Lawful killing of Mark Duggan

The facts are, a man was killed by the police. WRONGLY.... lawfully or not, it was WRONG.

Now the police need to stop trying to justify everything they do as right and admit to mistakes. Sack the coppers that made the call, they made the wrong one. If I made a wrong call at work I would be marched out the door and my decisions do not mean life or death.

It's their job as firearms officers to locate a gun, two of the officers said they thought he held a gun, ok fine. Your call is to stop him, they did. Why then change stories, mess about with evidence and make it look like a massive cover up?

If you messed, up you messed up, we make mistakes. They happened to make one which ended up with bullets flying, there has to be some sort of accountability and currently there seems to be none which is the true issue here.
 
McGray said:
The facts are, a man was killed by the police. WRONGLY.... lawfully or not, it was WRONG.

Now the police need to stop trying to justify everything they do as right and admit to mistakes. Sack the coppers that made the call, they made the wrong one. If I made a wrong call at work I would be marched out the door and my decisions do not mean life or death.

It's their job as firearms officers to locate a gun, two of the officers said they thought he held a gun, ok fine. Your call is to stop him, they did. Why then change stories, mess about with evidence and make it look like a massive cover up?

If you messed, up you messed up, we make mistakes. They happened to make one which ended up with bullets flying, there has to be some sort of accountability and currently there seems to be none which is the true issue here.
Click to expand...

So how many days did you attend the Duggan inquest? You sound pretty clued up, so most of them I suspect. Maybe you should ring the judge too?
 
kitch9 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I won't lose any sleep over his death but it doesn't excuse the police acting as judge, jury and executioner. Not that I'm saying that's what happened, I just don't know.

OldCoals said:
The officer in question was found to have acted lawfully, what more do you want?
Click to expand...

Stronger evidence, which isn't for the most part the testimony of the officers involved who would obviously want to protect themselves.

As I said before, plenty of people in here seem to think it's good that he's dead, how do we know the officers in question didn't feel the same and just thought they could get away with it? Again, I'm not saying I know what happened because I don't, I'm saying these cameras should hopefully put an end to this ambiguity.
 
Last edited:
Guys and gals aren't we missing the point here? The guy was a well know wannabe gangster thug, who was known to carry firearms. He got his comeuppance.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword and all that...
 
McGray said:
Sack the coppers that made the call, they made the wrong one. If I made a wrong call at work I would be marched out the door and my decisions do not mean life or death.
Click to expand...

Really? Where do you work that one mistake means instant dismissal? Staff turn over must be terrible...
 
phil_c_ said:
Guys and gals aren't we missing the point here? The guy was a well know wannabe gangster thug, who was known to carry firearms. He got his comeuppance.

You live by the sword, you die by the sword and all that...
Click to expand...

Both of Duggans brothers are serving life for........

Guess what?

Bet you can't!

Shooting someone.
 
zenf said:
Don't worry, I won't lose any sleep over his death but it doesn't excuse the police acting as judge, jury and executioner. Not that I'm saying that's what happened, I just don't know.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should have an enquiry into the death and w can let a jury decide? :D
 
Cameras are only a good idea if they don't cause the firearm officers to hesitate in performing their duty, putting themselves and members of the public at risk.

It's rare armed officers are in a stand-off with a complete innocent. The number of innocents being shot by armed officers is negligible.

But if police officers start dying because they are worried about a court case and how they'll come off on camera, that is not acceptable.

Armed officers are given strict psychological examinations and training already, their judgement should be trusted.

That said, I am glad Mark Duggan is dead. There is ample evidence of his criminality. The world is better off without him.
 
Last edited:
RDM said:
Maybe we should have an enquiry into the death and w can let a jury decide? :D
Click to expand...

:p A jury can only be as accurate as the evidence it's presented with, and they couldn't say it was an unlawful killing unless they were absolutely certain. Clearly they don't have the evidence to say it's unlawful, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't.

