Quizzes & Puzzles53 mins ago
Jury Concludes Mark Duggan Lawfully Killed
76 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It’s very easy for those of us sitting by the fire in our comfy armchairs to pontificate on what might and might not present a “clear and present danger”. Those on the ground that afternoon did not have that luxury.
The inquest has been hearing evidence for about three months and the jury took a considerable time to reach its verdict. That verdict should be respected as they know more about the circumstances than we ever will. I also trust all those who kicked off following the shooting in 2011 will now offer their heartfelt apologies to their victims. Finally I hope the squadron of pigs circling over my rooftop this evening will land safely.
The inquest has been hearing evidence for about three months and the jury took a considerable time to reach its verdict. That verdict should be respected as they know more about the circumstances than we ever will. I also trust all those who kicked off following the shooting in 2011 will now offer their heartfelt apologies to their victims. Finally I hope the squadron of pigs circling over my rooftop this evening will land safely.
"Unpalatable though it is for his family, he will not be a loss to society and his demise doubtless means that others will not die as a result of gun/drug related dealings and violence."
Thats all probably fair enough comment - he does sound more than a little unsavoury.But it concerns me that it can be deemed a lawful killing by the police, when the jury, who have seen all the evidence, heard all the arguments, agree 9-1 then when he exited the taxi he was unarmed - unyet he was shot by the police. I am struggling to understand how they can then arrive at a verdict of lawful killing, since an unarmed man clearly is not imminent threat to the public or the police?
Thats all probably fair enough comment - he does sound more than a little unsavoury.But it concerns me that it can be deemed a lawful killing by the police, when the jury, who have seen all the evidence, heard all the arguments, agree 9-1 then when he exited the taxi he was unarmed - unyet he was shot by the police. I am struggling to understand how they can then arrive at a verdict of lawful killing, since an unarmed man clearly is not imminent threat to the public or the police?
/I am struggling to understand how they can then arrive at a verdict of lawful killing, since an unarmed man clearly is not imminent threat to the public or the police? /
It is odd.
One must assume that the Jury were persuaded that because it all happened so quickly, it was reasonable that the Police believed he still had a gun when they fired.
That belief is the only justification for the 'lawful killing' conclusion.
It is odd.
One must assume that the Jury were persuaded that because it all happened so quickly, it was reasonable that the Police believed he still had a gun when they fired.
That belief is the only justification for the 'lawful killing' conclusion.
I wouldn't deem anyone unarmed until they were spread on the floor and cuffed behind their back after a thorough body search.
Sounds like he exited with pistol in one hand, phone in the other. In such a situation it's easy for a phone to be mistaken for a small pistol.
Mark Duggan made some very poor choices that day which cost him his life.
The streets of London are slightly safer for his demise, though sadly another will be waiting to take his place in the hierarchy of his 'gang'.
Sounds like he exited with pistol in one hand, phone in the other. In such a situation it's easy for a phone to be mistaken for a small pistol.
Mark Duggan made some very poor choices that day which cost him his life.
The streets of London are slightly safer for his demise, though sadly another will be waiting to take his place in the hierarchy of his 'gang'.
// Sounds like he exited with pistol in one hand, phone in the other //
Going from memory, I seem to remember the gun was found wrapped in a sock. If the police had seen him throw something that didn't look like a gun, it could be fair to assume he still had it on his person. Ironically, if the gun was unwrapped and identifiable, he may have survived.
Going from memory, I seem to remember the gun was found wrapped in a sock. If the police had seen him throw something that didn't look like a gun, it could be fair to assume he still had it on his person. Ironically, if the gun was unwrapped and identifiable, he may have survived.
May have survived to continue this:
http://
Shame his family couldn't denounce the violence and ethos of gangs that led to his (and many others) death.
http://
Shame his family couldn't denounce the violence and ethos of gangs that led to his (and many others) death.
The verdict beats me AOG too
altho the law is straightforward - if subjectively the policeman thinks he is Gonna Die ! can shoot someone anyone ?
and the answer is Yes.
Remember the fella with the chairleg in a plastic bag - lawfully killed
and the old blind fella who was tasered because the police reasonably thought his white stick was a samurai sword.
That is why plebgate is so important - there will /may come a time when the Police say 'X' and the jury think yeah yeah yeah.....
altho the law is straightforward - if subjectively the policeman thinks he is Gonna Die ! can shoot someone anyone ?
and the answer is Yes.
Remember the fella with the chairleg in a plastic bag - lawfully killed
and the old blind fella who was tasered because the police reasonably thought his white stick was a samurai sword.
