[Closed] Mark Duggan lawfully killed

Binners is right and the smug death-glee club is spectacularly wrong. The case is not about whether Mark Duggan was a nice guy or whether anyone has sympathy for him being killed, it is about the actions of the police at the time if the death and afterward.

You can squeal "ha ha good riddance" because Duggan was of bad character but you're ignoring the fact that next time the police kill someone in dubious circumstances it could be a Brazilian electrician getting in the tube, a newspaper seller walking home through The City, a naked man in bed in Brighton...or you.

Forgive me if I don't feel upset about the verdict.

It doesn't mean that I am hardhearted in the slightest on this particular matter.

The more I look at this story I keep going back to the same thing, Did the cabbie get his fare?

Can't feel any sympathy for Mark Duggan, there is only one reason to carry a gun and that is to do harm to another person, often harm that turns out to be fatal.

The matter Binners raised re Police collusion in this, and other cases mentioned, is far more concerning for all of us.

Carol Duggan on R4, very sensible, let's hope everyone else is as measured and responsible.

Binners,Andrew Mitchell was democratically elected as an MP,not as Chief Whip,his own party took that away from him and AFAAK, he is still an MP.

Binners want to argue over a pint the next time your in Chorlton? I can watch the door for you incase the Feds are following you 😉

Oh.... That's ok then. Just disregard everything I said then. As long as he still remains an MP then the manipulation and fabrication of evidence to suit the politically motivated police agenda is perfectly ok

As you were

We could discuss new managers too.

Is Sven or Steve Mclaren free?

Just trying to keep a grip on the truth as opposed to opinion.

Have you ever been faced with a violent person with a weapon

Ian Tomlinson did and died as a result

[quote=thejesmonddingo]Binners,Andrew Mitchell was democratically elected as an MP,not as Chief Whip,his own party took that away from him

Er, no - he resigned as a direct result of the police manipulation and lies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20012435

I'm certainly far from thinking the police are whiter than white in this case or any other, but I'm with the majority who are happy to let the jury decide (unless they've somehow managed to load the jury I'd expect them on average to be less sympathetic towards the police than I am).

He has been arrested before and escaped justice probably through very good free legal advice

Hmm, what ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"??? He'd only ever been found guilty of minor offences like possession of cannabis.

How much can you trust the police version of events when they initially said that he'd fired shots at them?? - Something that seems to have been conveniently forgotten. If the police had been honest and upfront from the beginning, then maybe there wouldn't have been so much suspicion later on.

aracer,do you think his resignation was entirely voluntary?

I'm with the majority who are happy to let the jury decide

Isn't the issue around what the jury were asked to decide? From the reports I've read, the lawful killing verdict has been described as a technicality. You could argue that the culture in the met had promoted an environment where the pc was expecting to be shot at and so he did really believe that Duggan was holding a gun.

[quote=thejesmonddingo ]aracer,do you think his resignation was entirely voluntary?

dunno - it's not all that relevant in the context - I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to prove here

[quote=geoffj ]Isn't the issue around what the jury were asked to decide? From the reports I've read, the lawful killing verdict has been described as a technicality. You could argue that the culture in the met had promoted an environment where the pc was expecting to be shot at and so he did really believe that Duggan was holding a gun.

A technicality based on them believing that the PC did believe Duggan had a gun? Is it all that unreasonable a belief given Duggan did have a gun very shortly before? Is that belief making it a lawful killing so unreasonable?

But it all points to the same thing. Officers getting together and concocting stories which are then given to the press as the gospel truth, safe in the knowledge that the actual facts are only likely to emerge (if at all) at the court case a lot further down the line, by which point the police version of events has remained as 'fact' in people's minds.

But in this case its quite clear that despite the police officers being allowed to sit together and concoct a story, only two of them claim to have seen what they thought was a gun, and nobody saw it thrown or land - I mean, if you're going to accuse them of making stories, you would have thought they would at least back each other up wouldn't you, the facts just don't fit in with the conspiracy.

