Reminder Secure

Mark Duggan - Lawful killing

Steve Guy is off-line
11 January 2014 07:48
Sdeve
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Derbyshire
Derby

Quote from stolenfaces


No one is claiming he didn't have a gun,



But the jury was convinced, on an 8 to 2 majority, that he was NOT holding a gun when he was shot.


Sav~ is off-lineGold Member
11 January 2014 07:51
SteveSav
Photographer
SteveSav
Location
United Kingdom
West Yorkshire
Sheffield/ Wakefield

Quote from stolenfaces
No one is claiming he didn't have a gun, the person who supplied it to him before he got in the taxi was convicted and sentenced to 11 years. I don't understand what the ethical argument is here. Are you saying the police should have waited until he shot someone ? Or that they deliberately shot him although they knew he wasn't holding a gun? Because they didn't like him ? Many aspects of this affair may not have been handled well, but I don't really see how any of the vague distrust of the police sheds any light on this incident. Are people suggesting he was a petty criminal who just collected guns?



You are spot on of course, a lot of comments prove this country is going (gone) soft, chosing to back a thug over the police??? Liberalism, don't you love it!

You pick your blonde out neatly from the smoke, Always you wait for someone else though, always ~


Moi is off-line
11 January 2014 08:19
clearview_photography
Photographer
clearview_photography
Location
United Kingdom
County Durham
North East

Quote from Sdeve
But the jury was convinced, on an 8 to 2 majority, that he was NOT holding a gun when he was shot.



And by the same majority that he was Lawfully Killed, or are we just picking out the bits we like?
The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose." - James Baldwin


Iain Thomson is off-linePlatinum Member
11 January 2014 08:19
IainT
Photographer
IainT
Location
United Kingdom
Bedfordshire


Quote from SteveSav
You are spot on of course, a lot of comments prove this country is going (gone) soft, chosing to back a thug over the police??? Liberalism, don't you love it!




Yes, I do love liberalism...I consider myself a Liberal. I agree mostly with your first sentence, apart from the going soft, its more a case of losing its sense of right and wrong and the devalueing the rights of the law abiding individual.



I tend to be a modest man, but then I do have a lot to be modest about.


Neil Anderson is off-line
11 January 2014 08:33
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

Quote from Sdeve


But the jury was convinced, on an 8 to 2 majority, that he was NOT holding a gun when he was shot.




So what ! As the police knew he had a gun, it was reasonable that the policeman who shot him should believe he was holding that gun and about to use it.
That is the legal position, as has been stated here and elsewhere.
The Jury were therefore not unreasonable in reaching the conclusion they did.

Your 'argument' seems to be based on some sort of playground mentality which ignores most of the facts (particularly the decision which the Jury were actually faced with, and their conclusions).

Please be clear - what are you saying happened and what makes you better qualified than the jury who actually heard the evidence, to pass judgement on this situation.
Like any dealer he was watching for the card that is so high and wild he'll never need to deal another...


Neil Anderson is off-line
11 January 2014 08:42
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
Location
United Kingdom
London
West London

Quote from SteveSav
You are spot on of course, a lot of comments prove this country is going (gone) soft, chosing to back a thug over the police??? Liberalism, don't you love it!






It doesn't prove that at all, it proves (certainly much of this thread) that people are too lazy to read the full report about anything, and most can't actually look past the most simplistic conclusions. It just reflects a general dumbing down of society. Just as many people are happy to believe stories about immigrants or recipients of benefits which a moment's intelligent thought (or indeed investigating facts) reveal to be ridiculous.
Like any dealer he was watching for the card that is so high and wild he'll never need to deal another...


mick  is off-line
11 January 2014 08:53
mr_mick
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
West Midlands
west bromwich

It is simplistic. He was known for carrying guns. If he did not use guns chances are he would not be dead. His own action's caused his downfall.


Moi is off-line
11 January 2014 08:57
clearview_photography
Photographer
clearview_photography
Location
United Kingdom
County Durham
North East

Quote from stolenfaces
It doesn't prove that at all, it proves (certainly much of this thread) that people are too lazy to read the full report about anything, and most can't actually look past the most simplistic conclusions. It just reflects a general dumbing down of society. Just as many people are happy to believe stories about immigrants or recipients of benefits which a moment's intelligent thought (or indeed investigating facts) reveal to be ridiculous.



Even more simplistic, this thread and others on a similar subject just want us believe the police are always in the wrong, if we believe that view where do we go from here??
The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose." - James Baldwin


Steve Guy is off-line
11 January 2014 08:58
Sdeve
Photographer

Location
United Kingdom
Derbyshire
Derby

Firstly, let's be clear, I have no doubt that Mr Duggan's leaving of the world made it a slightly better place. Secondly, regardless of the finding of the jury, I think it interesting that Duggan was not holding a firearm when he was killed. Just interesting. That interest is not, BTW, making any argument whatever. One inescapable conclusion though, is that if the police officer thought Duggan was holding a gun, a prerequisite to killing him, he was wrong. As I say, that is interesting.

But, the jury are going to be swayed completely by the evidence, which I have yet to absorb fully, due to it's sheer volume (link posted previously, and thanks to the person linking) given by the police. Now, who are the experts in shooting people in this country? Answer, the police. So, the immortal statement of Ms Mandy Rice-Davies spring to mind, "They would say that, wouldn't they." It's also worth remembering that the jury was hoghly directed in a manner that could be argued would herd them in a particular direction.

Oh, and juries are never, ever, wrong, are they, as many people, if they were not executed, might disagree with. Timothy Evans, Stefan Kiszko, the Birmingham Six, the somewhere else others, quite a few really.

My worries are more directed at the poor quality of the investigation by the IPCC, their attempts to conceal relevant documents from the inquest (read the documents in the link), the unprofessional actions of the investigating officers. The police officer who told an IPCC investigator that the police had thrown the pistol over the fence. Little things like that.

I have a great deal of reading to do in respect of this incident, but there's already enough information to cause concern, and concerns are just that. Asking questions is not answering them. Answers come later.


Moi is off-line
11 January 2014 09:07
clearview_photography
Photographer
clearview_photography
Location
United Kingdom
County Durham
North East

So both the police and juries sometimes get things wrong, there's evidence to prove that, so where do we go from here, what is the perfect system or do we just make it everyman for himself
The most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose." - James Baldwin



8 Users currently online   Blue=Models Orange=Photographers Red=Agencies Purple=MUA/Stylists Grey=Studios Green=Moderators
alishaa
237marc boss1968 Edphoto garydfreeman Njsphotography photofrank woody