That is why plebgate is so important - there will /may come a time when the Police say 'X' and the jury think yeah yeah yeah.....
@NJ Except, of course, that armed response officers are trained to make those kind of split second decisions, aren't they?. And lets not forget - 3 armed response vehicles boxed in the taxi and a following control car were all at the scene.
If it was the case that he had in his hand a mobile phone, for instance, and that in the moment of firing the officer in question mistook the phone for a gun, I can accept that as being legitimate, especially given Duggans past. But the story has been confusing.
What we do know is that the jury concluded by a majority of 9-1 that Duggan had a gun in the taxi.
The same jury, by the same majority, concluded that when he exited the taxi he was unarmed.
It is my understanding, sitting here by the fire in my comfy armchair, that a lawful killing by the police must be where the public or the police themselves are in imminent danger of being attacked by that weapon.Or is that wrong, NJ - please give me the benefit of your vast wisdom and sarcasm.?
If the jury conclude that he exited the taxi unarmed, then I still find it difficult to understand how that same jury can then arrive at the decision that the police shooting was lawful. Nothing reported in the decision as yet that he was carrying a mobile that was mistaken for a gun that I have seen.
If it was the case that he had in his hand a mobile phone, for instance, and that in the moment of firing the officer in question mistook the phone for a gun, I can accept that as being legitimate, especially given Duggans past. But the story has been confusing.
What we do know is that the jury concluded by a majority of 9-1 that Duggan had a gun in the taxi.
The same jury, by the same majority, concluded that when he exited the taxi he was unarmed.
It is my understanding, sitting here by the fire in my comfy armchair, that a lawful killing by the police must be where the public or the police themselves are in imminent danger of being attacked by that weapon.Or is that wrong, NJ - please give me the benefit of your vast wisdom and sarcasm.?
If the jury conclude that he exited the taxi unarmed, then I still find it difficult to understand how that same jury can then arrive at the decision that the police shooting was lawful. Nothing reported in the decision as yet that he was carrying a mobile that was mistaken for a gun that I have seen.
Ric.ror
No he didnt have a gun - someone is serving time for giving him a gun - yeah the one he didnt have.
The convict evidence has been criticised as 'he would say that wouldnt he, in order to get a shorter sentence'.
The gun was found near - I am not sure what the DNA evidence was.
Oh and in terms of shooting unarmed people - think Stephen Waldorf - which was a very long time ago - 1980 I think.
No he didnt have a gun - someone is serving time for giving him a gun - yeah the one he didnt have.
The convict evidence has been criticised as 'he would say that wouldnt he, in order to get a shorter sentence'.
The gun was found near - I am not sure what the DNA evidence was.
Oh and in terms of shooting unarmed people - think Stephen Waldorf - which was a very long time ago - 1980 I think.
Remember the fella with the chairleg in a plastic bag - lawfully killed
-----------------------
Wrong. Read the first paragraph:
http://
-----------------------
Wrong. Read the first paragraph:
http://
I have rather more sympathy for the likes of James Ashley who also was no 'angel' but seems to have done a lot less to 'threaten' the Police.
//The raid occurred in St Leonards, East Sussex, United Kingdom, on 15 January, 1998. Ashley had been in bed with his girlfriend at the time of the raid, and got out of bed to investigate noises coming from the flat. As he moved towards the door of his darkened bedroom an armed police officer stepped into the room. Seeing Ashley approaching and having been briefed that the occupants of the flat could be "armed and dangerous", the officer reacted by firing his weapon at Ashley.
At a subsequent press conference, the Chief Constable of Sussex Police, Paul Whitehouse, claimed that James Ashley had been wanted for murder but this was not correct.//
http://
//The raid occurred in St Leonards, East Sussex, United Kingdom, on 15 January, 1998. Ashley had been in bed with his girlfriend at the time of the raid, and got out of bed to investigate noises coming from the flat. As he moved towards the door of his darkened bedroom an armed police officer stepped into the room. Seeing Ashley approaching and having been briefed that the occupants of the flat could be "armed and dangerous", the officer reacted by firing his weapon at Ashley.
At a subsequent press conference, the Chief Constable of Sussex Police, Paul Whitehouse, claimed that James Ashley had been wanted for murder but this was not correct.//
http://
The underlying conclusion would appear to be that if you're a known drug dealer not averse to violence and carry a gun, inevitablty one or two will live and die by the sword.
Will their families fight for justice for those who've suffered at the hands of gangs and the resulting violence?
I seriously doubt it.
Will their families fight for justice for those who've suffered at the hands of gangs and the resulting violence?
I seriously doubt it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.