Just like you've said it was the polices concocted story that was given to the press - if you bothered to read the transcripts (and I did) then it was clear that the whole 'exchange of fire' thing had nothing whatsoever to do with the police that were there, not one of them made that comment or even had the opportunity to make that allegation, because that was down to a misunderstanding between officers who weren't there, and happened before the armed police had even made their statements.

Its like the whole 'police planted the gun' theory - the police just happened to have a gun on them that had the DNA of the bloke who Duggan met a few minutes before and gave him a shoebox, and had been used in a vicious beating a few days earlier, and instead of planting it on Duggan or next to him, they hide it twenty feet away behind some railings and then all denied seeing him throw it?

A technicality based on them believing that the PC did believe Duggan had a gun? Is it all that unreasonable a belief given Duggan did have a gun very shortly before? Is that belief making it a lawful killing so unreasonable?

An independent witness reasonably believed that Duggan was holding a mobile phone...

It seems to me that "reasonable belief" allows for a multitude of sins. It also fails to address why the police failed to cooperate with the IPCC, why the two officers involved were allowed to produce a statement together, why their account directly contradicted an independent witness, and why their account contradicted the findings of the pathologist.

An independent witness reasonably believed that Duggan was holding a mobile phone...

It also fails to address why the police failed to cooperate with the IPCC,

Well, they didn't - they did what they were legally required to do and gave a written statement, on the advice of their solicitors. Since potentially the police could have had charges brought against them that seems entirely reasonable, In a similar way that anyone accused of a crime has the right to give no comment.

why the two officers involved were allowed to produce a statement together, why their account directly contradicted an independent witness, and why their account contradicted the findings of the pathologist.

They weren't - the officer who took the shot was dealt with separatley to his teammates initially, and theres been rafts of research done on both post traumatic stress and perceptional distortion that say that the best way of getting an accurate report is for them to be allowed to do it together. As for the independent witness, a reporter gave evidence that his story had changed several times in the course of her meetings with him, and regards the Pathologist, there were two pathologists who entirely disagreed on the significance of a number of things, like the position of the arm, or which bullet did what.

[quote=ransos ]An independent witness reasonably believed that Duggan was holding a mobile phone...

Presumably the policeman should have checked with this independent witness before shooting?

the problem is that the Met are perceived to be untrustworthy

can you put any faith in their statements after plebgate, demenezes?

and the procedural failings here; moving the taxi away then moving it back before forensic analysis etc make it easy to question the police version of the truth

My point is that the unreliable evidence of the Met officers didn't mean that Mitchell had to resign,but he was sacrificed by CMD pandering to percieved public opinion.(and no,I don't like what I've seen of Mr Mitchell either)

Presumably the policeman should have checked with this independent witness before shooting?

The evidence from the BBC journo who interviewed him and made notes of the conversation was that the witness commented that he initially thought it was a gun, but after reading the newspapers and thinking about it thought it must have been a blackberry 'cause it was shiny, and if he had a gun he would have aimed it

Junkyard - lazarus
I think the jury was probably on balance correct
it is most likely that he was unarmed when shot and it seems most likely that the copper genuinely thought he was armed

Pretty much this.

natrix - Member

Hmm, what ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"??? He'd only ever been found guilty of minor offences like possession of cannabis.

Yet was part of of a vastly expensive police operation targeting just 5 men. And was known to have a firearm in his posession...sheesh, thats a slippery slope, "reefer madness" must have been right.

So the story about Duggan shooting at officers, reported I the press immediately after the shooting didn't come from official police sources? Well they hardly went out of their way to put the record straight, did they?

I wonder where that information did come from then? It's a complete mystery! It's a good job we hadn't just had a massive parliamentary enquiry that exposed a completely unhealthy, cosy, co-dependent relationship between senior met officers and our scrupulously honest tabloid press eh?

I'd hate to be Police firearms officer. The weight of responsibility, the thought of having to shoot someone. The thought that you may kill someone innocent or guilty. The thought that your actions IN A SPLIT SECOND could lead to you or a colleague or an innocent member of public being dead.

