Mark Duggan "Lawfully Killed"

Never doubted it. Justice has been done and seen to be done.

No doubt this'll develop into another 'lets slag the Police and or justice system blah blah blah' thread:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
All I can see on bloody facebook is people saying how it's unfair and that the police are murderers, I'm sorry but he bought a hand gun, a weapon used for only one thing, you don't go out with a 9mm to sort a pest problem in the back garden. Although he was killed, death shouldn't be wished upon anyone but just think what his intentions were with the gun in the first place, the police have prevented that from happening. Full Stop. ;)
 
If he hadn't been implicated with having a gun in the first place he wouldn't have been shot.....simples!

The facts as I read them in the article are that there was credible evidence that he was in possession of a gun and it looks like he discarded it when he knew the police were on to him.

These sort of cases hack me off no end when he friends and family start making out the guy was a saint, he was carrying an unlicensed firearm in public, that's not the behaviour of an upstanding "normal" member of the public. Sounds like the race card is being played too but don't even get me started on that!

IMVHO it should be very clear cut...... I you are seen in public with an unlicensed firearm and/or acting in a manor that leads the police to believe you are carrying a gun and are likely to harm others, you stand a pretty decent chance of being shot......... if you don't get shot/killed then you can expect 25 years at her majesty's pleasure!
 
Seems clear cut to me too but what damage can/will be done by his apologists?
 
I'm very much of the opinion that armed police should be allowed to operate without concern of being pilloried for doing their jobs...watching the report you'd thing that Duggan was a font of innocence, while he may or may not have thrown away the gun as he got out of the car lets not forget that this is a man that was out and about in a car with a firearm with the intention of using it, nobody carries a weapon without the intention to use it if that situation arises
 
Let's not also forget he was already being followed by police before this incident. Armed police were called in after normal police thought he was in possession.

I don't think I've ever been followed by police in my life, that's probably because I'm not a criminal.
 
There's a couple of issues with this.

Firstly, the family, without as far as I can see any real evidence have decided that Duggan was 'executed'. As is usual in these cases, any number of people, some in positions where they should know better, the local MP for example, jump on the bandwagon and spout carefully spun information.
Unfortunate, that reinforces the ideas that the family have and it becomes self perpetuating.

The second is that the verdict is on the face of it contradictory. While the Acting Coroner did explain the law in his summing up, it's either not sunk in with some, or been deliberately ignored. I hope that there will be more explanation tomorrow from the Acting Coroner.

As for the outcome on the streets? If it rains and stays cold, hopefully at worst a little local disturbance. If it warms up a bit and doesn't rain..........I dread to think!
 
BRASH said:
Never doubted it. Justice has been done and seen to be done.

No doubt this'll develop into another 'lets slag the Police and or justice system blah blah blah' thread:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Yip, and unless anyone offering an opinion as to the rights or wrongs of the verdict have heard ALL that was said in court then their contribution is of no value.
 
BRASH said:
Seems to be the way with someone folk recently.
Click to expand...

Think there's a vast difference between an officer who abuses his position with a photographer and police officers putting their lives on the line in taking a gun off the streets.
 
gramps said:
Think there's a vast difference between an officer who abuses his position with a photographer and police officers putting their lives on the line in taking a gun off the streets.
Click to expand...
Do yeh? Pity not everyone does.
 
Did anyone see the news? I feel completely sorry for the police spokesman who had to deal with that mob of chav inbreds hurling abuse through the press togs, there's no respect, they may think an error has been committed but it wasn't the guy's fault, he was just reading the outcome of the case. Where does common sense lie these days? Under a rock? Did anyone notice that Duggan's family were wearing casual clothing in a high court? jesus, a suit goes a mile these days, £30 in Primani, get on the bloody case!
 
I think the problems will arise because the 'panel' have said they do not believe he was in possession of a gun at the time he was shot. Most people, like myself, will not have heard the reasons why he was then shot, and it will become unarmed man shot. The fact there was a belief he had the weapon before will be minimised by this fact for many, at headline level anyway.

