Jury heard the evidence and based their decision on that.
I've not heard all the evidence so how can I form a valid opinion? [yes I know this is stw]
Live by the gun, die by the gun, his family and 'supporters' seem a little oblivious to this...
Did they think he was an alter boy..?
What wwaswas said
Gotta be thinking, if he hadn't been in a taxi with a gun, his chances of being shot by armed police would have been lower.
wwaswas, spot on.
Given the inevitable hoohaa over conflicting witness statements I think it makes a very good case for all police officers to wear video recording equipment with the custody of the recordings being shared by the police for evidence purposes and an independent authority for integrity and corroboration.
Quite a few police forces are already trialing that idea, along with gps monitoring of locations of the officers, but like everything they can be manipulated or switched off covered, accidently or purposefufully.
Quite a few peeps tonight will have not heard or seen the evidence, but that will not stop them showing their dis satifaction with the law .
People on twitter who've said it was the right decision have been getting a fair amount of abuse.
Probably from the same people who'd be crowing now if the decision had gone the other way.
That's the thing with a jury based system - you have to accept the decision whether you agree with it or not. You can't go for best of three or only count the decisions in your favour. Although that sort of acceptance seems to escape even Government ministers on occasion.
I'm not trolling but I genuinely couldn't care about him. He carried a gun with the intention if using it, but ended up getting shot himself. Tough titty.
"It was death by a thousand ****ups."
The jury heard the evidence they know more than any one on the internet.
The guardian report suggests that the armed cops will be camera'd up by April a good thing so long as when they are pilling in to stop armed nutters they don't pause to make sure the camera is on or take a selfie.
Topics like this need Elf for pure entertainment.
I'm uneasy as to how the Met police can kill an unarmed person with their hands in the air in a surrender pose with no immediate danger to the officers in question yet be absolved of unlawful killing.
Says it all about the Met police in my opinion.
Cant help but think that the hamster-wranglers at http://more.arrse.co.uk/ have let them out of their cage to avoid a meltdown ....
I'm glad I wasn't on that jury - I found a very simple four-day sex abuse case stressful enough.
Says it all about the Met police in my opinion.
It says very little about the Met in my opinion.
One witness gave evidence to suggest that Duggan was killed with his hands up in a surrender position and 8 out of 10 jurors were not convinced that that was sufficient evidence to conclude that Duggan was not perceived as a danger.
[quote=Stoner ]
Says it all about the Met police in my opinion.
It says very little about the Met in my opinion.
One witness gave evidence to suggest that Duggan was killed with his hands up in a surrender position and 8 out of 10 jurors were not convinced that that was sufficient evidence to conclude that Duggan was not perceived as a danger.
Are you suggesting that juries [i]always[/i] deliver the correct verdict?
Im saying you cant draw the conclusion that "the Met police can kill an unarmed person with their hands in the air" from the material we've got to work with. Id prefer to ask the jury what they thought. Fortunately some else already has....
I think it's remarkable that armed police do not kill more people really.
Presumably if you've just performed a "hard stop" on the car of a man you think has a gun you are pretty keyed up and far more likely to think you see guns in suspect's hands than you otherwise would be.
I believe it is still the case that officers are allowed to put their heads together and get their story straight before giving evidence in these things. Am I making that up? If I'm not, that doesn't seem to be very helpful to me.
What cobrakai said.....+1
Cheers
I'm not going to comment on whether or not I think he was rightly or wrongly killed but I'll just say that I'm glad it's crappy weather at the moment as it'll stop all the idiots going out and starting to riot again 🙂
The problem with reading reports of a court case is that people outside the court only ever get to see the TEXT of what was said. They don't get to hear how it was delivered, how the winess responded to questioning, their body language and so on. I don't think a witness who was in a 9th floor flat (as the one who said he had his hands up was when it happened) was in the best place to see what went on, but if in addition the jury just didn't believe what he was saying from the way he acted it would be very easy to dismiss that evidence he gave, or at least give it much less importance when considering their verdict.
