Lawful killing of Mark Duggan

DanielMMS said:
Have you read anything else that I have posted? I mention this purely in response to a comment that "things have moved on" - a position with which I concur, such being rather obvious if you read my other posts. :confused:
Click to expand...

My bad, I'm skipping in and out of the thread so I'm not remembering who wrote what.
 
zenf said:
I don't dispute that he had a gun and there's ample evidence of that, what I don't understand is how the jury could be so sure that the officers honestly thought they were under serious threat. If Witness B has been discredited and there aren't any other witnesses, they're relying solely on the testimony of the police who are hardly impartial. I would've expected more than just the two to go for an open verdict.
Click to expand...

So you don't dispute he had a gun but don't see how the police could think they were under threat? That statement just doesn't really make any sense. How is an armed criminal not a threat?

Why do you think the police are lying?
 
zenf said:
I don't dispute that he had a gun and there's ample evidence of that, what I don't understand is how the jury could be so sure that the officers honestly thought they were under serious threat. If Witness B has been discredited and there aren't any other witnesses, they're relying solely on the testimony of the police who are hardly impartial. I would've expected an open verdict.
Click to expand...

I don't see why anything other than police statements are necessary. The jury are trying to ascertain whether the officer had a genuine belief that there was a threat where it would reasonable to use lethal force.

Whether or not he actually was threat is irrelevant as long as the officer reasonably believed there was. As long as he can explain his actions and this is deemed reasonable, then the death is lawful. The context of knowing there was a firearm in the car along with other police intelligence would be enough for the officer to believe he potentially posed a threat. Seeing something he believed was a firearm in his hand (albeit mistakenly) would be enough to shoot.

There was a comment earlier about Duggen perhaps not knowing what to do in such a scary situation. I'll tell you now, he should have been in no doubt as he would have been shouted very clear instructions on what to do. It's not ambiguous in these situations for a reason.
 
AndyT said:
snip
Click to expand...

For a bit of balance:

De Menezes - I cannot really see how he could be blamed for being shot. He did not run from the police as was originally claimed. That said, the officers who shot him cannot be blamed either - they were provided details of a threat and dealt with it appropriately. Sadly, the intelligence was inaccurate.

Moat - I am not entirely comfortable with how this ended although the ultimate conclusion was inevitable insofar as Moat was always going to die one way or another. I seem to recall that Moat was holding the shotgun towards himself and it was triggered possibly due to involuntary actions following the use of a tazer. Again, it is difficult to criticise the actions of the police given the circumstances.

Rigby - the police acted superbly.

Duggan - the police appear to have acted with justification.

The fifth most recent high profile case, however, is that of Azelle Rodney and has a number of similarities with Duggan. In that instance, of course, a judicial enquiry found the killing to be unlawful - referring the matter to the CPS - which rather goes against the CT view that the police can kill who they like.
 
I don't see why anyone would trust the statements of officers who have already been caught out lying about the incident and changing their stories.
 
RDM said:
So you don't dispute he had a gun but don't see how the police could think they were under threat? That statement just doesn't really make any sense. How is an armed criminal not a threat?
Click to expand...

Because he had disposed of the gun by the time he was confronted by the police. Apparently, despite the fact he had disarmed himself, when confronted by the armed police he decided to make a move as if grabbing for a gun and that's why he was shot. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Why would he give them a reason?

RDM said:
Why do you think the police are lying?
Click to expand...

I'm really not saying they're lying - I'm saying that I don't see why everything they say should be taken as gospel when there are other possible scenarios which we can't disprove.

Burnsy2023 said:
Whether or not he actually was threat is irrelevant as long as the officer reasonably believed there was. As long as he can explain his actions and this is deemed reasonable, then the death is lawful. The context of knowing there was a firearm in the car along with other police intelligence would be enough for the officer to believe he potentially posed a threat. Seeing something he believed was a firearm in his hand (albeit mistakenly) would be enough to shoot.
Click to expand...

I really don't dispute that the police had every reason to believe he was armed and would've been on their highest guard. However...

Burnsy2023 said:
There was a comment earlier about Duggen perhaps not knowing what to do in such a scary situation. I'll tell you now, he should have been in no doubt as he would have been shouted very clear instructions on what to do. It's not ambiguous in these situations for a reason.
Click to expand...

Indeed... So why did he ignore their instructions and give them a reason to shoot him? I believe he first tried to run, I presume that doesn't give the armed police reason to shoot him. So after that, he turned around, faced them and made a motion as if he was pulling a gun on them? Why?
 
DanielMMS said:
Nope - do not try to put words into my mouth. I have worked as a criminal barrister (albeit briefly) so have a realistic view as regards the accuracy of police evidence..
Click to expand...


So you think\know the police accuracy of the evidence was good or?
 
zenf said:
Indeed... So why did he ignore their instructions and give them a reason to shoot him? I believe he first tried to run, I presume that doesn't give the armed police reason to shoot him. So after that, he turned around, faced them and made a motion as if he was pulling a gun on them? Why?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I simply don't have enough evidence to come to any sort of useful conclusion and most other people are in the same boat. I'm not into blind guessing.

The jury on the other hand did have the evidence and their conclusion is clear.
 
zenf, I appreciate your post, but this topic and plebgate are both huge topics in their own right, lets try and not muddy the waters. The plebgate thread is more appropriate :)
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I don't know. I simply don't have enough evidence to come to any sort of useful conclusion and most other people are in the same boat. I'm not into blind guessing.

The jury on the other hand did have the evidence and their conclusion is clear.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, correct me if I'm wrong, but the evidence the jury had as to whether the officer(s) honestly and reasonably felt under threat is just the testimony of the officers involved and Witness B, and it seems like the officers have been given the benefit of the doubt. If that is the strength of the evidence, I would've thought it should be an open verdict as I find it quite hard to believe an unarmed man would act in a threatening manner to armed police.

Regarding the plebgate point, fair point and apologies.
 
zenf said:
If that is the strength of the evidence, I would've thought it should be an open verdict as I find it quite hard to believe an unarmed man would act in a threatening manner to armed police.
Click to expand...

Based on what exactly? People act in a threatening manner to armed police all the time, sometimes they want to get shot due to MH issues, sometimes they're off their face on drugs and sometimes they simply don't care. The fact that so few are shot is a testament to the training of the officers who are armed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom