Mark Duggan

[Klinsmania]

It may well have been that he threw the gun away, but if he was acting in an aggressive manner, and if the police had reason to believe he still possessed the gun and was a direct threat to them or anyone else then I can understand the decision to shoot. It way well be that the decision proved to be wrong, if indeed the gun had already been thrown away without the officer in question seeing it. I haven't read all the facts, but I do sympathise with a police marksman who finds himself in this position, with a split second to make a judgement. I don't think we can be too critcal of anyone working under such intense pressure.

The bottom line is, if you don't want to get shot by the police, don't walk around carrying a gun and engage in dodgy dealings.

 

[Dorothy]

A potentially dangerous statement IMO…Duggan's dodginess is not really in dispute. Whether he deserved to be shot dead for it most certainly is. IMO if we started shooting dead everyone who was dodgy/a scumbag, there would be a lot of death around…and the biggest scumbags would remain untouched and unaccountable for anything. Not too different from now actually...

You have accused him of making a 'potentially dangerous statement' yet you happily suggested that a police firearms team had (and I paraphrase) got fed up staking Duggan out so they just decided to kill him. Something which you have absolutely no proof of whatsoever. The real danger is when people present fantasy in place of the facts or into an argument where there are 'holes' or 'discrepancies'. What if? Maybe? It is absolute conjecture and total hearsay. The only eye witness accounts we have so far have been shown to be at the best 'varied', with the main witness having changed his story for one reason or another. From the transcripts it is fairly apparent that the nobody was 100% certain of when Duggan discarded the weapon, how he discarded it (by this I mean the exact timing and specifics of him supposedly 'throwing' it away. What we are led to believe is that the police were only there on that day because they had intel that suggested Duggan has just collected a weapon and was on his way to use it. Knowing he had that weapon, the alleged intent and their belief that he had been involved with gun crime in the past ensured that there was a firearms presence and in broad daylight they attempted to apprehend Duggan. An officer or officers made an instant snap judgement to shoot at Duggan and nobody is privy to his actions, body language, what was said other than those directly involved. The firearms officers are involved thousands of times throughout the year but amazingly we see only isolated mistakes. A jury found Duggan's killing 'lawful' based on the facts they had, not the nonsense spouted from others with their own agendas. Do we trust the police 100%? In every organisation there are those who think they are above the law but the conspiracies are utterly baseless and as ever largely nonsensical. If someone within the police force had wanted to kill Mark Duggan they could have done it far more surreptitiously than by surrounding a vehicle in broad daylight across the road from a large apartment block and shooting him. Think about it properly. Words like 'executed' and 'assassinated' are simply pathetic. He was shot in a police operation 'lawfully' and I'm sure everyone involved wishes they had not needed to kill him considering the capital that has been made of it.

 

[scaramanga]

The officer who shot Duggan, referred to in court as V53, earlier in the case described the moment he opened fire.

He told the jury: 'I'm hoping he's going to drop it.

'The next thing he does, he starts to move the gun away from his body.
'He's raised the weapon, moved it a couple of inches away from his body.

'I've brought my weapon up and I've discharged one round and I'm aiming for the central body mass because I'm looking to shoot to stop.'

He said the first bullet hit Mr Duggan in the chest and caused him to flinch but the gun, wrapped in a sock, was then pointing towards the marksman.

The officer fired a second shot, hitting Mr Duggan in the right bicep.




Read this very detailed version of events by the 'marksman'. That was judged to be false by the Jury...yet it's still lawful? how the **** does that work if they judged he made this bull**** up?

He doesn't have to be lying. It's more likely that he's just wrong.