I have been on a crown court jury and give evidence in a professional capacity for my job (not police).
[url= http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/police-state-review-2013/ ]This US blog[/url] is doubtless often somewhat unfair on the police, but is quite interesting. A recurring theme is SWAT teams carrying out raids or vehicle stops that (arguably) don't really need to happen, and the keyed-up and heavily armed officers then shooting people they perceive might be a threat. This seems to be far more acute in the US, because of (a) the much heavier firepower being deployed by SWAT units and (b) the far more routine expectation that the people they are trying to arrest will also have serious weapons.
The result is quite clearly a combat mentality among law-enforcement officers. The saddest stories on the blog are where a SWAT team raids completely the wrong house, the homeowner grabs a weapon because he has no idea who just kicked his door in and the police then shoot him.
We're a very long way from that I think.
I've nothing to say about the verdict, as I wasn't on the jury and didn't hear the evidence. But I wouldn't be at all surprised if a fair few people who also didn't hear the evidence caused trouble in that there London tonight. Here we go again.
One down a thousand more to go
We in the UK do not allow unlawful firearms, he had one and died because of his connection to it. Whether he had it in his possession at the time of the shooting is irrelevant to me.
As Loddrick said, live by the gun die by the gun.
I think we should give dibble knives aswell...
Although harsher sentences and going back to real incarceration would be a better deterrent, not the effing holiday camps they are in now.
We do risk having a society where people who have to step up to the plate and deal with the really tough stuff are continually abused for the work they do. Often they are condemned by people whose working day consists of in effect making sure enough paper clips have been ordered
Social Workers and The Police have massively tough jobs and usually get little thanks or far worse end up in court for trying to do their jobs
I'm not trolling but I genuinely couldn't care about him. He carried a gun with the intention if using it, but ended up getting shot himself. Tough titty.
+1
One less gun wielding scum bag off the streets. Full credit to the police.
have always shared the opinion expressed by cobrakai
if you carry a weapon you should expect no less
It's a shame that it resulted in him being shot rather than arrested, the judge and jury have made their decision with far more knowledge than I have.
One less gun wielding scum bag off the streets.
But he never had a gun, it was planted there by the racialist babylon!
RIP Soulja!
ninfan - MemberBut he never had a gun, it was planted there by the racialist babylon!
RIP Soulja!
Wurd.
PM on R4 covered the 'discrepancy' between the jury being convinced that he was unarmed and yet also return a lawful killing pretty well. It comes down to whether the copper thought he had a gun; if they were happy with his statement to that effect it was lawful for him to take the action he did. So there is no 'discrepancy'.
I'm not entirely sure what I find more annoying - dumbass shottas carrying dem [illegal] pieces... or internet blowhards pontificating about it, [i]ex post facto[/i].
Lets just hope numpties dont use the verdict as an excuse to commit mass riots.
Police cover up.
They shot an unarmed man.
Then planted the gun.
This thread is not going to end well.
We in the UK do not allow unlawful firearms,
Unless you are a member of the SAS with mental problems, then it's ok.
While his killing has been shown to be lawful, that doesn't mean mistakes weren't made that could perhaps be avoided in the future. The big problem about the case though was the way the police and even the IPC briefed the press after the event. The IPC especially deserve a real ticking off over there handling of the incident.
matther01 - Member
Lets just hope numpties dont use the verdict as an excuse to commit mass riots.
Nah, I could do with some new electronic goods right now!
I remember walking past the riots.
Was a warm day too.
I still remember when some men got out of their cars with ski masks and baseball bats right in front of me!
Police are pl..bs...oops.
I hope it sends out the message that guns are not welcome on our streets,we give the police the power and the tools to shoot someone and I'm sure in some circumstances there is less to no time to think when there are firearms involved.