Thompson_NCL said:
Armed officers are given strict psychological examinations and training already, their judgement should be trusted.
Click to expand...

That's a hell of a lot of power to allow someone... As long as they say they thought there was a threat, and there's no contradictory evidence, they could shoot whoever they like?
 
This inquiry has saved money in the long run. I,e we wont have to keep him in jail for ever and day due to him being quite a nasty pasty.

You cant go around with guns, simple as that, the only people who need guns in the Middle of London are the police. END OF STORY.
 
zenf said:
:p A jury can only be as accurate as the evidence it's presented with, and they couldn't say it was an unlawful killing unless they were absolutely certain. Clearly they don't have the evidence to say it's unlawful, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't.



That's a hell of a lot of power to allow someone... As long as they say they thought there was a threat, and there's no contradictory evidence, they could shoot whoever they like?
Click to expand...

So when i was 19 years old and wandering the streets of Hanover in Germany with 9mm at my side when attached to the RMP with only the training of the gun itself (read about 8hrs on firing range) i went around shooting people ?

No thought not, it would be the last resort to use it, you cant blame the officers in question when they know a known THUG who is armed may or not be ready to crack one off.

No loss to humanity, sorry but thats the way i see it.
 
zenf said:
:p A jury can only be as accurate as the evidence it's presented with, and they couldn't say it was an unlawful killing unless they were absolutely certain. Clearly they don't have the evidence to say it's unlawful, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should have another option then? Say an open verdict when you cannot decide between lawful and unlawful?:D
 
McGray said:
The facts are, a man was killed by the police. WRONGLY.... lawfully or not, it was WRONG.

Now the police need to stop trying to justify everything they do as right and admit to mistakes. Sack the coppers that made the call, they made the wrong one. If I made a wrong call at work I would be marched out the door and my decisions do not mean life or death.

It's their job as firearms officers to locate a gun, two of the officers said they thought he held a gun, ok fine. Your call is to stop him, they did. Why then change stories, mess about with evidence and make it look like a massive cover up?

If you messed, up you messed up, we make mistakes. They happened to make one which ended up with bullets flying, there has to be some sort of accountability and currently there seems to be none which is the true issue here.
Click to expand...

You are wrong.

The law states you have a right to preserve life and you can use lethal force if you can justify that yours or someone else's life is under threat.
The police had intel that this guy had a loaded gun, has a history of violence, was on drugs and to top it off the guy was being none compliant. If the police felt under threat then they were justified to use lethal force.
 
zenf said:
Don't worry, I won't lose any sleep over his death but it doesn't excuse the police acting as judge, jury and executioner. Not that I'm saying that's what happened, I just don't know.



Stronger evidence, which isn't for the most part the testimony of the officers involved who would obviously want to protect themselves.

As I said before, plenty of people in here seem to think it's good that he's dead, how do we know the officers in question didn't feel the same and just thought they could get away with it? Again, I'm not saying I know what happened because I don't, I'm saying these cameras should hopefully put an end to this ambiguity.
Click to expand...

Only the people who were involved are saw what happened can testify, what else do you want?
 
RDM said:
Maybe we should have another option then? Say an open verdict when you cannot decide between lawful and unlawful?:D
Click to expand...

Fair point. :p

Maybe I missed something but I wasn't really sure how the jury could've said it was lawful when all they have is the testimony of the officers involved.
 
Last edited:
wickfut said:
You are wrong.

The law states you have a right to preserve life and you can use lethal force if you can justify that yours or someone else's life is under threat.
The police had intel that this guy had a loaded gun, has a history of violence, was on drugs and to top it off the guy was being none compliant. If the police felt under threat then they were justified to use lethal force.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Ignoring that he was a known "problem" and wasn't the angel his family claim, all of the anti's in this threat forget that this is the LAW and we live by the law whether you feel it is right / suits you / wrong.

Without the LAW or Rule of the Land, we would be in a much worse place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom