Forum menu
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.