Duggan verdict

[Tangled up in Blue]

Frankly, I'm not sure how an unarmed man can be "lawfully killed" by the Police or anyone else. Thoughts?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25665484

 

[Jam_Man]

He had a gun with him which he thew from the car. So technically not unarmed although he didnt have it in his hand when they shot him so sounds like a trigger happy policeman to me.

Then again if you don't go around with guns you are unlikely to be shot by the police so I dont have a lot of sympathy for him.

 

[superblue24]

Me neither. Looks and sounds like a thug and the sort of person likely to burgle me or steal my car...or worse!.... I can't see him contributing to anything positive in the community, had he still been alive.

If you don't want to find yourself in these sitatuations, dont carry weapons of any sort and don't get involved in crime, simples.

 

[Mad Cyril]

Frankly, I'm not sure how an unarmed man can be "lawfully killed" by the Police or anyone else. Thoughts?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25665484

Probably a genuine mistake by a policeman who had to make a life or death decision in a fraction of a second.

A risk anyone who involves themselves with illegal firearms takes.

 

[Supernaut]

Probably a genuine mistake by a policeman who had to make a life or death decision in a fraction of a second.

A risk anyone who involves themselves with illegal firearms takes.

Amen to that. He's not going to find any sympathy here I reckon...

 

[South Bank Hank]

More oxygen for the rest of us.

 

[Pubey]

Probably a genuine mistake by a policeman who had to make a life or death decision in a fraction of a second.

A risk anyone who involves themselves with illegal firearms takes.

It wasn't life or death though... Duggan wasn't pointing a gun at anyone, he didn't even have a gun in his hand.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Duggan was obviously bad news, but we still - thankfully - operate an innocent until proven guilty mantra in this country and the policeman's "shoot first, ask questions later" tact flies completely in the face of that. The officer disregarded of all of his training and the Met's own protocol for dealing with incidents like this. A thoroughly depressing, yet unsurprising verdict. The De Menezes and Tomlinson cases are demonstrable proof of the impunity the Met believes it acts under.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Frankly, I'm not sure how an unarmed man can be "lawfully killed" by the Police or anyone else. Thoughts?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25665484

a mixed race jury thought otherwise.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

He had a gun with him which he thew from the car. So technically not unarmed although he didnt have it in his hand when they shot him so sounds like a trigger happy policeman to me.

Then again if you don't go around with guns you are unlikely to be shot by the police so I dont have a lot of sympathy for him.

Perhaps you should put yourself in that position before you make juvenile comments like that.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

It wasn't life or death though... Duggan wasn't pointing a gun at anyone, he didn't even have a gun in his hand.

Always the victim, never your fault eh?

 

[Jai]

He had a gun with him which he thew from the car. So technically not unarmed although he didnt have it in his hand when they shot him so sounds like a trigger happy policeman to me.

Then again if you don't go around with guns you are unlikely to be shot by the police so I dont have a lot of sympathy for him.

Agreed. The cops made a hash of it but to be fair if you go around with guns you open yourself up to this kind of thing happening.

I don't mean the officer that shot the man by the way, it's a split second decision and I imagine an extremely tough one. I meant the aftermath, the conferring on statements etc. Doesn't make them look good at all.

 

[Uncle Leo]

This is worth a read.

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf

I'm always reluctant to jump to any conclusions given that a verdict was returned by twelve people who were actually immersed in the case for weeks. Certain this one is going to rumble on though...

 

[Jai]

People were saying the riots would restart. There was never any danger of that. Too cold.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Duggan was obviously bad news, but we still - thankfully - operate an innocent until proven guilty mantra in this country and the policeman's "shoot first, ask questions later" tact flies completely in the face of that. The officer disregarded of all of his training and the Met's own protocol for dealing with incidents like this. A thoroughly depressing, yet unsurprising verdict. The De Menezes and Tomlinson cases are demonstrable proof of the impunity the Met believes it acts under.

Rubbish. If you know anything at all about policing in this country and particularly London, then you would appreciate what it means to be a firearms officer. Of the many thousands of deployments of armed officers in the last 3 years in the entire country, police have had to use their firearms on five occasions.
In my opinion, that is something we can be very proud of as a nation.
If you had any idea at all of what happens to a officer and in most cases his or her family after a weapon is discharged, then you would be amazed that anyone would want to do the job at all.

