Lawful killing of Mark Duggan

DanielMMS said:
Stop saying it then, as it is not true :D
Click to expand...

Well why didn't you say so sooner? :p

Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick then but from what I've read, I didn't think there were any witnesses to the actual moment of shooting other than Witness B, although I admit I'm getting that from the media as I haven't gone through all of the evidence myself.

"The only known member of the public to witness the death of Mark Duggan has told BBC News that he believes the police did not need to shoot him."
Click to expand...

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

Surely if you're determining that in that moment it was reasonable for the officer to honestly believe himself and others were under threat, there has to be evidence that Duggan acted in a way as to give the officers a reason to believe he was a threat... If he got out of the car with his hands in the air saying "I surrender", clearly it wouldn't have been reasonable to shoot him. Again, not saying that happened, but unless the BBC are wrong, the only actual witnesses of that moment are Witness B and the officers involved?
 
You are not wrong but there are more ways than using eye witness accounts to establish the circumstances of a particular event not least due to them being notoriously unreliable. The jury in this case will have had to consider the contradictory eye witness reports. They may (or may not) have given weight to the suggestion that Witness B was somewhat partial and changed his view as to the events of that day. They will then have taken all the other evidence to establish which of the eye witness accounts most accurately reflect what happened. On the basis of the 8:2:0 verdict, the combination of evidence available must have been sufficiently convincing to all but discount the validity of Witness B's statement - and to corroborate the account provided by V53 et al. Even with the 2 who opted for an open verdict, if they were convinced that Witness B's statement was fact then they would have ticked the box marked unlawful killing.
 
What about the cab driver? Why are we not hearing from him? Have the police hushed him? Threatened him with deportation maybe?

All very one sided.
 
thedoc46 said:
What about the cab driver? Why are we not hearing from him? Have the police hushed him? Threatened him with deportation maybe?

All very one sided.
Click to expand...

He gave evidence at the inquest, so the police have done a pretty rubbish job of silencing him...
 
thedoc46 said:
Very decent article and very disturbing.

Confirms pretty much everything I was trying to say.
Click to expand...

In what way? It seems to be typical sensationalist stuff, picking and choosing certain points to suit an agenda and encourage readers to reach his conclusion. Even the opening gambit of the article is wrong:

The key question before the jury was: when police forced the cab carrying Duggan to stop, were they correct in saying that he came out with a weapon and raised it in the direction of armed officers?
Click to expand...

The key question was actually "Did V53, at the time of the fatal shot, honestly believe or may he honestly have believed, even if that belief is mistaken, that he needed to use that degree of force to defend himself or another?"
 
The below is what I've been getting at in this thread.

Why (again) have the Police lied about the incident?

But there is a third, possibly even more significant reason why this case matters. And that’s because it has again raised doubts about the reliability and integrity of the police service. The IPCC was told that Duggan had fired at police. He hadn’t. One officer claimed that Duggan had been pointing a gun at him when the fatal shot had been fired. Independent expert witness testimony indicated he couldn’t have been. Two officers claimed Duggan was holding a gun when he emerged from the cab. But the gun was found lying in a park, and no one could plausibly explain how it got from Duggan to there in the instant he was shot.

Nor is this the first time this has happened. It’s now eight years since the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. The absence of a direct threat. The panicked police response. The inconsistencies in police officer’s accounts of the incident.

Yes, we ask the police to do a difficult job in dangerous circumstances. But that is the job.

Yesterday Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said he wanted to “discuss how the Metropolitan Police can build better relationships for the future. I am open to ideas and advice.” Here are a couple of suggestions: Stop shooting people who are unarmed. Take a long hard look at the officers you give weapons to. And when you do shoot people, stop lying about how and why you did it.
Click to expand...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...olice-still-have-serious-questions-to-answer/
 
DanielMMS said:
You are not wrong but there are more ways than using eye witness accounts to establish the circumstances of a particular event not least due to them being notoriously unreliable. The jury in this case will have had to consider the contradictory eye witness reports. They may (or may not) have given weight to the suggestion that Witness B was somewhat partial and changed his view as to the events of that day. They will then have taken all the other evidence to establish which of the eye witness accounts most accurately reflect what happened. On the basis of the 8:2:0 verdict, the combination of evidence available must have been sufficiently convincing to all but discount the validity of Witness B's statement - and to corroborate the account provided by V53 et al. Even with the 2 who opted for an open verdict, if they were convinced that Witness B's statement was fact then they would have ticked the box marked unlawful killing.
Click to expand...

Other than eye witnesses though, what type of evidence could there possibly be that would suggest Duggan was actually a threat in that moment? I don't mean the intel that he had a gun.. As in, how could they know whether he looked like he was reaching for a gun, or whether he looked like he was surrendering?