Whilst I have little sympathy for people carrying weapons such as these, or knives etc, I can fully understand why his family would feel angered by it, and why others would feel uneasy about it not knowing the full facts (and perhaps knowing the full facts).

I generally respect the police for what they do, as I think most people do.

I do think 20-30 people chanting should not get publicity generally or taken as a sign of anything in particular. The family do deserve their say however.
 
They had reason to believe he was armed ... he was armed ... they make a judgment call - if you don't want the possible deadly outcome don't carry the gun!
 
Duggan was in unlawful possession of a starting pistol that had been coverted to fire a single shot, small handguns can only be lawfully possessed by a tiny minority of the public, and rightly so. The police knew very well that he had just bought that gun, they knew that he didn't have a S5 certificate for it:) and they had every reason to believe that he presented a real threat.

Therefore, if the officer who fired the fatal shots honestly believed that Duggan was holding a gun (which the jury found not to be the case) and presented a danger, either to him or to any other person, he acted lawfully when he shot him dead. The role of the jury here was simply to discover how Duggan met his death and whether or not the police acted lawfully, and they clearly did as it's really all about what the police officer truly believed at the time, not about the reality. The fact that he wasn't holding the gun, and the fact that he had never actually held it himself, is irrelevant when it comes to the Inquest's finding of fact.

But I think it's reasonable for his family and friends to think that the police executed him - personally I find American Pit Bull Terriers terrifying, but no doubt the people who (illegally) own them think that they're sweet and gentle. No doubt Duggan's family felt the same about him. And there's history of police shooting unarmed people and being found to have acted lawfully, and maybe they don't understand the difference between a finding in law that the police acted lawfully and a finding that they acted correctly.

Plus, the original announcement following the shooting was that the police returned fire after Duggan fired and hit one of the officers. That statement was untrue, it was in fact made by the IPCC (presumably after being briefed by the police) but maybe the family, like many other people, don't see any real difference between the IPCC and the police.

And then there are the questions about the police account of what happened, so of course the family, and many of the local people, have concerns.
 
I'd agree, at the start of this, the family certainly didn't understand the difference, and possibly the 'friends' not too. However, from day 2 they had a great deal of legal support, and even if they didn't understand on Day 1, they must have done by then.

I put 'friends' in inverted commas for a reason, those that demonstrated outside Tottenham Nick the following Saturday demanding Police explanations were in all probability people who maybe knew of but not knew Duggan. Although it also shows that there was (is) a lack of understanding that the IPCC is totally independent of Police. In any case no one should have been demanding explanations before anythings been investigated.

However, it is certain that the IPCC cocked up massively. It was them that released information to the press, at which point they did have the initial accounts from the officers concerned and therefore part of the IPCC were 100% aware that the Police Officer being shot was a blue on blue. This was also given in evidence by the SIO and the officers.

Either way, excuses being made that the family don't understand this or that now, or really without foundation. Their QC's are some of the best Barristers about, albeit, I don't agree with their motivation, I do admire their ability. To suggest that Mansfield hadn't explained everything in the smallest detail over a 2 year period to his clients is laughable.

I'd be much more concerned about a number of issues that lead to the concerns about Police accounts. Primary in those is the lack of trust in the IPCC by Police Officers. Which is what leads to very short initial accounts and declining to be interviewed, preferring to produce a statement instead. It only takes the IPCC to treat the officers concerned as witnesses, not, as they apparently do as witnesses, that we'll prosecute given half a chance.

Secondly is the process driven policing that again leads to messy and reluctant accounts. If you are going to be hung for not doing something minor and irrelevant to the case, simply because the good book says it, then people are going to try and hide small mistakes. Which also links to the way the IPCC operate.

Someone's just been on Sky news suggesting that police officers are given those small cameras that record everything. I'd agree with that idea. I suspect the anti police lobby wouldn't like it (at least in private) as it would certainly lead to a huge reduction in allegations against police. In this particular case it may well have saved all of this unhappiness too.
 
People in the cold light of day when everything is calm cannot judge the decision that HAD to be taken in a split second when facing a known criminal with a history of being armed/using guns who was factually reported to be armed.

In that position you either take the shot or you put yourself and your colleagues at a very high risk of being shot.
He was not executed, they quite rightly took the shot based on the threat they faced

He was a drug dealer, a known criminal, a gun carrier/user, a gang member and by all accounts violent, I dont see any loss to the community from his death.

Personally as far as I'm concerned its one less oxygen thief.
 
Bernie174 said:
Either way, excuses being made that the family don't understand this or that now, or really without foundation. Their QC's are some of the best Barristers about, albeit, I don't agree with their motivation, I do admire their ability. To suggest that Mansfield hadn't explained everything in the smallest detail over a 2 year period to his clients is laughable.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be right of me to guess at Michael Mansfield's motivation on these cases involving the police. All that I will say on that subject is that when he was a young radical lawyer he believed that he had very good reason to be suspicious of the police. I didn't know him well, we were a very long way apart politically but I respected his integrity, and still do. His ex wife and my ex wife were close friends, so he was more of a friend of a friend than anything else.

Whether or not MM has explained everything very thoroughly to the family or not is neither here nor there. Do you really feel that they have the background, education and willingness to learn to take all that in? As an ex police officer yourself, you must know better than that. You may not have been on the Broadwater FE, I have, but you must know what a lot of the people on similar estates are like.
 
Garry
I spent a very unpleasant evening on the BFE. You probably remember that night too, one of my colleagues was murdered.

Do I believe that the family were capable of grasping the difference between the IPCC and the Police? yes, I do. They may be lots of things but the immediate family are not stupid. It was Mansfield and the Solicitor's job to explain everything, the IPCC's role and the law on self defence to the family. Mansfield is certainly eloquent, and certainly has a lot of experience of the non Public School people of the world. I'll be honest, I think they understand the verdict only to well. Unfortunately though it's not what they wanted. Although to be fair, how much of the current reaction was whipped up by "advisors"?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I remember that night very well. The colleague who was murdered happened to live very close to me, although I had seen him around, I didn't know him. At the time of the riots, I was just a street away from there
If you were there then you will know that his murder was avoidable, but it needed a police senior officer with the balls to actually send his men in.
I don't doubt that everything has been explained to the family, but unlike you I do wonder about their ability to understand it. They may understand that the IPCC are independent of the police, although they probably also feel, as I do (based on experience) that they are ineffective, under resourced and that their terms of reference are far too limited for them to be actually useful.
But their understanding of the law of self defence, which justified the shooting of Duggan, is possibly a different matter. Many people of limited intelligence and even more limited education gain their legal "knowledge" from their equally ignorant friends. They don't listen to "Toffs".
 
Jury decision, done and dusted.

The families are just trying to cash in with a little publicity, before they become just 'those people that raised that thug that got shot'.
 
BRASH said:
Never doubted it. Justice has been done and seen to be done.

No doubt this'll develop into another 'lets slag the Police and or justice system blah blah blah' thread:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't think their was anyone slagging of The Police or The Justice System in that other thread ...most of us where just shocked at the one persons behaviour. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

.
 
gramps said:
They don't want to understand it, nothing to do with intellectual ability, they are anti-police, anti-establishment, anti-whatever.
Click to expand...


People like the Duggans, and those who support them, are "anti" ordinary people - the rest of us. They feel aggrieved when people stand up to them and expect them to follow the rules/laws which the rest of us abide by. They would like to have a no go area in the whole of Broadwater Farm, a place where ordinary people constantly live in fear of the gangs, the drug running, the constant gun and knife crime violence.
I have zero sympathy for these people, particularly wannabe "gangstas" who demand "respect" by carrying guns.
Don't carry a gun - don't get shot - simples!
 
BRASH said:
Never doubted it. Justice has been done and seen to be done.