The big problem about the case though was the way the police and even the IPC briefed the press after the event. The IPC especially deserve a real ticking off over there handling of the incident.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Say nothing until you've got all the facts, and you're being secretive, covering things up and not including the 'community' - say what you know and you run the risk of having facts wrong (having read the transcripts, the whole 'duggan shot first' crept in somewhere along the chain due to a briefing by someone who wasn't there)
Just like if you take the far away to forensically examine it, then you're depriving the taxi driver of his living, which is why they decided to examine it at the scene, then changed their mind when they found blood splatter on the outside)
Says it all about the Met police in my opinion.
To be honest I think it says more about your inability to accept that you are not in full possession of the facts (just like the rest us)and are not really in any position to jump to a conclusion.
Fortunately we have a system where we [s]bore a dozen people silly [/s] spend months fully informing a dozen people of all the conflicting evidence and allow them to come to non pressurised decision. Not saying they get it right all the time by any stretch but they have a hell of a lot better chance of doing so than any of us have.
The inability of the family and friends of the deceased to at least acknowledge that Duggan's lifestyle and intentions did not play a part in his death speaks volumes for me too. If they had just been able to say "yes, he was up to no good and needed stopping" but just questioned the finality of how he was stopped, I would have much more sympathy for their cause.
Mark duggan was a lot more "guilty" than Ian Tomlinson.
Say nothing until you've got all the facts, and you're being secretive, covering things up and not including the 'community' - say what you know and you run the risk of having facts wrong (having read the transcripts, the whole 'duggan shot first' crept in somewhere along the chain due to a briefing by someone who wasn't there)
They released every bit of evidence that supported the police, and suppressed any that may have cast doubt. It wasn't just a matter of all or nothing, it was very one sided.
The public attention brought by the family and friends (and even the riots) have probably brought about a more truthful and complete investigation in the end. It was pretty clear that in the beginning all they were interested in was clearing the officers involved, not uncovering the truth.
[img] 
[/img]
MSP your first statement is total utter rubbish. Read the BBC coverage. It's just obviously wrong.
Wurd.
You must have massive fingers - W isn't even close to T on my keyboard...
What a surprise. Someone who liked the power that wielding an illegal firearm gave him over people who didn't suddenly finds that there is a downside when the police catch up with him, then his family and 'supporters' don't like the result.
It really is tough titty I'm afraid.
Correct we haven't heard the evidence so we can't form an opinion better than the jury, but I will say that there is absolutely no chance that this or any case like it would ever come out with a different result regardless of the facts.
Unfortunately i lost faith in the Mets firearms officers after the shooting of De Menezes, and the fact that so many of the people that they shoot turn out not to actually be armed does nothing to improve that confidence.
As someone pointed out, we don't allow illegal firearms in this country, but also we don't have the death penalty either.
As someone who once carried arms on the streets of the UK to assist in the upholding of the law (Northern Ireland) I can't but help feel that the rules of engagement that we had to abide by were considerably more stringent than those applied to the police today, i.e. saying "I honestly believed he was armed" would have been insufficient, I would have had to be able to state "Yes he was 100% definitely holding a weapon and he was about to endanger life with it."
Whilst i have no doubt that Mr Duggan was as far from a saint as it's possible to get i can't but help feeling that not enough was done to bring him to trial.
cobrakai - MemberI'm not trolling but I genuinely couldn't care about him.
You don't need to care about the individual being shot to be concerned- you can be concerned for the possibility that people get shot wrongly, and you can be concerned for the subsequent impact that can have. (ie, it seems likely that a better stop would have brought him in alive, which would have avoided the rioting. Or perhaps, just postponed it)
Not knowing the facts, I can't really comment on the verdict, hopefully the jury was unconvinced by the evidence that said he had raised his arms before he was shot, because the alternative's very ugly.
From a reputable source, apparently the jury were asked 5 questions:
In the period between midday on 3 August 2011 and when state amber was called at 6.00 pm on 4 August 2011, did the Metropolitan Police Service and the Serious Organised Crime Agency do the best they realistically could have done to gather and react to intelligence about the possibility of Mr Duggan collecting a gun from Mr Hutchinson-Foster? The jury said a unanimous no.Was the stop conducted in a location and in a way which minimised, to the greatest extent possible, recourse to lethal force? Unanimous yes.
Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the stop? Unanimous yes
How did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found? A majority of 9 to 1 said it was thrown.
When Mr Duggan received a fatal shot, did he have the gun in his hand? A majority of 8 to 2 said no, he did not have a gun in his hand.
What do we make of this? Intelligence not collected well, gun discarded then suspect shot. I'm not entirely sure how that could be constituted as lawful. My personal opinion is that if you carry a firearm expect to pulled and face the full force of the justice system. Can anyone shed any light in how the jury reached their overall verdict?
I'm kind of surprised that the Duggan family's lawyer described the killing as murder outside the court, despite the jury having just found otherwise. Quite a inflammatory thing for a lawyer to do I would have thought?
footflaps - Member
I'm not trolling but I genuinely couldn't care about him. He carried a gun with the intention if using it, but ended up getting shot himself. Tough titty.
+1One less gun wielding scum bag off the streets. Full credit to the police.
exactly good riddance
I'm not entirely sure how that could be constituted as lawful.
Read what I wrote earlier re the BBC PM program somethingion. The decision lawful vs unlawful is a technicality, it doesn't mean right or wrong.
I think the lawyer was reading a family statement.
Why police stopped him in the first place?
Do police randomly stop white van driver?
Ohhhh-oh the guns of Brixton...
Here's the Met Police statement which Duggan's supporters drowned out outside the court. The important bit is
a jury of Londoners, who have seen and heard all the evidence, have today concluded that not only was the operation to stop Mark Duggan in the taxi conducted in a way which minimised to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force, but that Mark Duggan had a gun, and also that our officer had an honest and reasonable belief that Mark Duggan still had the gun when he shot him.
Here's the Met Police statement which Duggan's supporters drowned out outside the court. The important bit is
I hate to say it but I take anything that comes directly from the Met with a large pinch of salt. They didn't have any contact whatsoever with Ian Tomlinson to begin with remember.
yossarian - MemberHere's the Met Police statement which Duggan's supporters drowned out outside the court. The important bit is
I hate to say it but I take anything that comes directly from the Met with a large pinch of salt. They didn't have any contact whatsoever with Ian Tomlinson to begin with remember.
All public statements are computer talk. i.e. bureaucratic speech.
They are meaningless words.
🙄
Carry a gun, risk getting shot.
One less idiot and one less gun on the streets, I can only congratulate the police on their actions
"The officer who fired the shots, known only as V53, told the jury he was certain Duggan had a weapon in his hand and feared he was raising it to shoot. V53 said the suspect pivoted 180 degrees towards him: "It's like a freeze-frame moment," he said. "The only thing I was focusing on is the gun." If the jury believed that evidence even if the officer was in fact mistaken then it was lawful .
I really don't trust the police and will normally criticise rather than defend them but this is not the case for that .
I do believe firearms officers are badly served by their refusal to cooperate with investigations and their group debriefs that lead to the possibility of contamination of their accounts the risk of collusion and the certainty that they will be perceived as covering something up . In this case though the other officers gave different evidence to v53 so it cannot be said that that happened.
Hard to see a pro police bias on the jury's part given their answers to the questions as reported.
I am also happy to defend the officers who shot DeMendes but not the process or declension making that but them in the situation where they did so.
Declension making?
Were the Romans involved?
What have they ever done for us?
Sorry for taking the piss, but that tickled me - I have the image of John Cleese as law enforcer in my head now.
[quote=yossarian ]
Here's the Met Police statement which Duggan's supporters drowned out outside the court. The important bit is
I hate to say it but I take anything that comes directly from the Met with a large pinch of salt. They didn't have any contact whatsoever with Ian Tomlinson to begin with remember.
Why, which bit of their statement isn't simply stating known facts about the decisions the jury came to? You might make for a rather more convincing argument if your own opinion wasn't laced with such obvious prejudice.
Dannyh I'm dyslexic I know cos my mother had me tested . I normally get the chance for a crafty edit when I spot my numerous errors but you have blown it for me this time.
