Lawful killing of Mark Duggan

grumpysculler said:
You mean the bloke who was on the NINTH floor at the time and could clearly identify a mobile phone from that distance?
Click to expand...

As opposed to the armed police who can't tell the difference between a gun and a mobile phone from a relatively short distance?

Speaking to BBC News, the witness said: "We were looking at it [from a high] angle. He did not have a gun at all. He was clutching a phone. By the looks of it it was small, it was ... silvery. It was just clutched in his hand. Looking at it from that distance, it was not a gun. He was not aiming and he did not take any actions to shoot.

"It was not a gun, I stick to my word, definitely."

Asked if he believed that police needed to shoot Mark Duggan, 'Witness B' said: "No, not at all. His look was a bit 'what's going on', baffled.

'Wanted him dead'

"They could have just approached him and put him down, put the cuffs on him. but they didn't.

"It could have been handled a lot better," he said. "I just think that it was an execution and they wanted him dead.
Click to expand...

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

Judging by the attitudes in this thread "he was just scum who wanted to play with guns, he deserved to be shot, I'm glad he's dead", are we really so sure the police wouldn't feel the same? Why would Witness B make that up?

None of us can say for certain what happened, all this verdict really shows is that the jury trusted the police over Witness B... The sooner the cameras are introduced, the better.
 
kitch9 said:
Armed Police whilst being equipped with guns have to follow the same laws as us. So if I stab someone and can prove it was in self defense of either myself or others I won't face prosecution. Same with the armed police they are armed and can carry guns legally but they can only us them when needed in the defense of themselves or others.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong the officers that shot him only did what they did because they got the go ahead based on the intel,so why has no-one been given sort of punishment?They watched this guy for a full +week tab his phone had cameras inside his flat ect..why even let him walk into a tube stations???
 
Last edited:
zenf said:
As opposed to the armed police who can't tell the difference between a gun and a mobile phone from a relatively short distance?



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

Judging by the attitudes in this thread "he was just scum who wanted to play with guns, he deserved to be shot, I'm glad he's dead", are we really so sure the police wouldn't feel the same? Why would Witness B make that up?

None of us can say for certain what happened, all this verdict really shows is that the jury trusted the police over Witness B... The sooner the cameras are introduced, the better.
Click to expand...

Good post.

I'm surprised at the attitude of the majority in this thread.
 
zenf said:
As opposed to the armed police who can't tell the difference between a gun and a mobile phone from a relatively short distance?



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

Judging by the attitudes in this thread "he was just scum who wanted to play with guns, he deserved to be shot, I'm glad he's dead", are we really so sure the police wouldn't feel the same? Why would Witness B make that up?

None of us can say for certain what happened, all this verdict really shows is that the jury trusted the police over Witness B... The sooner the cameras are introduced, the better.
Click to expand...

Yes, they shouldn't have had a 3 month juried court case which examined every minor detail and evidence under sworn oath of the months/days/hours/minutes/seconds leading up to the guy getting shot they should have just used that one piece of evidence which is a tiny fraction of a massive picture and locked up the copper.

Thats what they should have done.

McGray said:
Good post.

I'm surprised at the attitude of the majority in this thread.
Click to expand...

The one thing it wasn't was a good post.

Robinhood said:
Don't get me wrong the officers that shot him only did what they did because they got the go ahead based on the intel,so why has no-one been given sort of punishment?They watched this guy for a full +week tab his phone had cameras inside his flat ect..why even let him walk into a tube stations???
Click to expand...

The guy had just bought the gun just before getting shot which was witnessed by the police so authority to shoot if required will have been given, saying that they don't send armed police into anywhere without the authority to shoot if needed otherwise there would be no point arming them. They are also human, so like the rest of us have the potential to make a mistake when given a split second to make a high pressure decision of life and death, the only person at fault here is the plastic gangster waving guns around on our streets and putting himself in a position where someone has to make that decision.
 
Last edited:
Trouble in court - If they can't act appropriately, lock them up!

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3969480.ece

Jurors at the inquest into the death of Mark Duggan found themselves abused in court today after concluding that he was lawfully killed by police.

The High Court echoed to shouts of “rubbish” and “murderers” after jurors backed armed police who said they believed that Mr Duggan — whose death prompted riots across London — had been in possession of a gun shortly before he was shot.

Duggan’s supporters swore at jurors, overturned a table and even tried to kick down the door to the coronor's office...
Click to expand...
 
And then you apparently have another witness after the shooting saying the police said to the paramedics "take your time with this one".
Click to expand...
Even if that is true it can be interpreted a number of ways and doesn't necessarily imply that it means let him bleed out before you do anything..
 
in 2011 armed police got called to around 15000 incidents. 9 people ended up getting shot.

Whilst 9 people got shot, 9 out of 15000 is statistical noise and none of them were the local vicar by mistake if you know what I mean.
 
He had a gun, he was a thug, once you take that step, what ever happens is your own fault. He wont be missed by anyone other than his family and criminal friends.

