Mark Duggan - Lawful killing

Mark Duggan - Lawful killing

82 posts
8 Jan 2014
stolenfaces

 It seems that no-one on this forum was in court so are not in a position to judge this issue.


Of course we are, we're doing it right now, look.

stolenfaces

Personally I would have thought that any 'execution' would have been better planned and there would not have been all the holes in the case.


You have more faith in their competence than I.
Posted 10 Jan 2014
Edited by JadedRed 10 Jan 2014
DonMacKay
Photographer
DonMacKay
OldMaster

Judge, opinion and justice served out by forum..as usual. Guess we can all wait for the tabloids to tell us the real truth about the trial! How many on here were in the court then? That's what I thought! ...


Here is all the information from the Mark Duggan Inquest and, as such, it is a close to "the truth" as you will get (for what it's worth):

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/hearing-transcripts.htm

Somehow, I don't think you'll take the time to read it and, as you clearly weren't at the trial, I'd love to know where your trusted information comes from. I ask because the finding was that this was a "lawful killing" and not "unlawful" as you state (I suspect this is a simple mistake on your part), and we don't have a "verdict" in inquests these days as they are not a trial. 
 

Posted 10 Jan 2014
From the statements given he only had minor convictions - driving convictions at that. It would appear that this now makes you a gangster in the eyes of many.

Trial by hearsay and dubious media "facts" always make for a great juror.

They arrived at the decision after hearing all the evidence - others heard all the evidence and arrived at another opinion. Guess that is why we swear in Jurors.

Posted 11 Jan 2014
GlasgowPhotographer


From the statements given he only had minor convictions - driving convictions at that. It would appear that this now makes you a gangster in the eyes of many.

Trial by hearsay and dubious media "facts" always make for a great juror. They arrived at the decision after hearing all the evidence - others heard all the evidence and arrived at another opinion. Guess that is why we swear in Jurors.


Similar to that 'great' tax evader Al Capone, some people called him a gangster 

Posted 11 Jan 2014
Edited by clearview_photography 11 Jan 2014
IainT
Photographer
IainT
Out of every 3000 incidents where armed Police are deployed, they open fire once. There are still Police force areas where no shots have been fired by Police in living memory.

In Grampian and the Highlands there are by far the highest number of legally held firearms per head of population anywhere in the country, there is something like 1 firearm to every 50 people or something like that. There is also the highest percentage of Police Officers authorised to carry firearms anywhere in the UK (due to Royalty Protection and vitaly important gas/oil terminals, high security prisons)

Yet, no armed Police officer has discharged a firearm in modern times as far as I'm aware, despite some very tense incidents where armed officers have been deployed.

The stress armed Police Officers are placed under in a real situation is something nobody who has not been there can imagine and something even armed services personel cannot envisage. Its a totally different thing to a war or conflict situation.

Armed Police officers go through all sorts of psychological evaluation and stress testing...these guys are generally the calmest of the calm.

In this incident a *gangster was shot dead. The Jury found it was lawfull. There is no argument either legally or ethically.

My sympathy is not with the family of the gangster who chose a life of violence and crime, its with the Police officer and his family who have had to go through months of hell.

*You can argue if you like his convictions were only road traffic related, but he WAS a violent criminal and habitually carried a firearm.

Posted 11 Jan 2014
Edited by IainT 11 Jan 2014
SteveSav
Photographer
SteveSav
JadedRed

If we shoot everyone for cannabis possession we are going to end up with some empty universities.


seems you've forgotten the small detail of the gun HuH!

Posted 11 Jan 2014
SteveSav

seems you've forgotten the small detail of the gun HuH!



No not forgotten, I just think it's interesting that it's only important enough to be a factor when combined with minor, non-violent crimes.
Posted 11 Jan 2014
IainT

There is no argument either legally or ethically.


Of course there can be an ethical argument, there is always an ethical argument.
Posted 11 Jan 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
SteveSav

seems you've forgotten the small detail of the gun HuH!



Would that be the gun that he is alleged to have thrown away before the taxi had stopped or the gun in the sock he is supposed to have fired at the officers or is that the gun which mysteriously flew over the fence after he was shot or the gun which was in the box in the taxi? 

You've got plenty of choices so pick one!

Posted 11 Jan 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
tonycsm
Would that be the gun that he is alleged to have thrown away before the taxi had stopped or the gun in the sock he is supposed to have fired at the officers or is that the gun which mysteriously flew over the fence after he was shot or the gun which was in the box in the taxi?  You've got plenty of choices so pick one!
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?
Posted 11 Jan 2014
Sdeve
Photographer
Sdeve
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.
Posted 11 Jan 2014
SteveSav
Photographer
SteveSav
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!

Posted 11 Jan 2014
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?
Posted 11 Jan 2014
IainT
Photographer
IainT
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.
Posted 11 Jan 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
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.
Posted 11 Jan 2014
Edited by stolenfaces 11 Jan 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join