Duggan verdict

[Tangled up in Blue]

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.

You're right about the numbers but the Duggan family are "considering a court challenge to the verdict".

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/09/mark-duggan-family-furious-lawful-killing-verdict

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

A newspaper article and something mentioning specsavers?
Do you not think the jury had a tad more to go on before reaching the conclusions they did?

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

You're right about the numbers but the Duggan family are "considering a court challenge to the verdict".

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/09/mark-duggan-family-furious-lawful-killing-verdict

I believe they (family) are seeking a judicial review.

 

[Pubey]

A newspaper article and something mentioning specsavers?
Do you not think the jury had a tad more to go on before reaching the conclusions they did?

Maybe try reading it again.

The jury and their decision is a separate issue. Like I said, I can understand how, within the law, the jury came to a decision of lawful killing.

IMO, the law is pretty ****ed up.

Secondly, the corruption and lies and smear campaign is a huge issue too, and IMO there should be a major investigation of the actions of the Met after the shooting. There are unresolved questions about what happened in the day, and why were the Daily Mail wrongly reporting that an officer had been shot by Duggan?

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Maybe try reading it again.

The jury and their decision is a separate issue. Like I said, I can understand how, within the law, the jury came to a decision of lawful killing.

IMO, the law is pretty ****ed up.

Secondly, the corruption and lies and smear campaign is a huge issue too, and IMO there should be a major investigation of the actions of the Met after the shooting. There are unresolved questions about what happened in the day, and why were the Daily Mail wrongly reporting that an officer had been shot?

Read it the first time thanks.
By the way, that ****ed law is the same one keeping you safe in bed at night.
IMO and to use the football metaphor, it's law abiding citizens 1 nasty gun wielding gangland scum 0

 

[C'mon you Shrimpers]

a few points. If the family appeal there should be no legal aid. Same for a judicial review. If the community feel so strongly then they will need to raise the money themselves. I'll be buggered if Ihavbe to pay one penny of my tax for this.
I'm waiting for one "community" representative to come out and say Duggan was wrong to have a gun and the rest of the "community" should hand in any they might have. They could also throw in their knives.
The 2 MPs Abbott and Lammey are a disgrace. Labour by the way TUIB. Both as thick as 2 short planks.
The assistant editor of the Guardian does not understabd the law.
The solicitor acting for the family should be hauled up before the law sciety and disciplined for her comments about the police "murdering" her client.
The BBC coverage showed their leftist credentials to a tee. Very little balance and they were almost crying after the verdict was made.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Read it the first time thanks.
By the way, that ****ed law is the same one keeping you safe in bed at night.
IMO and to use the football metaphor, it's law abiding citizens 1 nasty gun wielding gangland scum 0[/QUOTE]

The day that an armed Policeman in the UK can execute an unarmed man in the street (American style) and legally get away with it, is a bad day for democracy.

How about Police 1-Democracy 0?

 

[ldnfatso]

It's illegal to carry a firearm (without a license) whether or not there is any intent to use it! Anyone in possession of one must therefore be categorized as someone prepared to use it and a danger.
Just because the copper shot him first doesn't mean he was out of danger before the first shot was fired. The fact that the cops had been trailing him as well as some bloke (jailed now) who stored multiple amounts of firearms was a sure sign that the intelligence they had was that Duggan was a toerag! I tbh have no time for coppers tbh but i have even less time for dangerous criminals that have been convicted of crimes and been under suspicion for others including murder.

A youngster with 6 kids and no job at the age of 29 shows he obviously had no self respect or respect for others. His family come across as pikey scumbags who fancy causing a bit of trouble (especially his aunt). This is another De Menezes all over again and maybe another drawn out Stephen Lawrence cover up.

 

[Pubey]

It's illegal to carry a firearm (without a license) whether or not there is any intent to use it! Anyone in possession of one must therefore be categorized as someone prepared to use it and a danger.
Just because the copper shot him first doesn't mean he was out of danger before the first shot was fired. The fact that the cops had been trailing him as well as some bloke (jailed now) who stored multiple amounts of firearms was a sure sign that the intelligence they had was that Duggan was a toerag! I tbh have no time for coppers tbh but i have even less time for dangerous criminals that have been convicted of crimes and been under suspicion for others including murder.

A youngster with 6 kids and no job at the age of 29 shows he obviously had no self respect or respect for others. His family come across as pikey scumbags who fancy causing a bit of trouble (especially his aunt). This is another De Menezes all over again and maybe another drawn out Stephen Lawrence cover up.

There is no concrete/scientific evidence that Duggan was carrying a gun. A gun in a sock was found 20ft away from Duggan. There was not any DNA or anything on the gun. How did the gun in Duggan's hand (as reported by the cop) then disappear when he hit the deck and turn up 20ft away?

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Read it the first time thanks.
By the way, that ****ed law is the same one keeping you safe in bed at night.
IMO and to use the football metaphor, it's law abiding citizens 1 nasty gun wielding gangland scum 0[/QUOTE]

The day that an armed Policeman in the UK can execute an unarmed man in the street (American style) and legally get away with it, is a bad day for democracy.

How about Police 1-Democracy 0?

Utter crap. Notice you use the word "execute" just like his supporters are - how very touching.
American style? don't know what that is supposed to mean, extra cheese perhaps?
Democracy 0 ? what do you suppose he had collected the gun earlier in the day for ?