Unpopular opinion maybe, but thats how I feel about it, ridiculous the way everyone has to act incase idiots kick off again. If there was rioting this time go in with the water canons and rubber bullets.
 
kitch9 said:
Yes, they shouldn't have had a 3 month court case which examined every minor detail and evidence under sworn oath of the months/days/hours/minutes/seconds leading up to the guy getting shot they should have just used that one piece of evidence which is a tiny fraction of a massive picture and locked up the copper.
Click to expand...

The court case looked at many aspects such as whether the police did everything they could in the months leading up to the incident, whether they stopped the car in the correct place, etc.

Whether or not the killing was lawful hinged on whether the armed officer honestly felt that in that moment, either himself or others were in imminent danger, and Witness B's testimony strongly suggested that the danger wasn't there. Even though they had intelligence that Duggan was armed, they shouldn't have shot him unless there was a real threat. None of us can say whether they were really justified in shooting him unless you're willing to take either the officer's, or Witness B's word for it.
 
zenf said:
The court case looked at many aspects such as whether the police did everything they could in the months leading up to the incident, whether they stopped the car in the correct place, etc.

Whether or not the killing was lawful hinged on whether the armed officer honestly felt that in that moment, either himself or others were in imminent danger, and Witness B's testimony strongly suggested that the danger wasn't there. Even though they had intelligence that Duggan was armed, they shouldn't have shot him unless there was a real threat. None of us can say whether they were really justified in shooting him unless you're willing to take either the officer's, or Witness B's word for it.
Click to expand...

You seem to have all the answers, maybe you should ring the judge and point out his mistake? Tell him his court case was stupid and could all be solved in that single sentence you wrote.
 
kitch9 said:
You seem to have all the answers, maybe you should ring the judge and point out his mistake? Tell him his court case was stupid and could all be solved in that single sentence you wrote.
Click to expand...

Actually, the point I'm trying to make is none of us have the answers... We're relying on what we're told, hence why these cameras are an excellent idea.
 
arknor said:
Even if that is true it can be interpreted a number of ways and doesn't necessarily imply that it means let him bleed out before you do anything..
Click to expand...

I'm not sure there really are that many ways you could take that sentence, but then we've all said things in the heat of a moment that we didn't really mean or expect to be acted upon.
 
zenf said:
Actually, the point I'm trying to make is none of us have the answers... We're relying on what we're told, hence why these cameras are an excellent idea.
Click to expand...

According to this BBC article they'll trial firearms officers wearing video cameras from 1 April. A very good move.

Also some stats for those who think the Police were trigger happy in this instance. According to Boris Johnson in the past 4 years firearm officers were called out about 10,000 times and only on 6 of those occasions did they actually fire their guns.
 
zenf said:
Actually, the point I'm trying to make is none of us have the answers... We're relying on what we're told, hence why these cameras are an excellent idea.
Click to expand...

The police wouldn't have a problem carrying cameras, a lot do already, but lets keep it simple:

This moron choose a lifestyle that involved dealing drugs and playing the hardman with guns and ended up making someone have to make a snap decision he didn't want to have to make which cost him his life.

You live by the sword you die by the sword. Michael Schumacher knew the potential risks of skiing when he went to the slopes (I'm a skiier myself.) that awful day and ended up badly injuring himself doing something he choose to do. I don't see this scenario as any different. If I decide to start walking around with guns on the streets I know I run the risk of bad stuff happening, so did Duggan.
 
kitch9 said:
Armed Police whilst being equipped with guns have to follow the same laws as us. So if I stab someone and can prove it was in self defense of either myself or others I won't face prosecution. Same with the armed police they are armed and can carry guns legally but they can only us them when needed in the defense of themselves or others.
Click to expand...

This exactly.

You can be sure, if it was a civilian who was licensed to carry (as in the USA for arguments sake) who had mistaken his mobile for a gun, and shot him dead, he'd be prosecuted for 2nd degree murder. If that very civilian had Duggan's gun pulled on him, and shot him dead, he'd of been able to pull the self defense card. The courts would have heard the testimony that Duggan didn't have a gun and it would have been case closed. Not all this oooh we couldn't take any chances.... Except, cos its the Police and lots of cover up, might I add, it was deemed lawful.

Why should these Police not be held to the same laws as the rest of you?
 
thedoc46 said:
This exactly.

You can be sure, if it was a civilian who was licensed to carry (as in the USA for arguments sake) who had mistaken his mobile for a gun, and shot him dead, he'd be prosecuted for 2nd degree murder. If that very civilian had Duggan's gun pulled on him, and shot him dead, he'd of been able to pull the self defense card. The courts would have heard the testimony that Duggan didn't have a gun and it would have been case closed. Not all this oooh we couldn't take any chances.... Except, cos its the Police and lots of cover up, might I add, it was deemed lawful.

Why should these Police not be held to the same laws as the rest of you?
Click to expand...

Whats the USA got to do with anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom