family man most criminals are but they are still criminals.
Yes police officers do lie... but that's not to say they all do. I remember the day my husband looked at a CID senior detective straight In the eye after my trial and said " Whatever you say, I know I will go to my grave knowing I sat there and watched a uniformed police officer take the oath and then give " wrong Information " under oath'. He believed him and a four month Inquiry Into my trial was launched with the favourable outcome....

But these situations are very different I think. If the stats are correct In that In the past 4 years, armed police attended 10,000 armed Incidents and have only fired four times, then that's a dam good record.

If my memory serves me correctly, didn't the police Intercept Duggan In the first place because he was on his way to hold up a drug baron at gun point?

That's the Intelligence they had at the time.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon

Return to “Crimes Trials”