Quizzes & Puzzles3 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.
This decision tree of the juries decision makes for interesting reading;
http://
http://
I am sure that if I was stopped by armed police and they were shouting at me to put my hands in the air, drop anything I had in my hands and too lay on the floor, arms and legs spread, I would do so in an instant!! This piece of poo chose the life he led, no one forced him into drugs and crime and the streets are better off without him and his like. He might well've been a lovely son to his mother who no doubt turned a blind eye to his life style, you live by the sword you die by the sword, simples!!
He wasn't bright enough to realise that concealing from the police that he had got rid of the gun(by throwing it out of the taxi window) would leave them to assume that he still had it. He must have been aware that the police would assume (for their own safety)that the object that he was holding was a gun. If he had raised his (empty) hands he would almost certainly still be alive.
Peter Pedant: //after Stephen Waldorf 1980s again - a completely unrelated motorist......//
erm, not exactly. Sue Stephens, Waldorf's passenger, was known to David Martin, the intended target.
http://
erm, not exactly. Sue Stephens, Waldorf's passenger, was known to David Martin, the intended target.
http://
I was not being sarcastic when I spoke of judgements being made from comfy armchairs, LG. Time and again smart-arse lawyers spend two years picking over the bones of a decision which one of the participants (often a police officer or a soldier) had to make in a split second, with the consequence of a wrong choice usually meaning he or somebody else will have their brains blown out. After their two year deliberation, made in the comfort of agreeable offices in Lincolns Inn, they have a far clearer idea of what should reasonably have been done.
I believe that the officers must believe or have good reason to believe that they or somebody else in in imminent danger. The jury obviously felt they had good reason to believe, hence their verdict. Arguing over the details is somewhat pointless as we don’t actually have all the details. It took three months to provide the jury with all the facts.
Of course Duggan’s family are upset. But if no other good comes of this one lesson that may be learned (if not acted upon) is that if you roam around with a gun, even if you throw it away as you are intercepted, somebody might just shoot you.
I believe that the officers must believe or have good reason to believe that they or somebody else in in imminent danger. The jury obviously felt they had good reason to believe, hence their verdict. Arguing over the details is somewhat pointless as we don’t actually have all the details. It took three months to provide the jury with all the facts.
Of course Duggan’s family are upset. But if no other good comes of this one lesson that may be learned (if not acted upon) is that if you roam around with a gun, even if you throw it away as you are intercepted, somebody might just shoot you.
-- answer removed --
Have you read that decision tree I posted, NJ?
Makes for very interesting reading.
The jury concluded that Duggan did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot.
Despite this, it seems they went on to conclude that it was a lawful killing, and it is this that puzzled me.
Looking at that decision tree though, it appears that they decided it was a lawful killing largely because they took at face value the armed police officers account - officer V53 -that he honestly believed Duggan had a firearm, which I suppose is fair enough.
But issues do remain, I feel. Some of their evidence is still contradictory. It worries me. Cases like the blind man being tazered by the police, by the guy killed having a chair leg or whatever.
Makes for very interesting reading.
The jury concluded that Duggan did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot.
Despite this, it seems they went on to conclude that it was a lawful killing, and it is this that puzzled me.
Looking at that decision tree though, it appears that they decided it was a lawful killing largely because they took at face value the armed police officers account - officer V53 -that he honestly believed Duggan had a firearm, which I suppose is fair enough.
But issues do remain, I feel. Some of their evidence is still contradictory. It worries me. Cases like the blind man being tazered by the police, by the guy killed having a chair leg or whatever.
Now we know a few details of the incident, I thought it might be interesting to reproduce how the incident was initially reported.
// A Father of four was shot dead after apparently injuring a police officer in a terrifying shoot-out on a street in north London last night.
A gun was found at the scene and a spokesman for the independent police watchdog said it appeared the officer was shot first before police returned fire. //
// However, there are conflicting reports about the shooting. One report said the gunman opened fire at an officer whose life was saved when the bullet hit his radio. The officer was taken to hospital with minor injuries and discharged last night. //
// A Father of four was shot dead after apparently injuring a police officer in a terrifying shoot-out on a street in north London last night.
A gun was found at the scene and a spokesman for the independent police watchdog said it appeared the officer was shot first before police returned fire. //
// However, there are conflicting reports about the shooting. One report said the gunman opened fire at an officer whose life was saved when the bullet hit his radio. The officer was taken to hospital with minor injuries and discharged last night. //
mushie
from the same site:
Film editor Mr Waldorf, 26, had no direct connection to David Martin.
It was pleaded in court that Sue M had chosen Mr W as he looked like David Martin. but I dont think Mr W knew anything about that.
It was pleaded in evidence that Sue M had come into a pub where W was had looked around as if she was looking for someone, spotted him and came over and started chattinghim up....
I dont think W would have taken the job (being Sue M's no 2 boyf ) if he had been given all the info
from the same site:
Film editor Mr Waldorf, 26, had no direct connection to David Martin.
It was pleaded in court that Sue M had chosen Mr W as he looked like David Martin. but I dont think Mr W knew anything about that.
It was pleaded in evidence that Sue M had come into a pub where W was had looked around as if she was looking for someone, spotted him and came over and started chattinghim up....
I dont think W would have taken the job (being Sue M's no 2 boyf ) if he had been given all the info
The judge instructed the jury thus...
"If you are sure that he did not have a gun in his hand, then tick the box 'unlawful killing'", Judge Cutler.
In the deliberation paper posted above! 8 out of ten ticked the box that said they were sure he did not have a gun in his had. Yet they then ticked the box lawful killing.
Seems odd?
"If you are sure that he did not have a gun in his hand, then tick the box 'unlawful killing'", Judge Cutler.
In the deliberation paper posted above! 8 out of ten ticked the box that said they were sure he did not have a gun in his had. Yet they then ticked the box lawful killing.
Seems odd?
Further:
The jury began deliberations on 10 December 2013. The jury interrupted deliberations over Christmas and resumed on 7 January 2014. They delivered their conclusions at approximately 16:00 on 8 January 2014.
Before christmas the Judge Cutler had instructed them: "If you are sure that he did not have a gun in his hand, then tick the box 'unlawful killing'".
They did indeed conclude he did not have a gun in his hand but did not tick the box 'unlawful killing'.
Did the jury make a mistake? Or were the Judges instructions wrong?
The jury began deliberations on 10 December 2013. The jury interrupted deliberations over Christmas and resumed on 7 January 2014. They delivered their conclusions at approximately 16:00 on 8 January 2014.
Before christmas the Judge Cutler had instructed them: "If you are sure that he did not have a gun in his hand, then tick the box 'unlawful killing'".
They did indeed conclude he did not have a gun in his hand but did not tick the box 'unlawful killing'.
Did the jury make a mistake? Or were the Judges instructions wrong?
-- answer removed --
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.