• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mark Duggan

SpursLodge said:
I don't understand the families outrage. Obviously I get that they're disappointed by the verdict but they're calling the police murderers and saying that a black mans life doesn't mean anything.

Have they forgotten that he was carrying a gun and that's very much illegal? Whether he threw it away before being shot or not that still makes him dangerous.

I get that the police can't go round shooting any old black man (or anyone else) but if you go about with a pistol in you pocket then your giving the old bill a decision to make surely?
Click to expand...

It limits the opportunities to get compo. Perhaps the civil courts might be an option. The misinformation that people would have you believe is that the police just run around town wantonly shooting people they don't like the look of, who are always guilty of nothing. The reality is that the police run thousands of armed missions each year with barely a shot being fired.
 
Kingdawson said:
They ruled that he was lawfully killed but didn't have a gun. How exactly does that work out?
Click to expand...

If you look at the questions asked of the jury it becomes very clear what their reckoning of the situation was. They believed Duggan had a gun, they believed he was a threat, they believed he exited the vehicle with a gun, they believe he threw the gun away and they do not dispute he was shot that he was shot without the gun. Add to these questions the timescales involved and the instant need to make a decision and they feel that the police were justified in shooting Duggan.
 
scaramanga said:
Quite. The policy (and clearly one that the majority of the country are comfortable with) is that the police only need good reason to believe their lives are in danger in order for them to take the required action.

Seriously people, this is just silly. The police did the right thing, Lee Harvey Oswald took out JFK, the World Trade centre was taken down by terrorists and we're not being oppressed by some secretive lizard men that disguise themselves as humans.
Click to expand...

We're not??
 
Last edited:
Add Ian Tomlinson, Met only disciplined the offices after the unlawfully killed verdict was released. That's after Harwood left the Met before after a road rage accident before action could be taken and then re-joined a few years later.
 
spitshine said:
I thought I would just paint the whole picture. At this rate of reproduction I would say we have saved a small fortune in housing benefit, child benefit, job seekers allowance, tax credit, disability living allowance.
Click to expand...

…which means he deserved to be shot despite not providing an imminent threat? Although perhaps you're a visionary and can see the future, a future where we manage to create 'whole pictures' to justify shooting anyone we feel is 'undesirable'…

With respects, that is NOT a world I want ANY part of.
 
scaramanga said:
Quite. The policy (and clearly one that the majority of the country are comfortable with) is that the police only need good reason to believe their lives are in danger in order for them to take the required action.

Seriously people, this is just silly. The police did the right thing, Lee Harvey Oswald took out JFK, the World Trade centre was taken down by terrorists and we're not being oppressed by some secretive lizard men that disguise themselves as humans.
Click to expand...

In your opinion.
The problem is as much where this 'justification' leads as the poverty of logic in the situation itself.
This is not much better than the ludicrous Zimmerman/Martin case in the US, a macaronic travesty of justice.

It is, in my opinion, never right to shoot an unarmed, or VISIBLY unarmed, person who is not causing a threat at the time of contact/interaction. The police also got it woefully wrong in the Mendez case. I appreciate that they have a hard job and are under increasing pressure from a public who want instant results all the time, but we cannot start sanctioning this behaviour as 'OK' otherwise the escalation in open armed criminal behaviour is inevitable?
 
parklane1 said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24210480

Mark Duggan 'among Europe's most violent criminals', inquest toldMark Duggan Mark Duggan was shot dead in Tottenham in August 2011, sparking riots that spread across England Continue reading the main story


Mark Duggan was a member of a violent gang involved in gun crime and dealing class A drugs, a senior detective has told an inquest.

Det Ch Insp Mick Foote headed Operation Dibri which targeted Tottenham gang TMD, a group he said contained "48 of Europe's most violent criminals".

Mr Foote told the hearing: "Duggan was in the group of 48."

Mr Duggan, 29, was shot by police in Tottenham, north London, in August 2011, sparking riots across England.

Mr Foote told the inquest into Mr Duggan's death that in January 2011 the Metropolitan Police received intelligence that Mr Duggan had shot "someone in a nightclub" and in February 2011 that he had "fired shots in club car park".

'Aggressively confronted'

Police had Mr Duggan under "lifestyle surveillance" and later in 2011, officers received intelligence he "had taken possession of gun", said Mr Foote, who was called as the first witness at the inquest.

However, the police "had no specific intelligence to arrest Duggan before 4 August", the day he was shot dead, the jury heard.

At the inquest, the jury was shown police paperwork suggesting Mr Duggan and his associates had been "directly responsible for murders".

A form quoting police intelligence said 10 shootings and two murders were linked to the TMD gang.

A police intelligence form said Mr Duggan "was violent" and had "aggressively confronted" police on the Broadwater Farm estate in north London.

Mr Duggan had convictions for cannabis possession, handling stolen goods and had been cautioned for public disorder, jurors heard.

The inquest at the Royal Courts of Justice is expected to last two months
Click to expand...


All this story tells me is that someone, somewhere lost their patience with staking and persuing this suspect in a lawful fashion and decided to authorize the 'bending' of 'rues' to 'take care' of a situation which had apparently become remarkably frustrating to some in the force. It's not good enough. And it sends the sort of message that will make sure there is an escalation in illegally armed 'members' of the criminal 'fraternity'.
 