[b][u]Imagine - the first you might be aware someone had a gun and has shot you is when you have actually been shot[/u]. [/b]

What a thankless ****ing job.

The Solicitor who was pissed taking shots towards officers and into the street- his family said the Police didn't have to shoot him.

What a thankless ****ing job.

Yes they do and will make mistakes.

moving the taxi away then moving it back before forensic analysis etc make it easy to qustion the police version of the truth

Ah, a conspiracy!

Q. All right. Why was it brought back?

A. I brought it back because I was aware that on 5 August the taxi cab driver was becoming very -- increasingly unhappy. He was making -- he was stating that this was his means to a living, he was certainly very upset with the Metropolitan Police Service, and I thought if there was a way in which we could turn the taxi around in terms of its evidence, then it seemed to me to be a reasonable thing to do. I was aware that if there was going to be a PolSA team to search it, it could possibly take days to get a PolSA team to Perivale, I don't know about the MPS but I think that it would take some time to get the skilled officers to do that. I was aware that there were PolSA officers at the scene and it seemed to me to be a good opportunity to have the taxi cab searched at the scene while there were the trained staff there.

Q. Did you think there would be any harm done by that?

A. I didn't at the time, I have to say in retrospect. Could I just -- I would like to say that I asked when the vehicle was returned to the scene was there any -- anything on the exterior of the vehicle and I was told from a visual -- from having looked at it, there was nothing on there. Had I have known that there was any blood spatter on the vehicle then I just would not have even considered taking it back to the scene. It would have gone to Perivale and then, I think, everything would be different, but certainly that was a decision I made. On reflection, it was the wrong decision frankly and, on reflection, the best thing I could have done was taken the taxi cab back to Perivale, we would have completed the visual search of the vehicle, established the blood spatter and then carried out whatever extra work that we needed to do and I would also add that I wouldn't have returned the taxi cab at any point and I should have retained it for the period of this up until the Inquest.

Q. Is that a lesson learned, as far as you're concerned?

A. Well, it is a lesson learned. It was something I did, I thought I was doing it for the right reasons, on the information I had at that time, and, quite frankly, I would do it differently now.

Still think it was suspicious?

I am very glad that we live in a society where the shooting of a man by armed police still results in headlines and inquiry.

I'm afraid I have little sympathy for Duggan or his family. He chose the lifestyle and the was the resulting cost.

How much can you trust the police version of events when they initially said that he'd fired shots at them?? - Something that seems to have been conveniently forgotten.

A policeman was hit by a ricocheting bullet. Could very easily be perceived as him firing shots. Duggan leaves car, raises arms, maybe has something in his hand, shots ring out, policeman hit in chest by bullet..... initially how would you interpret that? because 'oh, i expect it was a ricochet' is not my first thought.

Carol Duggan on R4, very sensible, let's hope everyone else is as measured and responsible

Agreed - but did pick up on one point, when she was asked about the threats made by members of the public gallery (implied therefore family / friends of Mark Duggan). She was asked of her opinion and she said she wasn't sure there were threats made, it was very tense and stressful with lots of shouting and tempers running high, etc.

So a bit like when a potentially armed man gets out of a car, moving his arms around, maybe with a mobile phone in his hand instead of a gun, I can imagine that's also tense, stressful and difficult to be sure what happened..... but if you 'guess' wrong maybe you're lying bleeding on the ground shortly after. You cannot blame the policeman for making the call he did, it was not an execution, it was a dreadful error with fatal consequences.

erm yes, seems suspicous to me in light of the seriousness of the events (and the small matter the london wide riots following the police failure to communicate with the family)

Id think that the police couldve arranged to offer the cab driver some sort of alternative vehicle or just told him to deal with it as his cab had been involved in a shooting

I think more to the point if I was a black person living in tottenham being constantly harassed by the police because of my race, then it would be even easier to see a conspiracy.

