The Mark Duggan Case?

[Owd Codger]

Live by the sword die by the sword. Saved the country/us a few bob.

Too true and a pity they don't shoot a few more of the vicious scum bags instead of putting them in HMP Butlin's at our expense!

[Panchitta Marra]

Guns are designed for one thing and one thing only - to kill. Anyone who owns or carries one must be prepared to accept all possible consequences.

I fully agree with that Kitt.

[TrueBlueWarrior]

I wonder what type of people rioted because of it, I know I didn't!!

[Kittwazzer]

I wonder what type of people rioted because of it, I know I didn't!!

Very few by all accounts. The vast majority saw an opportunity to pick up a pair of trainers, mobile phone, plasma TV etc....

[KOOCH]

The jury found the police officer in question innocent.They had more information than the ordinary public at large and listened to evidence for and against over three months before coming to a conclusion. Those with a licence to carry fire arms should have nothing to fear from the police unless they are going to use it illegally. Yes people will question the verdict reached by the jury but that is why we have a jury system and that is good enough for me. The question I would be asking the family of Mark Duggan is why on earth was he carrying a firearm in the first place as he was not legally entitled to do so.And before any one thinks otherwise I have not always been a fan of the police but it would be a hell hole on earth without them.

Thats not entirely correct mate. The jury basically believed the police officers story that he 100% believed that Mr Duggan was armed at the time of shooting, so they could return a verdict of lawful killing.

Beggars belief rely given the evidence supplied, and the lies the police have already told. But imagine a case of such scale delivering an unlawful verdict after what happened? Never going to be the case imo.

I will state once again( trial by jury.) Good enough for me on this occasion. Did he raise his gun to fire at the police officer? Possibly not.But it beggars belief as to why he was in possession of a gun in the first place. Did he have a licence to carry a gun? I suspect not! Would he have used it given the chance to do so? Who knows.But at the end of the day it was a trial by jury. I would far sooner have a jury of twelve people passing judgement rather than a single judge. Are you also saying that the jury is stupid or that they did not question the evidence put forward by the police. In any case I really don't give a toss about the guy. He simply should not have been in possession of a gun regardless of weather he intended to use it or not. The only people I feel sorry for is his family and the police officer placed in that position.Now I'm going on my hols and really don't give a monkeys nut.We have more important things coming up. Like a new season of RUGBY LEAGUE.

[AdamMac]

The jury found the police officer in question innocent.They had more information than the ordinary public at large and listened to evidence for and against over three months before coming to a conclusion. Those with a licence to carry fire arms should have nothing to fear from the police unless they are going to use it illegally. Yes people will question the verdict reached by the jury but that is why we have a jury system and that is good enough for me. The question I would be asking the family of Mark Duggan is why on earth was he carrying a firearm in the first place as he was not legally entitled to do so.And before any one thinks otherwise I have not always been a fan of the police but it would be a hell hole on earth without them.

Thats not entirely correct mate. The jury basically believed the police officers story that he 100% believed that Mr Duggan was armed at the time of shooting, so they could return a verdict of lawful killing.

Beggars belief rely given the evidence supplied, and the lies the police have already told. But imagine a case of such scale delivering an unlawful verdict after what happened? Never going to be the case imo.

I will state once again( trial by jury.) Good enough for me on this occasion. Did he raise his gun to fire at the police officer? Possibly not.But it beggars belief as to why he was in possession of a gun in the first place. Did he have a licence to carry a gun? I suspect not! Would he have used it given the chance to do so? Who knows.But at the end of the day it was a trial by jury. I would far sooner have a jury of twelve people passing judgement rather than a single judge. Are you also saying that the jury is stupid or that they did not question the evidence put forward by the police. In any case I really don't give a toss about the guy. He simply should not have been in possession of a gun regardless of weather he intended to use it or not. The only people I feel sorry for is his family and the police officer placed in that position.Now I'm going on my hols and really don't give a monkeys nut.We have more important things coming up. Like a new season of RUGBY LEAGUE.

