The evidence of Witness C is also interesting. Witness C was a journalist who interviewed Witness B. Notes written by Witness C claimed that Witness B had initially thought that Duggan was carrying a gun but later changed his mind. Witness B denies changing his mind and Witness C could not be 100% certain as to the accuracy of his/her notes - but this seems a pretty fundamental point.
Lawful killing of Mark Duggan
- Thread starter thedoc46
- Start date
The evidence of Witness C is also interesting. Witness C was a journalist who interviewed Witness B. Notes written by Witness C claimed that Witness B had initially thought that Duggan was carrying a gun but later changed his mind. Witness B denies changing his mind and Witness C could not be 100% certain as to the accuracy of his/her notes - but this seems a pretty fundamental point.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 1,195
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.
The Duggan family had a QC there to represent their interests, but with all the evidence that they could muster the jury still return a lawful killing verdict.
So what you are saying is that there is no evidence anywhere at all that this killing was unlawful (or even dubious - i.e. open verdict), but it still was.
I find this mindset boggling. Put yourself in this situation - You have good reason to believe a known criminal has bought, and has on their person, a gun.
The person in question makes a move after being told not to. Do you:-
a) Wait to see if a gun is produced, if it looks real, if it fires?
b) Shoot to protect yourself and your colleagues?
Do you think these individuals really want to shoot people? And even if an error of judgement was made, unfortunately such things will occur in life and death scenarios such as this. Who is to blame? The individual who broke the law and created the situation, and any accidents that came out of it.
Bit of a sweeping statement here that I can't really back up, but it seems rare that Joe Public's testimony is held above the police's when it comes to 'our word against their's'.
Indeed and I imagine that extra ambiguity would've contributed to the lawful verdict.
I'm saying that I don't see how the jury could reach a lawful verdict without putting a certain about of faith and trust in what the police have said.
As said by many people.... Quoting Hades as its the last one i saw: He chose the thug life.
I'm just glad that events like this are still so outrageous and are rare in the UK.
I'm going to be blunt.
Did he have a gun. Yes. Should he of had a gun. No.
If he had no gun this wouldn't of happened. It's his own fault.
If you are carrying a gun you are either expecting to shoot to kill someone or you are expecting to be shot at.
Did he have a gun. Yes. Should he of had a gun. No.
If he had no gun this wouldn't of happened. It's his own fault.
If you are carrying a gun you are either expecting to shoot to kill someone or you are expecting to be shot at.
"Witness B" described the shooting as "utter chaos" with scenes that he would not even expect to see in a Third World country"
"His hands were practically up towards his face and he was not threatening. He did not look threatening - and the police officer just shot him."
Says it all really. So as long as the cops THINK you have a gun they can kill you. It's safer in the US now.
"His hands were practically up towards his face and he was not threatening. He did not look threatening - and the police officer just shot him."
Says it all really. So as long as the cops THINK you have a gun they can kill you. It's safer in the US now.
He was not in the cab.He didn't try to escape he was in a cab
Personally, I believe this clearly shows the view you wish to believe.
You're happy to believe police officers shot someone without any reason.
Can you not believe they did think there was a threat, and that someone a long way off didn't see/perceive this threat?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,601
- Location
- La France
This would be the discredited witness B who was craning his neck around a window frame 7 floors up to view a scene over 100 metres away.
Without going looking for the numbers I'm willing to bet many many more people are shot by the police in the US every month than have been shot by the police over here in the last 5 years.
So the gun found nearby, supplied by the individual he'd just met, made it's own way to the scene?
And even if a gun had not been found at all, if the police believe there is a threat, they are justified in shooting first. Do you expect one of the police officers to "take on for the team" to prove there's a gun first?
No. It was found wrapped in a sock at the side of the road without any of his prints/DNA.
I'm just posting what they saw and said in court. Even in the US the cops would be looking at jail time.
I have no agenda so make the cops look good or bad.As they say there are 3 sides to every storey
the right ...the wrong..the truth.