 

[SpursLodge]

You have accused him of making a 'potentially dangerous statement' yet you happily suggested that a police firearms team had (and I paraphrase) got fed up staking Duggan out so they just decided to kill him. Something which you have absolutely no proof of whatsoever. The real danger is when people present fantasy in place of the facts or into an argument where there are 'holes' or 'discrepancies'. What if? Maybe? It is absolute conjecture and total hearsay. The only eye witness accounts we have so far have been shown to be at the best 'varied', with the main witness having changed his story for one reason or another. From the transcripts it is fairly apparent that the nobody was 100% certain of when Duggan discarded the weapon, how he discarded it (by this I mean the exact timing and specifics of him supposedly 'throwing' it away. What we are led to believe is that the police were only there on that day because they had intel that suggested Duggan has just collected a weapon and was on his way to use it. Knowing he had that weapon, the alleged intent and their belief that he had been involved with gun crime in the past ensured that there was a firearms presence and in broad daylight they attempted to apprehend Duggan. An officer or officers made an instant snap judgement to shoot at Duggan and nobody is privy to his actions, body language, what was said other than those directly involved. The firearms officers are involved thousands of times throughout the year but amazingly we see only isolated mistakes. A jury found Duggan's killing 'lawful' based on the facts they had, not the nonsense spouted from others with their own agendas. Do we trust the police 100%? In every organisation there are those who think they are above the law but the conspiracies are utterly baseless and as ever largely nonsensical. If someone within the police force had wanted to kill Mark Duggan they could have done it far more surreptitiously than by surrounding a vehicle in broad daylight across the road from a large apartment block and shooting him. Think about it properly. Words like 'executed' and 'assassinated' are simply pathetic. He was shot in a police operation 'lawfully' and I'm sure everyone involved wishes they had not needed to kill him considering the capital that has been made of it.

This =D>

Let's assume he throws the gun out of the car when all the police are standing there so they see it, he gets out with his hands empty and up in the air, would they have shot him if that was the case, I'd guess at no. On the opposite side if he jumps out of the car with the gun up and pointing at the police then he'd have been shot by every officer at the scene who had a gun, that didn't happen so the truth must be somewhere in between and no one can ever know for definite what did or didn't happen.

I've heard reports that he had a phone in his hand that somehow looked like a gun, some people say the police found the gun in the car and moved it but any witness statement or police statement is going to be a bit biased one way or another. I do think it sounds dodgy on both parts, maybe it was a bit hasty by the police officer that shot him and the police then tried to make it look more justified than it was but I just can't see any way that the family and friends can say that he was murdered by the police or that they only shot him because he's black. He got himself in that situation by picking the gun up from the fella that's now in prison for supplying it and then not cooperating fully when armed police stopped the taxi.

 

[scaramanga]

You have accused him of making a 'potentially dangerous statement' yet you happily suggested that a police firearms team had (and I paraphrase) got fed up staking Duggan out so they just decided to kill him. Something which you have absolutely no proof of whatsoever. The real danger is when people present fantasy in place of the facts or into an argument where there are 'holes' or 'discrepancies'. What if? Maybe? It is absolute conjecture and total hearsay. The only eye witness accounts we have so far have been shown to be at the best 'varied', with the main witness having changed his story for one reason or another. From the transcripts it is fairly apparent that the nobody was 100% certain of when Duggan discarded the weapon, how he discarded it (by this I mean the exact timing and specifics of him supposedly 'throwing' it away. What we are led to believe is that the police were only there on that day because they had intel that suggested Duggan has just collected a weapon and was on his way to use it. Knowing he had that weapon, the alleged intent and their belief that he had been involved with gun crime in the past ensured that there was a firearms presence and in broad daylight they attempted to apprehend Duggan. An officer or officers made an instant snap judgement to shoot at Duggan and nobody is privy to his actions, body language, what was said other than those directly involved. The firearms officers are involved thousands of times throughout the year but amazingly we see only isolated mistakes. A jury found Duggan's killing 'lawful' based on the facts they had, not the nonsense spouted from others with their own agendas. Do we trust the police 100%? In every organisation there are those who think they are above the law but the conspiracies are utterly baseless and as ever largely nonsensical. If someone within the police force had wanted to kill Mark Duggan they could have done it far more surreptitiously than by surrounding a vehicle in broad daylight across the road from a large apartment block and shooting him. Think about it properly. Words like 'executed' and 'assassinated' are simply pathetic. He was shot in a police operation 'lawfully' and I'm sure everyone involved wishes they had not needed to kill him considering the capital that has been made of it.

