Forums Forums National News Mark Duggan killing lawful, says jury

Mark Duggan, whose death sparked riots in England in 2011, was lawfully killed by police, an inquest jury has concluded by a majority of 8 to 2.

The 29-year-old was shot dead by armed officers in August 2011 in Tottenham, north London.

Following the inquest at the Royal Courts of Justice, his aunt Carole Duggan said her nephew had been "executed".

Mr Duggan's brother Shaun Hall said: "We still fight for justice."

There were angry scenes outside the courts, with supporters of Mr Duggan's family chanting "murderers", drowning out a statement by Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley.

'Lethal force'

Source

Strange verdict considering he was un-armed.

Are we allowed to pass comments on such things these days?
We just can't be sure can we? I would have thought it very difficult to get enough leverage behind an arm in a cramped car to throw an item 20ft. and over a hedge. i.e. is of course if it was thrown from inside the car.(don't know)

Mark, please remove if comments are not permitted.

For me if he was happy to carry a gun he must have known he may die by one.

There are various concerns expressed by commentators regarding the verdict of the jury.

However I fear this will be very similar to the other disputed killings by police over the years.

Not one officer appears to have faced criminal charges for any of the cases over the last few decades.

This does not detract from the fact that the vast majority of police officers do a very good job. Occasionally however situations occur where errors of judgement happen.

As a society I would hope that we always err on the side of not shooting unarmed people dead....

if they can get away with it they will and they do.

The jury at this inquest voted by a majority of 8 - 2.

This is the British justice system which is considered to be one of the fairest in the world.

I haven't read enough to hold a valid opinion on this trial, the above is just something to consider.

No trial was held, it was an inquest. The decision was made on the evidence it was presented with. I may be wrong but I don,t think an alternative view is presented just raw evidence.

It all depends how much you read about the case. If you read just the basic - an unarmed black man was shot - then its easy to get outraged and have hatred for the police.

But read on and you find:

Difficult decisions are made always when firearms are involved, the verdict was a arrived at based on the sequence of events and police intelligence, fact, a firearm was being carried, armed police were involved, the stage is set for a potential shoot out, whatever happened after the stop is unclear, these things happen in the heat of the moment, he was targeted because of police intelligence which quite rightly identified the carrying of a firearm, a question, would there have been public outrage or riots if the person involved was a suspected terrorist? had that been the case the police would have been commended for their action.

Duggan was known to the police as a dangerous criminal, and their intelligence proved correct that Duggan had a gun at SOME point during this particular situation . A gun takes a split second to kill someone whether held by a gangster or police officer.
If my husband or son had been the cop facing Duggan , the fuss the Duggan family are making would be nothing to the hell I would raise if my loved one got shot and killed hesitating to be 100% sure of whether their intelligence was absolutely up to date , just because of restrictions put on the police by perfectionist members of the public who unrealistically think police officers should be able to control the violent criminal/gangs in this country without ever making incorrect assumptions during that split second in which its the 'them or me' situation.

Yes it would have been better if Duggan had been winged - but under pressure and in the presence of a known gunman, would the police officer have known whether he was
left or right handed, and in a fast moving situation, accuracy anyway, cant be guaranteed. Life isnt perfect. Im sad Duggan lost his life, but Im glad for the wife and children of the marksman, that HE didnt lose HIS life doing a dangerous job for the community. I dont think the police are always in the right, but I see their side of things in this case, more than Duggans side.

But not convicted?

It just seems to be allegations, suspicions and suggestions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan#Mark_Duggan

The police officer who shot him V(for vendetta)53 wrote in his statement that Duggan pointed a gun in a sock at him. Which wonders how he knew Duggan (possibly)had had a gun in sock when in fact the only gun in a sock was lying on the other side of a park wall/fence. If V53 had written i thought Duggan had raised a gun at me -I would find that more believeable. I suspect V53 has made his written evidence after speaking with his firearm colleagues whotold him about the gun in a sock.

No DNA of Duggan was found on sock or gun--ok but did they find anyones DNA especially on the sock especially.?

Our opinions are often affected by our perceptions of the police and after Hillsborough and other cases its not always a positive perception.

Taxi driver must have seen Duggan unwind a window and hastily lob a something out of it.What was his testimony?

If Duggan was carrying a gun I have little sympathy for him.

I don't know how any of us is qualified to debate this

All the "information" we have comes from edited newspaper reports and attention seeking MPs looking for a fresh platform to stand on in an attempt to raise local profile

The coroners jury took months to evaluate the evidence which was presented to them after which they returned a verdict which included their belief that Duggan was in possession of a gun while he was in the taxi...This information came from the returns of the jury themselves

Consequently who are we to question their decisions when none of us spent a much as a minute at that inquest

Play with water and you get wet
Play with fire and you get burnt
Act like a big gangster and play with guns - you get shot.

Not happy he died but I have no sympathy for him.
He chose to life his life that way and ultimately it is what caused his death.

Regardless of whether people think it was right or wrong, the question was always -"was he killed lawfully ?" and the answer turned out to be yes. Doesn't matter if you agree with it or not, that's what happened