Mark Duggan lawfully killed

  • This topic has 468 replies, 120 voices, and was last updated 5 years ago by  ninfan.
Viewing 40 posts - 361 through 400 (of 469 total)
  • Mark Duggan lawfully killed
  • mk1fan
    Member

    p8ddy – Member

    Ninfan…

    ‘IT Professional’ is an oxy-moron.

    Now, I freely admit to this wandering off into ‘Eats, shoots and leaves’ territory.

    Firstly to be a ‘Profeesional’ comes with certain liabilities and responsibilities which the IT industry, due to it’s nature, can’t provide.

    Secondly, to be a ‘Professional’ means attaining a certain level of competence. Quoting the wrong person in an internet forum doesn’t demonstrate much competence for an IT person.

    Now, this feelslike it’s strayed off topic and I’ll clarify that my previous posts are based upon the inaccuracies of your ‘evidence’ / ‘terms of phrase’ than a personal beef.

    Oddly enough, another group of workers who claim to be ‘Professionals’ but who aren’t are Police Officers.

    Strange the connections that arise.

    Anyway, peace y’all.

    I finish by stating that, regardless of the rights and wrongs, my sympathies to the Duggan family who are grieving the loss of a loved one.

    p8ddy
    Member

    crankboy

    just to be clear “proved” is better than evidence.

    Depends on context. In this case, I disagree, based on lack of evidence and an understanding of human frailty.

    You take your evidence you analise it you weighs it up you gets your answer that answer is proved by the evidence so if you gets a result that is proved beyond reasonable doubt you can reasonably sure that there was very good evidence if you get an answer that was proved on a ballance of probabilities then you can be reasonably sure that there was persuasive evidence , if there was not any evidence then the matter would not be proved.

    But there was no evidence. Other than the word of some Police men. Who in this case I don’t believe.

    crankboy professional evidence gatherer, analyser and presenter, perveyor of second hand arguments and scourge of the local plod.

    Damn! You are an evidence gatherer! That’s me told.

    Screw that Mark Duggan! Dig him up, shoot him again! πŸ˜‰

    Humour over for a second – I don’t accept that the gun was in Duggan’s possession at any point. Nor do I accept the legitimacy of the jury’s verdict.

    Read Noam Chomsky’s Manufacture of consent. The reason that negative stories are put out in the press before these trials is to sway the opinions of people and unconsciously plant a seed in their mind. It’s happened time and time again in high profile trials. And it works.

    Just my opinion. I’d have more sympathy for the police in this case IF there had been evidence linking Duggan to the gun.

    ninfan
    Member

    Just my opinion. I’d have more sympathy for the police in this case IF there had been evidence linking Duggan to the gun.

    There was, plenty, seemingly just not evidence that you’re willing to accept – if you’d read the transcripts you’d know that, the jury did hear all the evidence and they believed it,

    Premier Icon pondo
    Subscriber

    I don’t accept that the gun was in Duggan’s possession at any point.

    Any particular reason, other than a general distrust of the police?

    p8ddy
    Member

    mk1fan…

    ‘IT Professional’ is an oxy-moron.

    Great!

    Now, I freely admit to this wandering off into ‘Eats, shoots and leaves’ territory.

    No, it’s wandering off into pointless territory.

    Firstly to be a ‘Profeesional’ comes with certain liabilities and responsibilities which the IT industry, due to it’s nature, can’t provide.

    ‘Profeesional’ (sic) eh? Better get all your ducks in a row if you’re going to start poking at people for a fairly minor mistake in putting the wrong persons name at the top of quote where you’ve just been discussing with several others.

    Secondly, to be a ‘Professional’ means attaining a certain level of competence. Quoting the wrong person doesn’t demonstrate much competence.

    Only if my job entailed arguing the toss with bikers on my own dollar. I hate to bring this to your attention – but it’s a forum. It’s unencumbered with the expectations, requirements and responsibilities expected in the work place. It’s leisure.

    Now, this feelslike it’s strayed off topic and I’ll clarify that my previous posts are based upon the inaccuracies of your ‘evidence’ / ‘terms of phrase’ than a personal beef.

    Strayed off topic? Not at all. The whole thing is about you. And me. Always has been.

    Further – I have no ‘evidence’, I have an opinion based on the evidence I’ve read reported. I’ve never claimed to have ‘evidence’ – If I had, I’d imagine I’d have been at the trial.