Looking at this from the viewpoint of but he only had minor offences against him previously how is he dangerous, I'd argue the fact the majority of gang leaders in the world today probably have as little on the book as speeding tickets yet are masterminds of hideous crimes. Its laughable to even suggest this man was a decent person, without knowing everything.

To whether he should have been shot, I believe that someone/s that put there own life on the line to protect others should be given the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances but the truth should be told, but because of the way the world is today people are not given the benefit of the doubt so things have to be fabricated a little to protect those that protect us, as good old Jack Nicolson said..'people cannot handle the truth'

That is something I can live with.
 
This whole case has been evidence of how police can and will attempt to cover things up.

From Mark Duggan to Hillsborough, no matter how many have suffered the police will always come out clean and shiny.
 
Craig_J said:
This whole case has been evidence of how police can and will attempt to cover things up.

From Mark Duggan to Hillsborough, no matter how many have suffered the police will always come out clean and shiny.
Click to expand...

When its innocent people, I agree, when its scumbags I disagree. I can differentiate the two... Very easily.
 
How can it be lawful killing if he threw the gun over a fence? The only way is if the cops didn't see him do that. They couldn't have seen him have one in his hand anyway or they shot him as he pulled it out to throw it away. Lots of questions from this case. Maybe the police knew of other crimes but couldn't prove them and there was some vendetta. Not that he deserved to be shot but sounds like he was living on the edges of the law, carrying a gun (he had just ordered it so maybe he had a target in mind and that was prevented), being part of a gang, etc, etc
 
Mosquito_Coasting said:
How can it be lawful killing if he threw the gun over a fence? The only way is if the cops didn't see him do that. They couldn't have seen him have one in his hand anyway or they shot him as he pulled it out to throw it away. Lots of questions from this case. Maybe the police knew of other crimes but couldn't prove them and there was some vendetta. Not that he deserved to be shot but sounds like he was living on the edges of the law, carrying a gun (he had just ordered it so maybe he had a target in mind and that was prevented), being part of a gang, etc, etc
Click to expand...

The only way i can see it being a 'lawful' killing would be if there was perceived to be a good chance he was in possession of a gun at the time - if the police were working under the assumption he was in possession of a gun and then he proceeded to act in a threatening manner when he exited the car then it would be lawful for them to open fire, i guess
 
Superhudd said:
When its innocent people, I agree, when its scumbags I disagree. I can differentiate the two... Very easily.
Click to expand...

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...
 
billyiddo said:
The only way i can see it being a 'lawful' killing would be if there was perceived to be a good chance he was in possession of a gun at the time - if the police were working under the assumption he was in possession of a gun and then he proceeded to act in a threatening manner when he exited the car then it would be lawful for them to open fire, i guess
Click to expand...

I think billy has hit the tickle my balls with a feather here. From the accounts I have read it suggests they had intelligence he had just acquired a gun, knew where he was going and decided to arrest him at the earliest convenience. Obviously they had elite armed officers present due to the blatant threat if he had acquired the gun as they were led to believe. It seems as though he must of thrown the gun from the taxi moments after seeing the police (as it was found 6m from the taxi afterwards) but he then exited the taxi in a threatening manner whilst holding a mobile phone in his hand.

Now, putting yourself in the position of an elite armed officer, you are pulling a man who you believe has just purchased a deadly weapon, a man with supposed links to many violent crimes including murder, you don't see him throw the gun but you do see him exit the vehicle holding something in his hand ...... what would you do??
 
thfcsteff said:
In your opinion.
The problem is as much where this 'justification' leads as the poverty of logic in the situation itself.
This is not much better than the ludicrous Zimmerman/Martin case in the US, a macaronic travesty of justice.

It is, in my opinion, never right to shoot an unarmed, or VISIBLY unarmed, person who is not causing a threat at the time of contact/interaction. The police also got it woefully wrong in the Mendez case. I appreciate that they have a hard job and are under increasing pressure from a public who want instant results all the time, but we cannot start sanctioning this behaviour as 'OK' otherwise the escalation in open armed criminal behaviour is inevitable?
Click to expand...

IMO we don't have the right to ask police to risk their lives in protecting us. If they genuinely believe (and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary) that their lives are at risk, they have to fire. Every time.

As I understand it, the police knew that a criminal from the shoe scrapings of society had a gun. They had no reason to believe he no longer had the gun, and he acted in a manner that gave them reason to believe he was putting their lives at risk. There doesn't need to be any further investigation.
 
johnola said:
Dwarfed by the number of police killed by the public whilst on duty.
Click to expand...

This is the point I would lean towards.

For a huge police force in a major metropolis like London to have one of these issues pop up every 2/3 years, however right or wrong, in this day and age with all the threats out there is not a bad number.
 
scaramanga said:
IMO we don't have the right to ask police to risk their lives in protecting us. If they genuinely believe (and there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary) that their lives are at risk, they have to fire. Every time.

As I understand it, the police knew that a criminal from the shoe scrapings of society had a gun. They had no reason to believe he no longer had the gun, and he acted in a manner that gave them reason to believe he was putting their lives at risk. There doesn't need to be any further investigation.
Click to expand...

but they said they saw him exit the taxi with the gun, and that was proven to be false (or at least the Jury didn't believe it). How could we believe the word of the Police when they've already been proven to be liars in the court of law?
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back