A fantastic post. I've never understood why people flock to conspiracies that are less likely than the truth. After all, this police force is incapable of stopping a bunch of scumbags from rioting, yet it can plan, execute and get away with a murder in public and in broad daylight?

 

[Richie]

Agree with Scara and others. I think the police just made a mistake in the moment thinking the object in his hand was a gun.

They knew he had been in possession of a gun, and he walks out of a taxi with something in his hand. I can completely understand an officer in that situation considering his life in danger. I don't want the police waiting around for criminals to pop off a few rounds at them before they are allowed to feel in danger.

As others have said, if he steps out of that cab with his hands empty in the air or on his head I expect he'd still be alive today.

 

[Kingdawson]

He doesn't have to be lying. It's more likely that he's just wrong.

No, he's lying.

Saying you thought you saw a weapon could be wrong...coming up with an elaborate story where you go into specific details about seeing a gun and what the man did with the gun is a blatant lie.

It all sounds like a lame police cover up again tbh. There was no prints or DNA from Mark Duggan found on the gun, so how exactly did he pick the gun up when exiting the car? he apparently wasn't wearing gloves either...i mean do they expect us to believe he picked it up with a sock?

 

[Richie]

No, he's lying.

Saying you thought you saw a weapon could be wrong...coming up with an elaborate story where you go into specific details about seeing a gun and what the man did with the gun is a blatant lie.

It all sounds like a lame police cover up again tbh. There was no prints or DNA from Mark Duggan found on the gun, so how exactly did he pick the gun up when exiting the car? he apparently wasn't wearing gloves either...i mean do they expect us to believe he picked it up with a sock?

So you don't believe he ever had possession of the gun?

 

[SpursLodge]

No, he's lying.

Saying you thought you saw a weapon could be wrong...coming up with an elaborate story where you go into specific details about seeing a gun and what the man did with the gun is a blatant lie.

It all sounds like a lame police cover up again tbh. There was no prints or DNA from Mark Duggan found on the gun, so how exactly did he pick the gun up when exiting the car? he apparently wasn't wearing gloves either...i mean do they expect us to believe he picked it up with a sock?

Apparently it's common practice for people to carry guns wrapped in a sock to avoid getting evidence on it.

 

[Kingdawson]

So you don't believe he ever had possession of the gun?

I don't know..maybe he did and maybe he didn't. I know he was running around with some pathetic hoodlums from the Tottenham area.

What i believe is that the police tweaked their version of events and blatantly lied to cover their ****...like they usually do when they sense there will be public backlash. I'd prefer if they just said "they were in fear of their life" and left it at that but no..not the Met...They have to diminish a persons character and make up elaborate stories to make the suspect appear guilty. Was Duggan a **** of a human being? by all accounts he was but don't insult peoples intelligence by creating silly cover ups.

 

[Richie]

Also as I have said elsewhere,

93 witnesses, 23 statements read and 7 days deliberation, the jurors understand and have debated this case more carefully and thoroughly than anyone yet 5 minutes after a verdict people are throwing around words like assassination.

The jurors unanimously agreed that he didn't have the gun when shot (but did just minutes earlier), which tells me that the verdict isn't as simple as the 'armed = legal, unarmed = illegal' people keep mentioning.

I've seen dozens of people question 'how can it be legal if he was unarmed' but that's ignoring the rest of the debate. The fact that it was declared legal despite acknowledgment that Duggan was unarmed shows there is more to it.

 

[scaramanga]

No, he's lying.

Saying you thought you saw a weapon could be wrong...coming up with an elaborate story where you go into specific details about seeing a gun and what the man did with the gun is a blatant lie.

It all sounds like a lame police cover up again tbh. There was no prints or DNA from Mark Duggan found on the gun, so how exactly did he pick the gun up when exiting the car? he apparently wasn't wearing gloves either...i mean do they expect us to believe he picked it up with a sock?

Wow. That's quite the authority issue you have there.

What is it that makes you think you know better than the entire jury who heard every single bit of evidence?

 

[Baleforce]

Also as I have said elsewhere,

93 witnesses, 23 statements read and 7 days deliberation, the jurors understand and have debated this case more carefully and thoroughly than anyone yet 5 minutes after a verdict people are throwing around words like assassination.