    Oddly enough, another group of workers who claim to be ‘Professionals’ who aren’t are Police Officers.

    What, all of them? They all claim to be professionals? Have you asked them all?

    Strange the connections that arise.

    Or not.

    Anyway, peace y’all.

    *

    Except Mark Duggan I presume?

    MSP – Member
    The big problem about the case though was the way the police and even the IPC briefed the press after the event.

    Whatever else, this still makes me uncomfortable. Why make such an inaccurate account at the outset?

    And then the idea of cameras……..?????

    crankboy
    Member

    “Depends on context. In this case, I disagree, based on lack of understanding of english law.”

    there was eye witness evidence there was phone evidence linking Duggan to Hutchinson-Foster there was dna evidence linking Hutchinson-Foster to the gun there was enough evidence to show so that you can be sure that Duggan had just bought the gun .

    Do you seriously believe the police just showed up and shot him thinking he did not have a gun? if you think they thought he did have one when he didn’t, do you honestly believe they coincidently had access to one that had on it the the DNA of his mate, who he had just visited and been in phone contact with. Do you think in planting that gun they would not put it in his hand or at least near the body.

    By way of qualification i have been in limited contact with a case where the police did in my opinion “take out” an armed gang. a) they didn’t do it like this b)it was an armed gang on a job c)it was over 20 years ago and things were different then.

    p8ddy
    Member

    Pondo…

    Any particular reason, other than a general distrust of the police?

    An important caveat – I don’t have a general distrust of the police. To do so would entail distrusting several friends and family members.

    In this case, down to the lack of any hard evidence.

    I can’t reconcile the lack of DNA evidence on the gun or sock. Nor that Duggans fingerprints were found on the outside of the shoebox but not on the inside, on the sock or on the gun. The witness statement also jars with Police statements.

    However, regardless – I think there must have been a better way of dealing with this.

    mk1fan
    Member

    Except Mark Duggan I presume?

    Once again, you pressume wrong.

    crankboy
    Member

    “can’t reconcile the lack of DNA evidence on the gun or sock” reconcile with what ? unless it was a sock he had worn for a bit there is unlikly to be his dna on it.

    the question is did the officer believe Duggan had a gun and that he was imediately about to use it.

    Duggan had a gun that has been proven twice in different courts to different standards one of them very high it was proven by good evidence. The absence of dna on the gun suggests he did not handle the gun out of the sock or at all not that he did not have it in the box and in the taxi.

    What was going through the officers mind? we have only his evidence for that placed in context by the other eye witnesses and the forensics a jury heard it all had it all explained to them from the police and family perspective and a trained corroner summed it up they then talked about it for ages and came to a decision .

    You want us to throw all that away as meaningless because you don’t understand it?

    p8ddy
    Member

    Crankboy…

    there was eye witness evidence there was phone evidence linking Duggan to Hutchinson-Foster there was dna evidence linking Hutchinson-Foster to the gun there was enough evidence to show so that you can be sure that Duggan had just bought the gun .

    It took two trials to convict Kevin Hutchinson-Foster. That leads me to think the evidence wasn’t as overwhelming as all that. That conclusion however may be wrong.

    Secondly, the police statements were all over the place.

    Thirdly, the police have form for shooting people on the offchance they have a gun. I hold the police to a higher, much higher standard that that.

    Do you seriously believe the police just showed up and shot him thinking he did not have a gun? if you think they thought he did have one when he didn’t, do you honestly believe they coincidently had access to one that had on it the the DNA of his mate,

    I think the nature of the police operation was gun ho and risky. Furthermore, armed police have a bit of a history on this front. 41 unarmed people shot between 1991 and 2001 for example.

    Take the case of Jimmy Ashley – Shot whilst naked in his bed.

    However to answer your question – I don’t believe it was premeditated, but I do believe that Police (as human beings) get amped up leading up to these events and that this leads to accidents. Leads to people getting hurt.

    who he had just visited and been in phone contact with. Do you think in planting that gun they would not put it in his hand or at least near the body.

    I see your point – but can you explain why there were no fingerprints or DNA on the gun? Or why police statements are wrong? Or why Mark Duggan was shot when he demonstrably was unarmed? The police have no right to shoot unarmed people. And if they make a mistake, they need to face the consequences of that.

