Mark Duggan Jury

[Anubis]

Majority verdict of lawful killing.

 

Riots in London tonight?

[alles ist gut]

Weathers a bit crap for a good riot.

[Strontium]

Plus I think the students are still on their holidays, so it's unlikely.

[Stickman]

Weathers a bit crap for a good riot.

Telly's a bit shite though.

[janmolby]

Need some new trabs

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

 

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

Telly's a bit shite though.

Loot a new one 

[Acid]

Plus I think the students are still on their holidays, so it's unlikely.

 

We're not.

[Gnasher]

Shit verdict. Shit country.

[Bjornebye]

99.7% of the rioters probably haven't a clue who the fuck mark duggan is

[Rico1304]

From what I've seen/read it was the correct verdict. One less drug dealer on the streets.

[AquiMan]

Lawful to kill an unarmed man? Great place to live.

 

Sent from my ST26i using Tapatalk

 

 

[AquiMan]

Just noticed and removed my tapacunt signature.

[Paulie Dangerously]

He was armed wasn't he?

[Rico1304]

He was armed and the bloke who gave him the gun was convicted a few months ago. He made his decision on how he wanted to live his life and paid the price.

[Jairzinho]

I'm anticipating everyone's opinion in this thread to be a complete surprise.

[Gnasher]

He was armed wasn't he?

No, not when he was shot dead. Under British law he should have been charged with possession of a firearm

[PestiRed]

Slightly surprised that the jury ruled that he was both unarmed and shot lawfully. He threw the gun away and they still shot him, presumably thinking that he still had it but I thought he would at least have had to raise it or point it. The gun was found inside a sock 6 metres away so they would not have even seen it. They appear to have shot him on the presumption of a gun, and without confirmation which could set a dangerous precedent

[clangers]

 

The question of Duggen's character is not actually the issue here for me, he may have been one of the 48 most violent criminals in Europe as the police suggest or nothing more than a petty criminal as his family contend.

 

The concern here is that this is another example of a defacto shoot to kill policy enforced by met, what exactly is a 'hard' stop? There are legitimate situations where you could conclude an officer has every right to shoot without first challenging but perhaps they should be discussed and agreed within a democracy first?

 

I don't know enough about the case to offer an informed opinion. I thought the jury would come back with an open verdict, clearly they've seen enough evidence to believe that whatever the circumstances this shooting was legitimate.

[Strontium]

Slightly surprised that the jury ruled that he was both unarmed and shot lawfully. He threw the gun away and they still shot him, presumably thinking that he still had it but I thought he would at least have had to raise it or point it. The gun was found inside a sock 6 metres away so they would not have even seen it. They appear to have shot him on the presumption of a gun, and without confirmation which could set a dangerous precedent

 

The precedent has already been set, in cases like Beckford v R and R v Williams. The officer is allowed to act in self-defence if he honestly and reasonably believes the person to be armed.

[PestiRed]

To be honest I don't see how they can come to that conclusion. The testimony of the policeman who shot him is

 

"The officer who fired the shots, known only as V53, told the jury he was certain Duggan had a weapon in his hand and feared he was raising it to shoot. V53 said the suspect pivoted 180 degrees towards him: "It's like a freeze-frame moment," he said. "The only thing I was focusing on is the gun."

 

"He said he was sure there was a gun in Duggan's hands. It was in a sock, but he could make out the barrel, handle and trigger guard. He said Duggan was holding it in his right arm across his stomach. "The next thing he does, he starts to move the gun away from his body. He's raised the weapon, moved it a couple of inches away from his body."

 

That, the jury heard, gave V53 "an honest belief" that Duggan was going to shoot. V53 said he decided he must open fire. He said the first shot struck Duggan in his chest, causing him to flinch. V53 said this caused the gun alleged to be in Duggan's hands to point directly at him, so he fired a second time, hitting Duggan in the biceps. He said Duggan fell backwards and other armed officers converged on him. "My focus is glued on the gun," the officer told the jury. V53 said he reassessed the situation but could no longer see the weapon."

 

Then the jury found the following to be true

 

"The Jury, in a majority of 9:1, concluded that Mark Duggan threw the firearm onto the grass.