A policeman was hit by a ricocheting bullet. Could very easily be perceived as him firing shots. Duggan leaves car, raises arms, maybe has something in his hand, shots ring out, policeman hit in chest by bullet..... initially how would you interpret that? because 'oh, i expect it was a ricochet' is not my first thought.

The ricochet was caused by the police firing, you do understand that?

In a similar way that anyone accused of a crime has the right to give no comment.

Yes, that is their right. Do you think it's an appropriate course of action from people who are employed to uphold the law?

Presumably the policeman should have checked with this independent witness before shooting?

Or perhaps not shoot someone who isn't pointing a gun at them?

FWIW, I agree with Junkyard: it may well have been reasonable for the policeman to believe Duggan was armed. But the misinfomation and lack of cooperation that followed are good reasons why the Met will continue to have a poor relationship with parts of the communities they serve.

Ps - regards the mobile phone - two mobiles were found at the scene, one in Duggans jacket pocket, and a blackberry which he had been using, found in the back of the taxi.

In a similar way that anyone accused of a crime has the right to give no comment.

Can i see your evidence to support this

and theres been rafts of research done on both post traumatic stress and perceptional distortion that say that the best way of getting an accurate report is for them to be allowed to do it together

I am particularly interested in what real world scenarios they have used to do this, the control and how they actually knew what happened in order to measure the "accuracy" of the reports Could you let us have some of the research then?

The ricochet was caused by the police firing, you do understand that?

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.

Rock and a hard place - as soon as the events happen, the family and media want an explanation of what happened. If the police give their version of events as they believe at the time and they prove to be wrong / need correction afterwards, it's perceived as a cover up. If they don't give any information until full facts are established, it's perceived as them sharing notes in order to concoct a story.

And yes, I am aware that their record isn't unblemished in this regard which in turn means people will (rightly) want to challenge the version of events. That's the purpose of the inquest.

Harry Stanley,
Azelle Rodney,
James Ashley,
Jean Charles De Menezes,
Sean Rigg,
Ian Tomlinson,
Derek Bennet,
Diarmuid O'Neill,
David Elwin
Mark Duggan...

All unarmed, all killed by the police. Most had their names blackened post mortem to manufacture consent for state sponsored murder. We have a police force whose role is essentially to enforce martial law.

We face an attack on our civil liberties and the best some of you can come up with is 'gun carrying thug'? Yeah, and De Menezes was dressed in a bulky coat and running from police.

I feel sorry for the honest cops trying to make the world a better place. And for the victims of the above murders. But when there hasn't been a single successful prosecution (in the Tomlinson case especially it's an outrage) then hard questions must be asked.

did anyone see newsnight?
the Met Comissioner was at great pains to explain how they were trying to be sensitive to the local community and claiming that theyve improved stop and search etc and trust was improved

Duggan family friend and chairman of the harringey stop & search monitoring group: 'actually I was pulled over and searched for 45mins on the way to the TV studio today, threatened to have my car taken away, because of my colour!'
😳

'actually I was pulled over and searched for 45mins on the way to the TV studio today, threatened to have my car taken away!'

He could try dressing like we wasn't a drug dealing pimp.

EDIT to your edit. Colour my arse. Stupid haircut and clothes were his defining characteristic.

p8ddy,

Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale

Armed, clearly dangerous and not killed by the police. Incapacitated, and then given immediate first aid.

It isn't always as black and white as some may wish to portray.

threatened to have my car taken away, because of my colour!'

Wow they actually said that?

The message of "don't carry a 'kin gun" should now be crystal clear at least.

The message of "don't carry a 'kin gun" should now be crystal clear at least.

I would prefer it if people carrying guns were arrested and stood trial.

Honest opinion is that if you carry a gun on these shores without the legal right to do so you should be shot on scene unless you literally surrender immediately, any pissing about at all and that should seal the deal.

With drug dealers turning to celebrity rappers people forget what total and utter low life they really are.

He carried a gun, he had it coming.

^^^^^^^^^^You have just failed the Turing test