    Yet in the 41 cases I mentioned before, not one of those 41 cases has resulted in a prosecution. Not one. 41 shootings of unarmed civilians.

    mk1fan
    Member

    I don’t believe it was premeditated

    That doesn’t tally with you repeated and continual use of the term ‘excecute’.

    So, we’ve gone from a claim of murder to one of manslaughter.

    bren2709
    Member

    “Live by the sword, die by the sword”
    “Tuff sh*t” I say!!!!!

    crankboy
    Member

    as has been mentioned there was dna on the gun not all was of sufficient quality to be produce a result . from memory there was Hutchinsons his victims and either a third unique or third mixed of too low quality to give a result so could be duggans in there. when you handle a gun illegally you tend to be keen not to leave dna or prints . Neither the obtaining of DNA by law enforcement nor the removing it by criminalls is infallable. The gun was probbably in the box in the sock and probably when captin innocent realised that the police were on to him which he did and identified them as Trident which he did and suggests he was a player he got the gun out and slung it as far as he could “standard man” he then decided to leg it .

    Only after the event can we say he was demonstrably unarmed what happens after he exits the car we only have the police and eye witness ev to guide us but the police case was that they still believed he had the gun v52’s evidence was that he believed he had it in his hand and was going to use it . The only contradiction of this is from one witness who was a significant distance away changed their story and initialy supported the police account.

    so what are the consequences for making the best decision you can on available material if after the event it proves you have come to the logical but wrong conclusion?

    p8ddy
    Member

    crankboy…

    You want us to throw all that away as meaningless because you don’t understand it?

    I understand it. I don’t accept it.

    Premier Icon pondo
    Subscriber

    An important caveat – I don’t have a general distrust of the police. To do so would entail distrusting several friends and family members.

    Entirely fair enough, and fully accepted.

    In this case, down to the lack of any hard evidence.

    I can’t reconcile the lack of DNA evidence on the gun or sock. Nor that Duggans fingerprints were found on the outside of the shoebox but not on the inside, on the sock or on the gun. The witness statement also jars with Police statements.

    Well, let’s consider – I think, from what I’ve read, that there are some points which… I’m not going to say they’re entirely beyond refute (still reading the transcripts, there’s a few of em!), but they seem reasonably solid.
    1. Duggan met with Kevin Hutchinson-Foster about fifteen minutes before it all kicked off.
    2. KH-F’s DNA was found on the gun at the scene of the shooting.
    3. Duggan’s DNA was found on the shoebox that had contained the gun.
    4. When stopped by armed police (who beyond dispute made their identity as such known), at the very least Duggan got out of his cab to run.
    If that can be argued with, I’m happy to hear it but honestly, I don’t know what to make of it other than the scenario presented, and there’s no solid evidence that I’ve seen or heard to suggest realistically that any other scenario was possible. KH-F said that his DNA was on the gun because Duggan had been part of a gang that had beaten him with it – the likelihood of the Met then obtaining it and planting it at the scene of Duggan’s shooting seems fanciful to say the least.

    However, regardless – I think there must have been a better way of dealing with this.

    Yep, agree with that – If Duggan had never taken possession of a firearm, or if he had submitted upon request, he and several other people who died in the riots would be with us still.

    ‘Condemned by hindsight’ rings a bell

    p8ddy
    Member

    mk1fan…

    That doesn’t tally with you repeated and continual use of the term ‘excecute’.

    So, we’ve gone from a claim of murder to one of manslaughter.

    Firstly – If you’re going to quote me, quote me correctly. Don’t post sarcastic ‘you quoted the wrong person’ diatribes and then misquote me. Have it one way or the other. Its ‘execute’ I accused the police of executing someone. Not ‘excecute’ – only you have mentioned ‘excecuting’

    If you’re going to be a smart arse, try and be smart as well as being an arse.

    Secondly, go check the dictionary. And then give me peace.

    Execute – to carry out. To put to death.

    I’m happy to discuss stuff on here, but I’m buggered if I’m going to deal with this mince. You want a semantics debate, do it with someone else.

    Do you know what?