No doubt this'll develop into another 'lets slag the Police and or justice system blah blah blah' thread:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


You seem to believe that most people on here are incapable of looking at each situation differently. I (and I suspect many others) are able to look at each situation and judge it on its merits/information available.
 
andy700 said:
People like the Duggans, and those who support them, are "anti" ordinary people - the rest of us. They feel aggrieved when people stand up to them and expect them to follow the rules/laws which the rest of us abide by. They would like to have a no go area in the whole of Broadwater Farm, a place where ordinary people constantly live in fear of the gangs, the drug running, the constant gun and knife crime violence.
I have zero sympathy for these people, particularly wannabe "gangstas" who demand "respect" by carrying guns.
Don't carry a gun - don't get shot - simples!
Click to expand...

I think you've hit the nail on the head there........

The sort of people that expect to be handed a job, house, car and all the trimmings on a plate and are jealous of all those that have those things because they go out and work hard to earn them.

But of course it's not them.... it's everyone else
 
andy700 said:
Don't carry a gun - don't get shot - simples!
Click to expand...

The police do occasionally get it wrong - Its a hard call - ask the family of Jean Charles de Menezes - He wasn't carrying a gun...

As a FYI - I served 2 tours of Northern Ireland with the Parachute Regiment, & have been shot at & morter shelled.
I think the correct decision was reached in this case but its hard on everyone. Its a incident you really don't want to be involved in on both sides.
The family have suffered a loss that in 'their eyes' shouldn't have happened.
They do deserve our sympathy however much we disagree with the outcome.
 
andy700 said:
You seem to believe that most people on here are incapable of looking at each situation differently. I (and I suspect many others) are able to look at each situation and judge it on its merits/information available.
Click to expand...

Really? You don't have a clue what I believe or not and don't dare to presume you do.
 
Last edited:
Forbiddenbiker said:
I don't think their was anyone slagging of The Police or The Justice System in that other thread ...most of us where just shocked at the one persons behaviour. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

.
Click to expand...
Is that right now?
 
BRASH said:
Never doubted it. Justice has been done and seen to be done.

No doubt this'll develop into another 'lets slag the Police and or justice system blah blah blah' thread:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Why would it? The video of the incident was not uploaded to youtube so we can't pass comment on it one way or the other.
 
POAH said:
Why would it? The video of the incident was not uploaded to youtube so we can't pass comment on it one way or the other.
Click to expand...
Aye jury by effin youtube. Is that how we judge things these days. No wonder I have little faith in people's ability suss fact from fiction. I give up:rolleyes:
 
The "Video", isn't of the incident, the quality is very poor, and actually shows very little. There's not much there to judge anything on.

Garry, it's not often I agree with you, but on the IPCC, at least in it's problems, I do. The causes however, I don't. The IPCC are too hell bent on finding fault with police and hanging people for minor matters. The approach does them no favours. A better way of doing it is to genuinely look at what can be learned, not pretend thats the case but look at ways of prosecuting police with dubious evidence. That way, Police Officers would be more willing to speak to them, and that would speed things up no end. It would also show them to be truly independent, ie of both sides. It's a far better way of doing things that the current plans of introducing legislation to force the issue, which doesn't work. In the same way as Police can only do thier job by being impartial, the IPCC need to be the same, currently, they are not seen to be.

Diving Pete

We could also ask the Parachute Regiment, in particular Pvt Clegg. Now, actually, I have always held the opinion that he should never have been convicted, but his case is an example of the point made by the Coroner in this case, about heat of the moment. However, Politics being what it is, Pvt Clegg was hung for it.

Anyway, there are parallels with Stockwell, no chummy there wasn't armed, but the Police Officers believed he had a bomb, it was a genuine belief, and therefore the self defence argument applied. In the same way as if the Jury are correct about what happened to the gun, it does in Duggan's case.

It seems that even educated people can't understand the reasoning in the Stockewell incident and constantly harp in the wrong direction there, but then they don't have their own QC advising them!
 