 

[Pubey]

Always the victim, never your fault eh?

What does that even mean in this case? Let's look at the facts...

1. The intelligance that Duggan acquired a gun on that day was pretty legit. I think the guy who supplied a gun to Duggan was found guilty. The armed police officers had info to suggest it was likely that Duggan was in possession of a gun.

2. A gun was found 20 feet away from Duggan - there wasn't Duggan's DNA on the gun, or the sock that it was in.

3. No officer saw Duggan throw the gun

4. No officer saw a gun in Duggan's hand, except for V53. He was wrong. But he was found to have 'honestly believed' that Duggan had a gun in his hand.

5. There is still no answer as to how the gun got to the other side of the fence. Was it possible for Duggan to throw it and no one see it? Without wanting to sound all conspiracy theorist - could it have been that there was no gun found and so the police planted it?

My main question - If Duggan hadn't been killed, but just wounded. What charge could have been brought against him? Endangering someone with a gun? Possession of a gun? If he wasn't guilty of the first, then is it lawful to kill him?

It's beyond murky, the whole thing. In a post Ian Watkins, Jean Charles de Menezes world... the Met continue to do themselves no favours whatsoever.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

a mixed race jury thought otherwise.

Yes.On a 10-2 count.Let's see what the appeals court thinks.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Yes.On a 10-2 count.Let's see what the appeals court thinks.

8 - 2
8 found for lawful killing
2 found for open verdict

there will be no court of appeal - no one was on trial here.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

What does that even mean in this case? Let's look at the facts...

1. The intelligance that Duggan acquired a gun on that day was pretty legit. I think the guy who supplied a gun to Duggan was found guilty. The armed police officers had info to suggest it was likely that Duggan was in possession of a gun.

2. A gun was found 20 feet away from Duggan - there wasn't Duggan's DNA on the gun, or the sock that it was in.

3. No officer saw Duggan throw the gun

4. No officer saw a gun in Duggan's hand, except for V53. He was wrong. But he was found to have 'honestly believed' that Duggan had a gun in his hand.

5. There is still no answer as to how the gun got to the other side of the fence. Was it possible for Duggan to throw it and no one see it? Without wanting to sound all conspiracy theorist - could it have been that there was no gun found and so the police planted it?

My main question - If Duggan hadn't been killed, but just wounded. What charge could have been brought against him? Endangering someone with a gun? Possession of a gun? If he wasn't guilty of the first, then is it lawful to kill him?

It's beyond murky, the whole thing. In a post Ian Watkins, Jean Charles de Menezes world... the Met continue to do themselves no favours whatsoever.

Just to clear here then, are you saying it's the police who are corrupt or the legal system?
A jury were presented with 4 months worth of evidence and found for lawful killing.
Perhaps the jury are corrupt?

 

[Pubey]

Just to clear here then, are you saying it's the police who are corrupt or the legal system?
A jury were presented with 4 months worth of evidence and found for lawful killing.
Perhaps the jury are corrupt?

I can understand why the jury ended up having to pass the judgement they did. The law it terrifying that it allows armed policemen to shoot unarmed people on the basis of 'honest belief'.

I read this earlier which summarises why the law is so scary.

A: I saw the gun in his hand and he raised his hand, that is why I shot him
B: But he didn't have the gun in his hand, you couldn't have seen it.
A: No, I definitely, definitely saw it, I was looking at it the whole time.
B: You couldn't have, it was on the other side of a fence.
A: Oh was it? Well I honestly believed I saw the gun and it was definitely a gun because I described it in some detail earlier and I'm trained to recognise firearms.
B: Well, sorry he was unarmed.
A: Look, I don't care if it was a figment of my imagination, I honestly believed he had a gun.
B: Oh well if you honestly believe, I guess that's fine, better get yourself to specsavers though lol.

Even if the police aren't corrupt in terms of the placement of the gun... the smear campaign and lies that emerged immediately after the shooting still need to be fully investigated.

Where did the Daily Mail get this from? A complete lie.