    I am much more content with the examination of the issues subsequent to the Police action that I am by what happened on the other side of the fence subsequent to the same action.

    p8ddy
    Member

    crankboy…

    as has been mentioned there was dna on the gun not all was of sufficient quality to be produce a result . from memory there was Hutchinsons his victims and either a third unique or third mixed of too low quality to give a result so could be duggans in there. when you handle a gun illegally you tend to be keen not to leave dna or prints . Neither the obtaining of DNA by law enforcement nor the removing it by criminalls is infallable. The gun was probbably in the box in the sock and probably when captin innocent realised that the police were on to him which he did and identified them as Trident which he did and suggests he was a player he got the gun out and slung it as far as he could “standard man” he then decided to leg it .

    Firstly, and I’m NOT trying to be a pedant, but it’s important. The first part, whatever way its worded means there was no DNA evidence linking him to that gun. There was also no evidence suggesting he even opened the box.

    However – I honestly don’t believe the case reads any better if the above was true.

    which he did and suggests he was a player he got the gun out and slung it as far as he could “standard man” he then decided to leg it .

    At which point the police shoot an unarmed man. Where this all falls down is the ‘saw the sock in his hand, holding the gun by it’s handle and raising it’ It places doubt on everything the police do from that point. And suggests they went in with a shoot first ask questions later approach. I don’t think that’s a measured or acceptable response from the police.

    If the police shoot an armed man, I get that. And I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people in that scenario. However, if it’s a fair shooting, why the dodgy statements? Why is there a need to fabricate if everything is above board?

    Only after the event can we say he was demonstrably unarmed what happens after he exits the car we only have the police and eye witness ev to guide us but the police case was that they still believed he had the gun v52’s evidence was that he believed he had it in his hand and was going to use it . The only contradiction of this is from one witness who was a significant distance away changed their story and initialy supported the police account.

    The police officer described in vivid detail he saw Duggan holding the gun. Whilst the scene of crime showed the gun to be approc 20 feet away from Duggan. How does that get missed?

    so what are the consequences for making the best decision you can on available material if after the event it proves you have come to the logical but wrong conclusion?

    In one respect I have sympathy for the above viewpoint. But it clearly wasn’t the best decision.

    Again, I just can’t get away from the fact that the case stinks to high hell (IMO) – the gun nowhere near him. The lack of DNA evidence. The dodgy statements. The express claim by a cop (later disproved) that Duggan was, and it was specific, that Duggan was holding the sock with the gun in it. The cop said he saw the barrel of the gun poking through the end of the sock. That’s VERY specific. Far to specific to be a simple mistake.

    Add to that a history of cover ups when bad things happen.

    It all adds up to another guy (Duggan) denied the right to a fair trial, and lying on a mortuary slab.

    41 shootings of unarmed men between 1991 and 2001. Not one conviction. That sounds more like collusion than justice – and this case rings the same way for me.

    It’s a minority of cases – but it’s these cases that (somewhat unfairly) shape our perception of the whole force.

    andyrm
    Member

    Known gangster has gun in or around his possession.

    Police fear he could start shooting.

    They shoot first to protect themselves.

    I’d do exactly the same. Can any of the apologists say hand on heart that if they were armed and there was another person potentially about to fire on them that they wouldn’t do the same? I’d be shooting to kill.

    p8ddy
    Member

    Pondo…

    If Duggan had never taken possession of a firearm, or if he had submitted upon request, he and several other people who died in the riots would be with us still.

    I’m not so sure about the first part (ie the possession of the gun), but it’s hard to argue with the poignancy of the rest of it.

    What happened was a tragedy all round.

    I did at one point seriously think we were seeing the breakdown of law and order (I was wrong of course)! πŸ˜‰

    Premier Icon pondo
    Subscriber

    The police officer described in vivid detail he saw Duggan holding the gun. Whilst the scene of crime showed the gun to be approc 20 feet away from Duggan. How does that get missed?

    The policeman saw Duggan holding a gun and fired. Duggan was hit in the arm. The gun was found 20 feet away. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that the kinetic energy Duggan received from being shot in the arm catapaulted the gun 20 feet away?

    Junkyard
    Member

    Its a quote off πŸ˜›

    I think you may be getting terrible worked up over a typo and I am pretty certain that to execute someone I need to pre plan it so their point stands. they executed him – hold on they either
    1. Carried out a plan – though it was not premeditated – ERM HOW?
    2. the executed him but it was not premeditated – an accidental execution then?