BRASH said:
Aye jury by effin youtube. Is that how we judge things these days. No wonder I have little faith in people's ability suss fact from fiction. I give up:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

no idea what jury by youtube means but if you get recorded on camera doing something you shouldn't can't see how else you take it. granted something are not clear cut or they don't record the whole incident but some actions are not excusable no matter the circumstances which you seem to be forgetting. you don't happen to be or have been a policeman do you?
 
POAH said:
no idea what jury by youtube means but if you get recorded on camera doing something you shouldn't can't see how else you take it. granted something are not clear cut or they don't record the whole incident but some actions are not excusable no matter the circumstances which you seem to be forgetting. you don't happen to be or have been a policeman do you?
Click to expand...

Ha ha. As I've discussed before I've been locked up and beaten up, cautioned and charged by the Police and have more reason than most to knock them but I don't. It just hacks me off to hear people slag them off when the are ignorant of the full facts. This not only goes for the cops but all Emergency Services and the Armed Forces. Easy targets and I don't go for it.

If you care to check my previous posts you'll see I've voiced support for the NHS, Firemen, Teachers, other public sector workers in general and the Armed Forces. I don't work for any of them neither.

Now, if I'm through in Glasgow any time and you need any electrical work done I do have a very compitative hourly rate.
 
Last edited:
no idea what jury by youtube means but if you get recorded on camera doing something you shouldn't can't see how else you take it
Click to expand...

It means like any film it can be faked, edited or spun to give a false impression, intentionally or otherwise. Therefore judging something by just a video, as we has been proven time and time again in the courts its a dangerous thing to do.
 
Bernie174 said:
The "Video", isn't of the incident, the quality is very poor, and actually shows very little. There's not much there to judge anything on.

Garry, it's not often I agree with you, but on the IPCC, at least in it's problems, I do. The causes however, I don't. The IPCC are too hell bent on finding fault with police and hanging people for minor matters. The approach does them no favours. A better way of doing it is to genuinely look at what can be learned, not pretend thats the case but look at ways of prosecuting police with dubious evidence. That way, Police Officers would be more willing to speak to them, and that would speed things up no end. It would also show them to be truly independent, ie of both sides. It's a far better way of doing things that the current plans of introducing legislation to force the issue, which doesn't work. In the same way as Police can only do thier job by being impartial, the IPCC need to be the same, currently, they are not seen to be.

Diving Pete

We could also ask the Parachute Regiment, in particular Pvt Clegg. Now, actually, I have always held the opinion that he should never have been convicted, but his case is an example of the point made by the Coroner in this case, about heat of the moment. However, Politics being what it is, Pvt Clegg was hung for it.

Anyway, there are parallels with Stockwell, no chummy there wasn't armed, but the Police Officers believed he had a bomb, it was a genuine belief, and therefore the self defence argument applied. In the same way as if the Jury are correct about what happened to the gun, it does in Duggan's case.

It seems that even educated people can't understand the reasoning in the Stockewell incident and constantly harp in the wrong direction there, but then they don't have their own QC advising them!
Click to expand...
Your experiences of the IPCC and mine are clearly different, although we have come to much the same conclusion.
They seem to me to have multiple problems
1. Their terms of reference are far too limited, they can basically only investigate complaints about the way that the police PSD departments have conducted their investigation, they can't re-investigate the actual complaint.
2. The PSD investigations are frequently not carried out to a standard of impartiality that anyone outside the police force is likely to be happy with, and as long as they have ticked the boxes and appear to have done the job, they are automatically in the clear as far as the IPCC is concerned.
3. Even if the IPCC find that the PSD investigation should have been more thorough, they are very fond of saying that "given the passage of time that has now elapsed, nothing is likely to be gained from further investigation".
4. They don't have the powers they need
5. They don't have the resources they need.

I do however agree with you on one important point. Both they and at least one PSD department (I only have experience of one) seem to be very keen to find fault with low ranking officers who, perhaps, have made a slight clerical error or similar. But anyone higher up the ladder seems to be protected by the people whose job it is to investigate them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top