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

There is no concrete/scientific evidence that Duggan was carrying a gun. A gun in a sock was found 20ft away from Duggan. There was not any DNA or anything on the gun. How did the gun in Duggan's hand (as reported by the cop) then disappear when he hit the deck and turn up 20ft away?

I know you don't like it but the jury found 9 to 1 that they believed Duggan had possession of that gun.

 

[chapperzUK]

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...

Interesting that 10 out of the 10 concluded that Mr Duggan had the gun with him in the taxi immediately before being stopped. 9 of them concluding he threw the gun out of the taxi or on the pavement.

 

[Pubey]

I know you don't like it but the jury found 9 to 1 that they believed Duggan had possession of that gun.

That's absolutely not what they believed.

They found 9 to 1 that the officer lawfully killed Duggan, due to the officer explaining that he 'honestly believed' that Duggan had a gun and was threatening him.

The jury believed that Duggan had thrown the gun away, but they also believed that the officer still 'honestly believed' he had a gun on him.

(apologies for overuse of 'believed'!)

 

[Jam_Man]

Read it the first time thanks.
By the way, that ****ed law is the same one keeping you safe in bed at night.
IMO and to use the football metaphor, it's law abiding citizens 1 nasty gun wielding gangland scum 0

To be fair if I got out of a taxi and was shot because a police officer saw a gun that I wasnt holding I wouldnt feel overly safe.

This is more down to a policemans judgement. Ignoring conspiracy theories and going on the basis that he did have a gun but threw it at some point the policeman in my opinion must have shot without really taking due care.

Its not the first incident where an unarmed man was shot, remember the Brazilian guy after 7/7?

Certainly if the police thought Duggan had just bought a gun or had it with him its understandable they were jittery, but it does sound like a bit of trigger happiness to me.

I have no sympathy with him as I said before, but does make you a little nervous that if the police had some bad information they could make other mistakes.

I was once followed by a police helicopter (I could see it hovering above me through my sunroof) and when I stopped 15 minutes later to drop a mate off a police car came screaming up (lights off) and stopped next to me, had a look then drove off. Can imagine what might have happened if they had been told I was an armed robber and they were armed. Just takes one mistake, they are only human after all.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

That's absolutely not what they believed.

They found 9 to 1 that the officer lawfully killed Duggan, due to the officer explaining that he 'honestly believed' that Duggan had a gun and was threatening him.

The jury believed that Duggan had thrown the gun away, but they also believed that the officer still 'honestly believed' he had a gun on him.

(apologies for overuse of 'believed'!)

Incorrect.

The verdict was 8 - 2 for lawful killing with the two opting for open verdict. No one delivered a verdict of Unlawful killing after sitting through 4 months of the facts.
The man who supplied the firearm to Duggan is currently serving a prison sentence for the offence. Was he tried and judged unfairly perhaps?
9 of the jury believe the gun was thrown from within the taxi ie they believe the police were stopping a man with a live firearm.
What do you suppose a nice boy like Duggan was doing with a firearm ?

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

To be fair if I got out of a taxi and was shot because a police officer saw a gun that I wasnt holding I wouldnt feel overly safe.

This is more down to a policemans judgement. Ignoring conspiracy theories and going on the basis that he did have a gun but threw it at some point the policeman in my opinion must have shot without really taking due care.

Its not the first incident where an unarmed man was shot, remember the Brazilian guy after 7/7?

Certainly if the police thought Duggan had just bought a gun or had it with him its understandable they were jittery, but it does sound like a bit of trigger happiness to me.

I have no sympathy with him as I said before, but does make you a little nervous that if the police had some bad information they could make other mistakes.

I was once followed by a police helicopter (I could see it hovering above me through my sunroof) and when I stopped 15 minutes later to drop a mate off a police car came screaming up (lights off) and stopped next to me, had a look then drove off. Can imagine what might have happened if they had been told I was an armed robber and they were armed. Just takes one mistake, they are only human after all.

Unless you are a known criminal with access to firearms I wouldn't worry too much.

 

[Pubey]

Incorrect.

The verdict was 8 - 2 for lawful killing with the two opting for open verdict. No one delivered a verdict of Unlawful killing after sitting through 4 months of the facts.
The man who supplied the firearm to Duggan is currently serving a prison sentence for the offence. Was he tried and judged unfairly perhaps?
9 of the jury believe the gun was thrown from within the taxi ie they believe the police were stopping a man with a live firearm.
What do you suppose a nice boy like Duggan was doing with a firearm ?

You're going around in circles.

Yes you're right about the verdict, my bad. I clearly said before that I can see how the jury have ended up in this position. Unlawful killing just wasn't really an option at all. For that verdict, the jury have to be sure that the officer knew that he didn't have a gun on him, and shot him anyway. It all comes down to how the officer can make it clear that he honestly believed he had a gun in his hand, and on the balance of probabilities that comes down to either a lawful killing or an open verdict.

I made that exact point about the man who supplied the gun in my very first post.

What was Duggan doing with a firearm? Probably throwing it over a fence before being shot dead.

 

[Pubey]

Unless you are a known criminal with access to firearms I wouldn't worry too much.

Or the officer standing behind Duggan who got hit with the over-penetrating round? That could have been any regular Joe on the street walking by.

 

[Jam_Man]

Unless you are a known criminal with access to firearms I wouldn't worry too much.

That doesnt help the Brazilian chap who got shot on the tube...

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Or the officer standing behind Duggan who got hit with the over-penetrating round? That could have been any regular Joe on the street walking by.

Or the person or persons who could have been shot with the gun he paid for.