    Did they execute him or a plan
    If a plan, and he is dead, then its an execution

    The first part, whatever way its worded means there was no DNA evidence linking him to that gun. There was also no evidence suggesting he even opened the box.

    but there is evidence he had th egun on him at the time which is the critical point. i dont think anyone is arguing he used it nor that it was his nor that the police could have known any of this at the time so realy WTF os your point here?

    And suggests they went in with a shoot first ask questions later approach. I don’t think that’s a measured or acceptable response from the police.

    No one does but it is an understandable response this is the point you cannot get. What do you want them to do keep shouting armed police at the man with a gun [ as far as they know] as he gets out the car and turns to them and shoot only after being shot? Duggan did not have to move when surrounded by armed officers and yet you just focus on what they did not what he did. had he stayed still with his hands in the air nothign at all would have happened beyond his arrest.
    Its unfortunate that this occurred to put it mildly but its not hard to see WHY. I am not sure what you see as the solution beyond humans never being wrong which , as you show repeatedly, is unrealistic

    How does that get missed?

    Well given you are talking about it is did not get missed, no one is disputing they were wrong to think this what we need to prove is that they did not think this

    the gun nowhere near him

    Indeed it a shame that the police resort to inaccurate statements innit

    It was nowhere near me for I was some 250 miles away he was a tad closer to it

    Not one conviction. That sounds more like collusion than justice – and this case rings the same way for me.

    there is considerable variety in those cases and this is not the most striking example of wrongdoing

    IMHO its like rape cases we all know the conviction is woefully low but doe sanyone have an actual solution to this?
    IMHO this case is not all that controversial and they had good reason to think he was armed at the time and Duggan did not help himself one bit. It was as the jury decided IMHO Many of those other cases you cite are injustices of the highest order

    p8ddy
    Member

    Pondo…

    The policeman saw Duggan holding a gun and fired. Duggan was hit in the arm. The gun was found 20 feet away. Is it beyond the realms of possibility that the kinetic energy Duggan received from being shot in the arm catapaulted the gun 20 feet away?

    According to people in the know (the forensics people) it’s not possible. There would be blood spray on the sock in this case.

    IF (and in my opinion it’s still an if) Mark Duggan did have the gun, the most likely explanation is the one Crankboy offers. That Duggan sees the Police, gets out of the car, throws the gun away and legs it. Then gets shot.

    It’s basically conjecture though. Short of having a time machine we’ll never know the true scenario.

    Premier Icon aracer
    Member

    junkyard wrote:

    I think you may be getting terrible worked up over a typo

    I suspect that tells you something about the strength of the rest of his argument.

    spchantler
    Member

    Add to that a history of cover ups when bad things happen.

    It all adds up to another guy (Duggan) denied the right to a fair trial, and lying on a mortuary slab.

    41 shootings of unarmed men between 1991 and 2001. Not one conviction. That sounds more like collusion than justice – and this case rings the same way for me.

    It’s a minority of cases – but it’s these cases that (somewhat unfairly) shape our perception of the whole force.
    i’ve been following this all night, the question is, what are you going to do about it? do you need someone to tell you the police are corrupt? will it affect how you conduct your everyday life? what is the point of arguing about it on a forum? do you think you are going to change anyone’s viewpoint?

    crankboy
    Member

    “At which point the police shoot an unarmed man” who they belived on good grounds to be armed and who there is some evidence to suggest they also had good grounds to believe was willing and capable of using a gun and in any event if you believe you are faced by an armed villan surely the only safe way to proceed is to assume they are willing to fire it .

    not playing any more as we are entering into a bit of a circle.

    (i reseve the right to return should something new or interesting arise)

    Premier Icon pondo
    Subscriber

    p8ddy –
    According to people in the know (the forensics people) it’s not possible. There would be blood spray on the sock in this case.

    So they didn’t rule out him handling the gun?

    petrieboy
    Member

    Check out this video, american admittedly but it shows how quickly a gun can appear. I’m pretty sure I’d have been shot in the same situation. There seems to be an assumption that guns get waved around like a rubbish bond villain before being fired.

    [video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM4kyiHSY2w&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]

    p8ddy
    Member

    Junkyard…

    I think you may be getting terrible worked up over a typo and I am pretty

    Only as I was called out for my own ‘fault’. Read the post that is the originator of that little exchange. Or don’t.