The jury found the police officer in question innocent.They had more information than the ordinary public at large and listened to evidence for and against over three months before coming to a conclusion. Those with a licence to carry fire arms should have nothing to fear from the police unless they are going to use it illegally. Yes people will question the verdict reached by the jury but that is why we have a jury system and that is good enough for me. The question I would be asking the family of Mark Duggan is why on earth was he carrying a firearm in the first place as he was not legally entitled to do so.And before any one thinks otherwise I have not always been a fan of the police but it would be a hell hole on earth without them.

Thats not entirely correct mate. The jury basically believed the police officers story that he 100% believed that Mr Duggan was armed at the time of shooting, so they could return a verdict of lawful killing.

Beggars belief rely given the evidence supplied, and the lies the police have already told. But imagine a case of such scale delivering an unlawful verdict after what happened? Never going to be the case imo.

I will state once again( trial by jury.) Good enough for me on this occasion. Did he raise his gun to fire at the police officer? Possibly not.But it beggars belief as to why he was in possession of a gun in the first place. Did he have a licence to carry a gun? I suspect not! Would he have used it given the chance to do so? Who knows.But at the end of the day it was a trial by jury. I would far sooner have a jury of twelve people passing judgement rather than a single judge. Are you also saying that the jury is stupid or that they did not question the evidence put forward by the police. In any case I really don't give a toss about the guy. He simply should not have been in possession of a gun regardless of weather he intended to use it or not. The only people I feel sorry for is his family and the police officer placed in that position.Now I'm going on my hols and really don't give a monkeys nut.We have more important things coming up. Like a new season of RUGBY LEAGUE.

Chill out pal. Cant say I agree. Its the bigger picture im looking at, nkt just the person in question.
Anyhow, never mind and have a good holiday.

[Wigan_forever1985]

I agree with the notion that if you illegaly carry a firearm then you have to accept that you are putting yourself in a position where things like this can happen, like Kitt says the only thing a gun does as a function is kill, carry one and expect that function to be returned

[devon jim 1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25321711

Any opinions?

Duggan got what he deserved. Listening to his family speak you would think he was a Saint instead of a sinner. Good riddance to a known gangster.

[cpwigan]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25321711

Any opinions?

Duggan got what he deserved. Listening to his family speak you would think he was a Saint instead of a sinner. Good riddance to a known gangster.

Where does that philosophy start / end though Jim.

There are numerous known 'gangsters' sitting in both houses of parliament. There are thousands upon thousands of ' gangsters' across Britain. The police, the armed forces represent a set of values or at least should do that everybody in society should aspire to. If somebody in the police or armed forces does not uphold / represent those set of values then why should that be deemed acceptable and where does that lead us?

The law and police guidelines say that an officer can only shoot someone if absolutely necessary, and they honestly believe that person was an imminent threat.

The police officers concerned closed ranks (NOT THE FIRST TIME IN THE POLICE OR ANY WALK OF LIFE)

The 3 officers concerned including the killer claimed Duggan was reaching for a gun and pulled it out. I am not even sure how we even got to the stage of Duggan walking out freely when he was surrounded by police, surely they should have been ascertaining had he got a gun / throw the gun clear, hands in the air, then lying face down hands behind the back of his head? The police had been following Duggan around all day why not plan this operation far better?

The officer who shot him, V53, and another officer, W70, standing alongside the first, said that when Mr Duggan got out of the cab he reached toward the waistband of his trousers and pulled out a gun.

A third officer standing behind Mr Duggan said he shouted "he's reaching, he's reaching". After V53 fired a first time, he said he "reassessed", Mr Duggan still had the gun, and he shot him again.

THE 3 POLICE OFFICERS WERE LATER ALLOWED TO SIT UNSUPERVISED IN A ROOM TOGETHER TO COMPOSE THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS. You do not even allow school children to do that!!

The inquest heard from only one civilian witness to the shooting itself and he gave a very different account.