I see what you're saying about taking all of the evidence into account to determine which of the eye witness' accounts corroborates the most, but I just can't think of any type of evidence other than eyewitness testimony that would either prove or disprove that he was a threat in that moment, other than camera footage.
 
zenf said:
Other than eye witnesses though, what type of evidence could there possibly be that would suggest Duggan was actually a threat in that moment? I don't mean the intel that he had a gun.. As in, how could they know whether he looked like he was reaching for a gun, or whether he looked like he was surrendering?

I see what you're saying about taking all of the evidence into account to determine which of the eye witness' accounts corroborates the most, but I just can't think of any type of evidence other than eyewitness testimony that would either prove or disprove that he was a threat in that moment, other than camera footage.
Click to expand...

Difficult to say and someone would need to wade through the evidence presented to the inquest to know the answer. If I have time I will let you know! What is clear is the jury (well, 8 of them) - who did hear all of the evidence - felt that the balance of probability was such to indicate that V53 truly believed Duggan was a threat at the time of the fatal shot.
 
McGray said:
snip[/url]
Click to expand...

The IPCC was told that Duggan had fired at police. He hadn’t.
Click to expand...

Immediately after the event, it was mentioned to an IPCC investigator that an officer had been shot. The assumption was made that it was Duggan who had fired this shot and the IPCC investigator broke protocol and broadcast it as fact. There was no intention to mislead by the police – it was a mistake, not a lie.

One officer claimed that Duggan had been pointing a gun at him when the fatal shot had been fired.
Click to expand...

Two officers stated that they saw Duggan leave the car holding a firearm. This has been found, by a jury, to be their honestly held beliefs – they made a mistake, they did not lie.

It’s now eight years since the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes.
Click to expand...

De Menezes was killed by officers who had received advice that he was a suicide bomber ready to detonate his device – the intelligence officers made a mistake, they did not lie.

And when you do shoot people, stop lying about how and why you did it.
Click to expand...

A fair point, but what lies is he talking about? The situation immediately after the de Menezes incident was a shambles but was there a real intention to mislead?
 
McGray said:
The below is what I've been getting at in this thread.

Why (again) have the Police lied about the incident?

But there is a third, possibly even more significant reason why this case matters. And that’s because it has again raised doubts about the reliability and integrity of the police service. The IPCC was told that Duggan had fired at police. He hadn’t. One officer claimed that Duggan had been pointing a gun at him when the fatal shot had been fired. Independent expert witness testimony indicated he couldn’t have been. Two officers claimed Duggan was holding a gun when he emerged from the cab. But the gun was found lying in a park, and no one could plausibly explain how it got from Duggan to there in the instant he was shot.

Nor is this the first time this has happened. It’s now eight years since the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. The absence of a direct threat. The panicked police response. The inconsistencies in police officer’s accounts of the incident.

Yes, we ask the police to do a difficult job in dangerous circumstances. But that is the job.

Yesterday Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe said he wanted to “discuss how the Metropolitan Police can build better relationships for the future. I am open to ideas and advice.” Here are a couple of suggestions: Stop shooting people who are unarmed. Take a long hard look at the officers you give weapons to. And when you do shoot people, stop lying about how and why you did it.
Click to expand...


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...olice-still-have-serious-questions-to-answer/
Click to expand...


Also add that the copper that shot him told lies as well but was found out.

Professor Derrick Pounder found V53 had probably got the order of shots wrong. The first was to the arm and left Duggan still alive. Other tests showed the fatal shot to the chest was at a steep downwards angle, as Duggan was falling or stooped, and thus, it was suggested, unable to be holding a gun in a threatening manner.
Click to expand...

the armed officers were allowed to sit together in a room at Leman Street station in east London for eight hours and write their full statements after conferring. When the IPCC investigated, the officers refused to answer questions in interview, instead providing written statements
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-death-london-riots
 
DanielMMS said:
Difficult to say and someone would need to wade through the evidence presented to the inquest to know the answer. If I have time I will let you know! What is clear is the jury (well, 8 of them) - who did hear all of the evidence - felt that the balance of probability was such to indicate that V53 truly believed Duggan was a threat at the time of the fatal shot.
Click to expand...

Well if you do, I'd appreciate that, thanks. :)
 
Biased rubbish, imagining anyone could have total recall of 5 seconds you shoot someone dead months after the fact. Next thing they'll be asking why they didnt just shoot him in the leg.
 
Devlish said:
Biased rubbish, imagining anyone could have total recall of 5 seconds you shoot someone dead months after the fact. Next thing they'll be asking why they didnt just shoot him in the leg.
Click to expand...

The police have to write a report or have you missed that?
 
deuse said:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-death-london-riots
Click to expand...

I really do not understand why you and others so readily rely upon and believe newspaper articles which are quite clearly written from a particular angle with an agenda. The primary information is out there in the form of the transcripts from the inquest. If you want to express an informed opinion, do you not think it better to "inform" yourself through a source that is not so blatantly partial?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom