[Closed] Mark Duggan lawfully killed

I do think when it kicked off he lost control and decided Duggan was getting it

Why do you think that?

Or, if he has really left the thread - I wonder why he thought that?

Well I thought about Mark Duggan and his milieu and the people he "worked" with and I paused to see if I could feel sorry for him. Ummmmm....

Nah.

That doesn't surprise me at all.

Yes. In the initial aftermath, the IPCC made a statement along the lines of shots being exchanged, which based on the evidence at the time (ie as above with a policeman also with a gunshot injury to the chest) was not wholly unreasonable IMHO. They later retracted that statement as more evidence came to light. To use this retraction as a suggestion that you can't believe anything they said about the events is wrong. That's my point here in response to Natrix's post.

At the inquest the IPCC's lead investigator, Colin Sparrow, revealed that he knew Duggan had not fired any gun long before the IPCC began briefing the media that he had shot at police first. It then took three weeks for them to correct a 'fact' that they knew to be false.

IMHO that is completely unreasonable.

I worked in the met some 13 years ago, I'll never forget the experience of stopping cars with 3-4 black males inside as the car either reeked of cannabis (yep you can smell it in another car it's that strong) or there was intel that it contained drugs or weapons. You had to get another vehicle to assist as soon as the car was stopped all the males would leap out and be extremely aggressive and threatening inches from your face calling you racist etc. It would often end up with persons detained sometimes arrested before you even got to search the car. Surprisingly there would be drugs or weapons in the car. Often you would be joined by one or two extra cars of black extremely aggressive males, they were the back up cars. There would usually be complaints of racism, excessive force all spurred on by criminal solicitors ( if you've seen breaking bad you'll know what that means) what I'm trying to explain is that this behaviour is a tactic to discourage police attention, the ongoing noise by the Duggans and their extended families is part of this tactic also. Of course they don't want to be stopped while they transport drugs and weapons, of course they don't want the risk of being shot doing what 99 percent of the rest of the population don't do. Everybody else who is naively sucked into this noise should take note of the saying "be careful what you wish for" I'm not saying the mechanism we have for dealing with crime is perfect, but it is acknowledged the world over it be the best.

This. ^^^

Indeed.
the legal and court system we have has been built up over centuries and whilst far from perfect is the best we have got to.
cases such as this may mean that the law is tested and things change. I don't have much sympathy that a fellow such as this had to die for arguments to be raised.

the protesters on here were no doubt represented on the jury panel- 20% did not agree lawful killing (given the evidence presented, must have been based on similar 'hunches' that the coppers were all lying).

unlike forums, you don't have the option to basically claim the law is an ass if you're a juror, you must decide on the options given to you by the judge.

BTW- does anyone know whether the cab driver stood as a witness, and if not why?

It then took three weeks for them to correct a 'fact' that they knew to be false.

Pondo - your source is the Guardian online, my source was todays Guardian (paper version)..................

the protesters on here were no doubt represented on the jury panel- 20% did not agree lawful killing (given the evidence presented, must have been based on similar 'hunches' that the coppers were all lying).

Point of order - 8 of the ten jurors voted 'lawful killing', two 'open verdict' and nobody voted 'unlawful killing' Which would suggest that rather than think the coppers were lying, they were not convinced either way.

Natrix;

I don't think the IPCC 'briefed the media' that Duggan had shot at the police first. As said elsewhere, the rush for the media to get the story into print first creates this rock and a hard place situation. Statements were made based on information available / believed to be true at the time, but to my mind were not presented as 100% fact.

From the Guardian a few days after the event, not 3 weeks after..

The IPCC's first statement about Duggan's death, issued four hours after he was pronounced dead, made no reference to shots fired at police.

However, at least one spokesman from the watchdog appears to have misinformed journalists, leading to reports that Duggan was killed by police after "firing first".

The Evening Standard said Duggan had been involved in a "shootout", adding that a "spokesman for the [IPCC] said it appeared the officer was shot first before police returned fire".

The Mirror quoted an IPCC spokesman saying: "We do not know the order the shots were fired. We understand the officer was shot first, then the male."

An article in the Independent made a similar claim. It reported: "It is understood that the officer was shot first, but this is not known for certain, an IPCC spokesperson said."

The IPCC statement said: "Analysis of media coverage and queries raised on Twitter have alerted to us to the possibility that we may have inadvertently given misleading information to journalists when responding to very early media queries following the shooting of Mark Duggan by MPS officers on the evening of 4 August."

Conceding it was possible it had issued information suggesting shots were exchanged, the IPCC added: "This was consistent with early information we received that an officer had been shot and taken to hospital. Any reference to an exchange of shots was not correct and did not feature in any of our formal statements, although an officer was taken to hospital after the incident."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/12/mark-duggan-ipcc-misled-media

Pondo - your source is the Guardian online, my source was todays Guardian (paper version)..................

I'd take them to task over misleading / conflicting information. Clearly can't be trusted. Next..... 😉

Well that's just political wordplay to give themselves enough wriggle room later to cover their arses. An IPCC spokesman said an officer was shot first then winked and tapped the side of his nose.

natrix - Pondo - your source is the Guardian online, my source was todays Guardian (paper version)..................

Yes, its often easy to mistake media supossition for official police statements, or where the line between the two lies.

does anyone know whether the cab driver stood as a witness, and if not why?

Yes, he did - its on the transcript for 14th Oct - essentially he confirms the meeting with H-F, the handing over of a shoebox, and then the stop, but misidentifies which policeman fired, and stated that he witnessed Duggan shot in the back.

Which was widely reported as a rumour at the time

IIRC there was another 'eye witness' at the time who reported that Duggan was pinned down on the ground and then shot, and the eye witness in the flats states that he was standing up with his hands up and palms forward, but supposedly holding a what he first thought was a gun, but after reading the newspapers then later decided was a Blackberry because it was shiny, and that at one point he said 'went flying' when he was shot, but we know was later found to be still inside the taxi.

Metropolitan police, in response to a Freedom of information Act request, say that they are not confirming **OR DENYING** that they unlawfully kept tape recorded material concealed from Mark Duggan inquest jury.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/your_conspiracy_with_the_ipcc_to#outgoing-326473

And you are surprised?, i lost all confidence in the police and the judicial system 23 odd years ago when i got convicted and sentenced to jail on nothing but pure lies backed up by senior officers as retold in court, thankfully video evidence surfaced within a week that proved my innocence and i was released pending appeal, however nothing was done to those that lied to put me in jail as apparently "evidence was recorded and observed in traumatic circumstances or words to that account" - Utter **** bollocks imho. From recent interactions with the police over the past few years my prejudices have been reinforced still further.

I'm sure there are decent officers within the force but unfortunately i have not met them.

Hang on Emlyn Welsh says she spoke to the met the met taped that conversation she then does a FOI request alleging that details of that conversation were really important and did the met give the details to the inquest? If it is that important why didn't Emlyn Welsh give the information to the inquest and why isn't. Emlyn Welsh releasing the information rather than the Mets refusal to comment, l hate the met but this is just childish posturing.

Crankboy - I read it as if she was referring to intercept intelligence that was not disclosed in open court - there were certainly discussions in the court where the judge and barristers were taking great care to stay within whatever boundaries were agreed so as not to reveal the capabilites available to SOCA - however there were pretty extensive discussions in the pre-inquest hearing, contained in the 9th September transcript, that state that all relevant and marginal relevance material had been disclosed, and that both teams of barristers had been working with SOCA to ensure everything that could be revealed was.

Given that Mansfield was involved, I'm sure that if there was an inkling anything had been suppressed, we would have heard about it!