Why, which bit of their statement isn't simply stating known facts about the decisions the jury came to? You might make for a rather more convincing argument if your own opinion wasn't laced with such obvious prejudice.
Because the statement makes it sound as though the jury completely absolved the Met of any blame.
Here is the full statement:
08 January 2014Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice, said:
No officer sets out at the start of the day to run an operation that results in someone dying.
So our sympathy today is with Mark Duggan's family. They have lost a loved one.
But the task our officers face in making split-second decisions when confronting armed criminals means there is a risk - a very small risk - that this will happen.
Armed criminals have shot dead more than 50 people in London in the last 3 and a half years. We send out well-trained, professional armed officers thousands of times a year to combat this threat, only firing shots once or twice. These careful tactics have significantly reduced gun crime.
It is significant, then, that a jury of Londoners, who have seen and heard all the evidence, have today concluded that not only was the operation to stop Mark Duggan in the taxi conducted in a way which minimised to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force, but that Mark Duggan had a gun, and also that our officer had an honest and reasonable belief that Mark Duggan still had the gun when he shot him.
We know the trust is not shared by everyone. I will be offering to meet Mark Duggan's family to express our sorrow. And we will continue working with local leaders to strengthen relationships. We know it will take time.
My 'obvious prejudice' is actually grave misgivings. Don't confuse the two things. They are vastly different.
Shame no contempt of court arrests for the family and their hangers on.
The armed police officer or the armed thug. I know which one I'm glad is still alive.
bainbrge - MemberShame no contempt of court arrests for the family and their hangers on.
That's a bit anal is it not?
🙄
Crankboy.
No offence meant, it was one of those 'quite good' typos that just made me giggle, I did apologise in my post!
The armed police officer or the armed thug. I know which one I'm glad is still alive.
It wasn't a one or the other situation, although the officer thought it was in the moment.
Correct we haven't heard the evidence so we can't form an opinion better than the jury, but I will say that there is absolutely no chance that this or any case like it would ever come out with a different result regardless of the facts.
But I can think of two cases in recent years where the inquest jury have ruled that the police unlawfully killed people in 'armed police' situations (Harry Stanley and Azelle Rodney)
No one was ever going to be satisfied with the verdict, whichever way it went. Any death is tragic, but the law allows [i]al[/i]l of us to use appropriate force for defence, up to and including killing someone.
Our legal system has cleared the cops via a jury, you either accept it or throw the whole system in the bin and replace it with what?
I have known armed response officers - they always seemed very aware of their responsibilities and the risks they run daily, I wouldn't want their jobs for the world. As others have said, given the number of times they are deployed, remarkable more people aren't shot but for their training and discipline.
And Duggan and his extended family do come across as somewhat hypocritical given what some of their family have been involved in.
Anal? Vindictive maybe.
You think their behaviour was justified? Do you attach any value to one of the basic tenets of our society?
[quote=yossarian ]Because the statement makes it sound as though the jury completely absolved the Met of any blame.
Well in terms of the actual operation, they pretty much did, didn't they? Is the bit you're bothered about that the statement didn't mention that they didn't do the best job with the intelligence about the gun before the operation?
The armed police officer or the armed thug. I know which one I'm glad is still alive.
It wasn't a one or the other situation, although the officer thought it was in the moment.
And surely that's the nub of the matter. The policeman thought it was in the moment.
I'm also sure the policeman took no pleasure in doing what he did, and has probably had many sleepless nights over it. Had Duggan, or anyone like him, shot and killed someone I doubt they have given two hoots.
bainbrge - MemberAnal? Vindictive maybe.
Well, that's normal. Nobody wants to be on the losing end.
You think their behaviour was justified?
In this situation if a simple expression of disgust is curtailed then we might as well be mute & dumb. Besides, what do you want to do with them? Arrest all of them?
Do you attach any value to one of the basic tenets of our society?
No. Value of a society (a bit like blind faith) is created by zombie maggots regardless of the place or location or country one lives in. They are all shite.
1 question ... what did the mini cab driver say as evidence?