    Just don’t cast it up to me, when I didn’t start it.

    certain that to execute someone I need to pre plan it so their point stands. they executed him – hold on they either

    1. Carried out a plan – though it was not premeditated – ERM HOW?

    It’s pretty simple – Did a bunch of Police plan in the office before going on the op to kill Duggan? No. Did the cop get over exited in the run up and on seeing him open fire, not caring if he was armed or not? I think so.

    He carried out a shooting, disregarding the risk posed or whether Duggan was armed or not. As I’ve repeated “shoot first, ask questions later”.

    2. the executed him but it was not premeditated – an accidental execution then?

    Nope. See above. Again, if you want to get into a silly silly semantic debate go do it with someone else. I’m really not interested.

    My belief is that a cop intentionally made Mark Duggan dead. That he approached him and didn’t care if he was armed or not. He got hyped up, and at that point Duggan was ‘getting it’. In much the same way as the cop batoning Ian Tomlinson did. In much the same way that the cops dealing with Jean Charles De Menezes. In much the same way as Harry Stanley. In much the same way as Jimmy Ashley. In much the same way as Diarmuid O’Neill.

    I don’t think the Police force is staffed with homicidal maniacs, but I think in some circumstances people lose control.

    Did they execute him or a plan

    Both as it happens. The plan went awol when they executed the person.

    If a plan, and he is dead, then its an execution

    And if not a plan, and the the police officer loses control and shoots him dead, he also executes him. He meant to kill him, ergo execution.

    Again, if that level of pedantry and point scoring amuses you, go do it with someone else.

    but there is evidence he had th egun on him at the time which is the critical point. i dont think anyone is arguing he used it nor that it was his nor that the police could have known any of this at the time so realy WTF os your point here?

    When he was shot, the gun was not on him. He was closer to the Police officer’s machine gun than he was the gun it’s alleged he had. This part of the evidence was made clear in court. The Jury did not believe he had the gun on him. Scene of crime shows he didn’t have teh gun on him when shot.

    No one does but it is an understandable response this is the point you cannot get.

    I don’t accept the premise to the point, so no, I can’t.

    What do you want them to do keep shouting armed police at the man with a gun [ as far as they know] as he gets out the car and turns to them and shoot only after being shot? Duggan did not have to move when surrounded by armed officers and yet you just focus on what they did not what he did.

    He didn’t have the gun on him. That was established in court. He was unarmed. That’s unnacceptable (to me).

    had he stayed still with his hands in the air nothign at all would have happened beyond his arrest.

    And you know this how? You can’t possibly state that as fact when you know absolutely nothing of the sort. Further, it didn’t work for De Menezes did it? Or Ian Tomlinson. Or screeds of others. It’s an assertion made with no fact to back it up.

    As it is, I suspect you may be correct, but we’ll never know. What we do know is that the police shot an unarmed man. Did Duggan contribute to his downfall, undoubtedly, but that doesn’t mean I can accept that it should cost him his like. Shooting someone on the off chance they are armed is unacceptable to me.

    Indeed it a shame that the police resort to inaccurate statements innit

    It was nowhere near me for I was some 250 miles away he was a tad closer to it

    It’s not a shame, it’s far worse that that. It erodes confidence and introduces doubt. When the police and IPC immediately start a misinformation campaign something is far wrong.

    And only 250 miles away, you could have reached that in time to pose a threat if you’d been on your bike! I move to have you shot sir! πŸ˜‰ (joke)

    derekfish
    Member

    I’m not comfortable at all with the verdict.

    I wasn’t comfortable with a ‘highly trained marksman shooting to kill rather than wound’

    I’d have been much happier had the two Woolwich murderers been shot dead on the spot, why the different approach?

    Why? Because in the duggan case it now appears the police were ‘used’ by a rival gangs ‘intelligence’

    The gun was a replica that had been engineered to fire a ‘projectile’.

    Duggan, far from being ‘the leader of one of the most vicious gangs in Europe (Europe, why Europe? Hyperbolic exaggeration typical Plod response when they’re on their back foot) he was actually a low level member sent to collect the weapon and ‘set up’ the Police knew where and when he’d be and what with and who had supplied the tip.

    So, it smacks of execution, and half this ‘evidence’ I guess never got presented to the jury.

    We only hear it now courtesy of the media and the Community service gang liaison social worker types.

    So no this does nothing for the hearts and minds of the community, no more than corrupt prime ministers still being in power.

    p8ddy
    Member

    Pondo…

    So they didn’t rule out him handling the gun?