Of the 9, 8 have concluded that it is more likely than not, that Mark Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement.

1 concluded that Mark Duggan threw the firearm whilst on the pavement and in the process of evading the police.

1 juror was not convinced of any supposition that Mark Duggan threw the firearm from the vehicle or from the pavement because no witnesses gave evidence to this effect."

 

How can they believe that the gun was not in his hand but also believe the police testimony that he saw the gun in a sock pointed at him when he fired the second shot?

[Captain Turdseye]

Never heard of him.

[Strontium]

To be honest I don't see how they can come to that conclusion. The testimony of the policeman who shot him is

 

"The officer who fired the shots, known only as V53, told the jury he was certain Duggan had a weapon in his hand and feared he was raising it to shoot. V53 said the suspect pivoted 180 degrees towards him: "It's like a freeze-frame moment," he said. "The only thing I was focusing on is the gun."

 

"He said he was sure there was a gun in Duggan's hands. It was in a sock, but he could make out the barrel, handle and trigger guard. He said Duggan was holding it in his right arm across his stomach. "The next thing he does, he starts to move the gun away from his body. He's raised the weapon, moved it a couple of inches away from his body."

 

That, the jury heard, gave V53 "an honest belief" that Duggan was going to shoot. V53 said he decided he must open fire. He said the first shot struck Duggan in his chest, causing him to flinch. V53 said this caused the gun alleged to be in Duggan's hands to point directly at him, so he fired a second time, hitting Duggan in the biceps. He said Duggan fell backwards and other armed officers converged on him. "My focus is glued on the gun," the officer told the jury. V53 said he reassessed the situation but could no longer see the weapon."

 

Then the jury found the following to be true

 

"The Jury, in a majority of 9:1, concluded that Mark Duggan threw the firearm onto the grass.

Of the 9, 8 have concluded that it is more likely than not, that Mark Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement.

1 concluded that Mark Duggan threw the firearm whilst on the pavement and in the process of evading the police.

1 juror was not convinced of any supposition that Mark Duggan threw the firearm from the vehicle or from the pavement because no witnesses gave evidence to this effect."

 

How can they believe that the gun was not in his hand but also believe the police testimony that he saw the gun in a sock pointed at him when he fired the second shot?

 

People "see" things that aren't there all the time.

 

It's an established fact that Duggan had recently collected a gun, so when he got out of the taxi (protip: not a good idea if your vehicle is forced off the road by police officers) holding a mobile phone, I don't see it as any great stretch to believe that the police officer thought he saw a gun, even if he didn't actually see one.

[torahboy]

Don't walk around with an iphone in your hand as the Matrix guys can you use as target practice if they merely insist they 'honestly and reasonably' believed you to be armed.

 

Once again a coroner's court has returned a verdict that corrupts any rational notion of justice. The amazingly contradictory decisions that Duggan had ditched the gun (as only the police had testified) yet the dickhead who shot him was justified in believing him to be armed is beyond bizarre.

 

I don't give a fuck about Duggan or any other small time gangster like him, but this verdict allows the police to behave in a way that endangers every one of us. It just states that if the police shoot you then it is justified, whatever the circumstances and whatever your culpability the police cannot be wrong.

 

It fucking stinks! Whatever ensues in the way of possible civil disorder, no matter how saddening that may be, the root cause will be in today's distortion of justice.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

99.7% of the rioters probably haven't a clue who the fuck mark duggan is

No, probably not. Many are just living in a grim social nightmare and want to vent their frustration in the only way they know.

[PestiRed]

People "see" things that aren't there all the time.

 

It's an established fact that Duggan had recently collected a gun, so when he got out of the taxi (protip: not a good idea if your vehicle is forced off the road by police officers) holding a mobile phone, I don't see it as any great stretch to believe that the police officer thought he saw a gun, even if he didn't actually see one.

He's very specific about seeing a gun in a sock. At the point at which he shot him, there was no visual confirmation of the gun being in a sock, he appears to have added this detail from what he heard later. He denies seeing Duggan throw the gun away, which would be the only way he would know it was in a sock, but the jury believe that this is what happened. I don't see how they can reconcile these two, apparently contradictory views