News:

PD.com: "the lot of you are some of the most vicious, name calling, vile examples of humanity I've had the misfortune of attempting to communicate with.  Even attempting to mimic the general mood of the place toward people who think differently leaves a slimy feel on my skin.  Reptilian, even."

Main Menu

Mark Duggan

Started by Cain, January 09, 2014, 10:40:32 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cain

So, the police have been cleared of unlawfully killing the guy whose death helped to spark off the riots in 2011.

In particular (and this, trust me, is AMAZING), the ruling found that while Mark Duggan was not holding a firearm at the time of his death, the police officer in question was justified in believing he needed to use deadly force to defend himself, and so Duggan was lawfully killed.

Oh, and there was no gunpowder traces found on Duggan, several eyewitnesses said they saw the police plant the gun, said gun and the sock it was wrapped in had no fingerprints on it and was of a different make to the gun supposedly given to Duggan reported by "Operation Trident" police intelligence which sparked the confrontation with Duggan in the first place.

But the above bit is really the icing on the cake.  He was lawfully killed because the police officer really really believed he was dangerous, even though all the evidence shows he was entirely unarmed.  Sure, that's a great legal precedent.  Can I now legally cap coppers, since they seem to spend all their time shooting people for no good reason and I feel really threatened by that? No?

Junkenstein

It would shock no-one if civil unrest started up again. The verdict from the jury was quite telling.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25657949

QuoteThe panel of seven women and three men was asked to answer five questions:

In the period between midday on 3 August 2011 and when state amber was called at 6.00 pm on 4 August 2011, did the Metropolitan Police Service and the Serious Organised Crime Agency do the best they realistically could have done to gather and react to intelligence about the possibility of Mr Duggan collecting a gun from Mr Hutchinson-Foster? The jury said a unanimous no.

Was the stop conducted in a location and in a way which minimised, to the greatest extent possible, recourse to lethal force? Unanimous yes.

Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the stop? Unanimous yes

How did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found? A majority of 9 to 1 said it was thrown.

When Mr Duggan received a fatal shot, did he have the gun in his hand? A majority of 8 to 2 said no, he did not have a gun in his hand.

Following the verdict his mother, Pamela Duggan, was led out of the court in tears, while Mr Duggan's brother was seen screaming and shouting.

The first point is surely the most damning. How can you fuck up your intelligence when you're the ones creating it?
Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.

Pope Pixie Pickle

I await the coroners report with interest.

LMNO

Wait... The verdict was made before the coroner made their report?

Cain

I think the report isn't made public until a day after the jury rules.  The report is made well before then, hell, it's the coroner who convenes the jury in the first place, but the ruling is reported on first, then the paperwork is made public.

Junkenstein

Still thinking about the jury decision.

Correct me if I've got this wrong but it seems the following thought process occured to the majority:

1- SOCA did not do everything possible to collect/react to intel about the gun buy/transportation. Odd if they are responsible for instigating it.
2-Despite this, the stop was done in the best possible place to minimise harm. In this instance an area with bystanders. Admittedly you're not likely to find many empty spots in London, but still probably not the best place to assume no chance of harm to the public.
3-He totally had the gun on him. Not related at all to point 1.
4-I assume the question presumes Duggan threw the gun though it is a little ambigious. Either way, the weapon was not accessible at the time of death. Unless getting shot now makes you throw shit in strange ways. The question of when it was thrown isn't' really examined.
5-He had no gun in hand at the time of death. Yet the decision was still taken to shoot.

Somehow all of this is now a lawful killing. It's hardly surprising as armed UK police don't have the best record for not shooting unarmed people. Ask a Brazilian.
Nine naked Men just walking down the road will cause a heap of trouble for all concerned.