    They did. (As far as is possible) The forensics expert said that there was no evidence that he’s even opened the box that the gun is alleged to have been in. And that there was no DNA evidence on the sock the gun was in, or on the gun its self.

    There was DNA of other people on the gun however.

    In the interests absolutely of balance – I guess it’s possible that he opened the box, grabbed the gun and threw it away (as Crankboy reckons) – but the statement in court was that there was no DNA evidence to support him having opened the box or touching the sock or gun.

    Which doesn’t make me right or Crankboy, yourself or anyone else wrong. At this point it’s about an opinion of how the gun got 20 feet away from him.

    The gun wasn’t in his possession at the time of the shooting however. I think that much is clear.

    Premier Icon molgrips
    Subscriber

    Calling it an execution instead of a shooting is massively significant. Execution means that the officer had already decided to kill him, in retribution for something. That’s totally different to shooting him to save lives. You must be able to see that.

    p8ddy
    Member

    Anyway folks – I’m off.

    Crankboy and Pondo – I may disagree with you on this, but it’s been pretty thought provoking and interesting. That’s never a bad thing. πŸ™‚

    Quite a few ‘interesting’ points of view! πŸ˜€

    derekfish
    Member

    The key expression is wether or not Duggan was lawfully killed.

    I believe not.

    irc
    Member

    I wasn’t comfortable with a ‘highly trained marksman shooting to kill rather than wound’

    That’s because shooting to wound isn’t usually practical.

    http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

    p8ddy
    Member

    molgrips…

    Calling it an execution instead of a shooting is massively significant. Execution means that the officer had already decided to kill him, in retribution for something. That’s totally different to shooting him to save lives. You must be able to see that.

    It is significant, yes. Because I think the officer lost control and it was a foregone conclusion that Duggan was getting shot.

    I don’t think he did it for altruistic reasons.

    I agree with you and take your point that there is a huge difference. I’m aware of that and it’s on purpose. Like I say, I don’t think he set out in his car to work in the morning thinking “I’m going to kill someone” but I do think when it kicked off he lost control and decided Duggan was getting it. Not too much different to the idea of when a fight gets out of control and someone kills someone else.

    I also think, for what it’s worth, that in the cold light of day he’ll regret it. But again, that’s just my take on it.

    Premier Icon pondo
    Subscriber

    When you say this….

    Did the cop get over exited in the run up and on seeing him open fire, not caring if he was armed or not? I think so.

    He carried out a shooting, disregarding the risk posed or whether Duggan was armed or not. As I’ve repeated “shoot first, ask questions later”.
    … And this….

    My belief is that a cop intentionally made Mark Duggan dead. That he approached him and didn’t care if he was armed or not. He got hyped up, and at that point Duggan was ‘getting it’.

    … You portray the police as a bunch of armed clowns, just running around and having a laugh, popping a cap in anyone they think might be a bit of a risk (or maybe not – hey, let’s shoot them anyway and see what happens!!!). For someone who has friends and/or family in the force as you do, that’s pretty disgusting. I’d ask you to have a bit of respect for their professionalism, but that doesn’t seem likely to happen.

    When he was shot, the gun was not on him. He was closer to the Police officer’s machine gun than he was the gun it’s alleged he had. This part of the evidence was made clear in court. The Jury did not believe he had the gun on him. Scene of crime shows he didn’t have teh gun on him when shot.

    Bu that’s taking one aspect of the incident and portraying so as to paint the whole thing. His cab was stopped by armed police who identified themselves thus – he got out of the cab and ran, and was shot. At some point (and heaven knows we’re talking seconds rather than minutes), the gun left his possession – it’s not like he dropped it off 15 minutes before. Quite the contrary.

    What we do know is that the police shot an unarmed man. Did Duggan contribute to his downfall, undoubtedly, but that doesn’t mean I can accept that it should cost him his like. Shooting someone on the off chance they are armed is unacceptable to me.

    That’s not how it worked though, was it? Presented with far more evidence than we’ll ever see, a jury declared that Duggan was not unlawfully killed. “Shooting him on the off chance” was not what happened.

    p8ddy
    Member

    derekfish…

    Agreed.

Viewing 40 posts - 361 through 400 (of 469 total)

The topic ‘Mark Duggan lawfully killed’ is closed to new replies.