"Witness B" said he was watching through the open window of a ninth floor flat on the other side of the road. He described what he saw as "an execution".
Gun disappeared

Mr Duggan was not holding a gun, he said, but a mobile phone. He said Mr Duggan tried at first to run away, but was "trapped", appeared "baffled" and was holding his arms up as if to surrender when he was shot by an officer within five to seven steps of him. But Witness B's evidence was not enough to convince the jury.

So one member of the public totally contradicts the 3 police officers version of events. Could they be protecting their colleague / friend by not telling the truth? or is this member of the public not telling the truth? What did the cab driver see / say? surely he could prove / disprove ether version?

We do know a man was shot dead without being in possession of a gun

As soon as Mr Duggan was shot by police the gun apparently disappeared. One officer at the scene said that even as he fell to the ground, and the officer grabbed his arms, the gun was nowhere to be seen.

Nobody said they saw him throw it, either before or after. Officers said they later found the gun, wrapped in a black sock, some 20ft (6m) away on the other side of some railings.

Ignore the fact Duggan was/is 'scum'; a man was shot dead but no gun was found next to him. He never fired a gun at best an almighty cock up of an arrest.

Expert testimony suggest Duggan was as likely to have been able to throw a gun 20ft after being shopped as winning the lottery.

An independent pathologist said that because of Mr Duggan's injuries it was "very unlikely" - but not impossible - that he would have been able to throw the gun such a distance after he had been shot.

An independent pathologist said that because of Mr Duggan's injuries it was "very unlikely" - but not impossible - that he would have been able to throw the gun such a distance after he had been shot.

The Duggan family suggest the gun was planted at the scene thereafter. We will never know. We do know that Duggan was at least 20ft from a gun if it existed when he was shot not once but twice.

The jury decided two things amongst others

They decided by a majority of nine to one that Mark Duggan had thrown the gun way from his minicab before he faced police.

BUT

They concluded by a majority of eight to two that Duggan was lawfully killed.

REMEMBER

The law and police guidelines say that an officer can only shoot someone if absolutely necessary, and they honestly believe that person was an imminent threat.

So how can the same jury FIRST say Duggan never had a gun when he faced the police (because they believed he threw it away before) YET SECOND say Duggan was lawfully killed

How can a jury say Duggan had no gun but that the police honestly believed that an unarmed Duggan was an imminent threat? The two findings contradict each other.

The more the murder is scrutinised the more we are made aware of serious issues from start to finish with this episode;

The Independent Police Complaints Commission IPCC lead investigator - a former police officer of 30 years' experience. How can a 30 year ex police officer be independent about the police?

The Independent Police Complaints Commission was reliant on police officers to secure the crime scene. Surely the crime scene involving a police officer killing a member of the public should not be secured by the police?

The Independent Police Complaints Commission IPCC lead investigator - a former police officer of 30 years' experience.

admitted he had not known "for some days" that the gun was found 20ft from the shooting

WHY?

EVEN WORSE

In the hours that followed the shooting the

(INDEPENDENT!!)

IPCC was also responsible for making public the most incendiary claim of all - an entirely incorrect suggestion that Mr Duggan had himself fired at police officers.

We know that statement was false and 'sparked' the initial rioting. Family and friends who were angry and suspicious. Family and friends who had not been properly notified of Mr Duggan's killing, and had heard conflicting accounts of what had happened. Remember this is a section of society that the police openly admit they have failed repeatedly and continue to do so despite recent efforts. Surely, in this day and age the policce force treat every issue with potential racial overtones with extreme caution to avoid INCITING rioting / looting.

We have police officers that use these forums I daresay privately they could not believe that the IPCC and police officers belonging to their profession acted so amateurishly from start to finish of this whole sorry mess?

Decent police officers across the country were let down by others in their profession. Society was similarly let down.

[cpwigan]

http://inquestintodeathofmarkduggan.wor ... th-cutler/

Detailed inquest report.

Looks like murder to me. Killer will be back on duty in a matter of weeks.