The jurors unanimously agreed that he didn't have the gun when shot (but did just minutes earlier), which tells me that the verdict isn't as simple as the 'armed = legal, unarmed = illegal' people keep mentioning.

I've seen dozens of people question 'how can it be legal if he was unarmed' but that's ignoring the rest of the debate. The fact that it was declared legal despite acknowledgment that Duggan was unarmed shows there is more to it.

exactly

also re: the suggestion that the policeman who shot him was lying, the police will tell you that witness statements are notoriously unreliable as human memory isn't like a video recorder, the brain fills in blanks

 

[SpursLodge]

exactly

also re: the suggestion that the policeman who shot him was lying, the police will tell you that witness statements are notoriously unreliable as human memory isn't like a video recorder, the brain fills in blanks

That made me think, why don't they just make officers have video recorders in their helmets so that we can then watch the footage and see what actually happened.

 

[Superhudd]

I would have thought there would have been CTV camera's all over Tottenham. Surprised there is zero footage of what went on. Maybe all the local thugs have vandalised them, and the one time they actually need them they are not available. Karma lol

 

[Richie]

That made me think, why don't they just make officers have video recorders in their helmets so that we can then watch the footage and see what actually happened.

This might be infeasible for regular police officers, I could see it as an interesting idea for the armed response units. At least in cars.

I'm actually not sure I like the idea of a bobby on the beat being a walking CCTV camera. Microphones might be a nice middle ground.

 

[Greg]

This might be infeasible for regular police officers, I could see it as an interesting idea for the armed response units. At least in cars.

I'm actually not sure I like the idea of a bobby on the beat being a walking CCTV camera. Microphones might be a nice middle ground.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...d-police-will-wear-video-cameras-9048227.html

 

[SpursLodge]

This might be infeasible for regular police officers, I could see it as an interesting idea for the armed response units. At least in cars.

I'm actually not sure I like the idea of a bobby on the beat being a walking CCTV camera. Microphones might be a nice middle ground.

I don't get why people moan about things like CCTV, if you're not up to no good why would it bother you? Genuine question. If it was the case that the police were hasty with the shoot in this case, then surely CCTV would help the family to prove their point, especially if there was in car cameras and helmet cams and that sort of thing they're would be multiple angles and prove beyond a doubt what happened. I have to qualify that and say that the police should not be the ones that maintain and look after the CCTV, that should be an independant body so that the footage can't go missing whenever it suits them.

 

[Kingdawson]

Wow. That's quite the authority issue you have there.

What is it that makes you think you know better than the entire jury who heard every single bit of evidence?

I have no "authority issue" as you put it. I make judgement based on the evidence provided, and have come up with the conclusion that he's lying about seeing a gun. The entire Jury? who cares...didn't they also judge that Jean Charles de Menezes was also lawfully killed despite conclusive evidence that the police lied? I mean a policeman admitted to deleting footage which showed he wasn't running away...and they still ruled "open verdict" ffs.

As i said before, it is more then likely that Mark Duggan was scum, more then likely he's been involved in dodgy activity, but i don't believe that the marksmen saw a gun.

 

[Richie]

I don't get why people moan about things like CCTV, if you're not up to no good why would it bother you? Genuine question. If it was the case that the police were hasty with the shoot in this case, then surely CCTV would help the family to prove their point, especially if there was in car cameras and helmet cams and that sort of thing they're would be multiple angles and prove beyond a doubt what happened. I have to qualify that and say that the police should not be the ones that maintain and look after the CCTV, that should be an independant body so that the footage can't go missing whenever it suits them.

It bothers me on principle more than anything. I believe in the privacy and freedom of the individual.

I very much flip flop on the idea of 'youre ok if you've got nothing to hide' because everyone has plenty of things to hide that aren't illegal. That's the right of each of us as individuals, to keep whatever aspects of our life we choose to be private.

CCTV is public areas like high streets in towns I can deal with, but I think its a different issue in residentual areas.

Like I say, I'm not 100% sure where I stand on the issue