I'm no expert on firearms, and like others haven't read the full details of the case, but I do wonder why, based on the fact that he may have had a gun (or may not have) at the time, the highly trained coppers didn't seek to incapacitate him (instead of using lethal force) with a shot to the shoulder of the arm carrying the alleged weapon, then one to the leg to knock him down. Why shoot him in the chest?

This was what I was most shocked by. Clenched fist salute "no peace without justice" other than shout "lets riot" they couldn't have gone much further in instigating a riot. Deliberate or naive? The aunt seemed eloquent enough that it wasn't naive stupidity. Anyway, little bit of celebrity for her.

On Duggan: I have very little sympathy for a gun carrying drug dealer. I have every sympathy for the police going about their business being faced with someone suspected to be armed and dangerous.

My concern is not that the officer acted within the law, given the circumstances, but that he mistakenly shot Mark Duggan.
This is deemed acceptable in the very difficult circumstances that the officer found himself in and I have every sympathy if someone thinks that their life is in danger.
I in no way think that an officer would have any reason to execute someone, so for the family to claim that is quite outrageous.
But the fact remains that this man was shot by mistake and I would hope that lessons will be learned in terms of how people are apprehended. The old movie cops would have been behind their cars for protection ordering him to come out with his hands up not sticking their nose into his face.
Is there a procedure in cases like this, not least for the protection of the officers?
Or is it all suck it and see?

I have no sympathy for Mark Duggan and his criminal ways, but I am concerned that he was killed in error and I do hope that the police themselves do not take the attitude that these things happen occasionally ...tough!
That Duggan was a villain and he is no great loss is an understandable but slightly worrying aspect in viewing the legitimacy of his killing.

We live in one of the wealthiest countries with some of the greatest opportunities opportunities to do what you want and live comfortably. You're in the lucky 10% of the world population. If you can't do it here, you won't do it anywhere else.

Chris, firearms officers are trained to shoot to stop the subject continuing to be a threat. (This is a different philosophy to that of armed forces training). To stop effectively and efficiently you are taught to aim for the centre of the largest area, the torso. The idea of aimed shots into the shoulder (which is a terrible place to receive a bullet) or any other specific part of the body is a total fantasy and only happens in the movies. No matter how good you are at hitting a target on a range, hitting a person who is moving is very difficult indeed. Firearms officers also have to be extremely aware of the "backdrop" during an incident and minimise danger to anyone who finds themselves nearby; being trained to aim at the centre of the target mass minimises the risk to third parties. Like you I have limited information about what took place in this specific incident, but I am trying to explain some of the practical issues firearms officers face on the rare occasions when firearms are drawn, and even rarer occasions when shots are fired.

I thought he was in the back seat of a car wasn't he? And the police were in another car that pulled up alongside. Which would make it very difficult to shoot him in the leg.




If it hadn't been for the thing about the gun being found over a hedge on the street and not on Mark Duggan's body or in the car then I'd have much more sympathy for the Police's position on this.

I understand that if you're an armed police officer following a man you believe often carries a firearm, is a member or leader of a gang responsible for several murders and shootings, you've got information he had a gun earlier today and then when you stop the car he starts bending down or appears to be reaching for something that you've got a very difficult decision to make very quickly. Hesitate and you, your colleagues or a passerby could be shot. Fire and you could be shooting when you don't have a reason to. So the actual officer that shot him I don't have any reason to doubt did it for the "right reasons" so to speak.

What worries me is this gun found over a hedge. It might well be the case that Duggan did actually throw it out of the car window, which might be why the officer shot Duggan as he thought Duggan was going to use rather than throw the gun. But unfortunately there are too many cases of the police closing ranks and lying or misleading for me to just instantly believe them when something like this happens.

I also think the family and some members of "the community" have been pathetic on this. The scenes outside and inside the court were ridiculous. I'm sure they're upset at their loss, but in the end if he hadn't been known to carry a gun and wasn't a member of a violent and vicious gang then armed police wouldn't have even been there.

The story is a perfect illustration of one huge difference between UK and US, though. The incident wouldn't have merited half a column inch over there. I agree largely with Him, but we should all be grateful that life, and the right to it, is held in so much greater regard over here.

You see that’s my issue with it, I agree with what you said regarding the gun being over the hedge. But my worry is how the police, knowing how difficult incapacitating him in that vehicle would be, and knowing all they knew about the threat he caused, ever expected that situation to end any differently to what it did. What was the outcome they hoped for by pulling up alongside in the car?

What I can't reconcile is the account of the shooter with the finding that Duggan was not holding a gun:


The only way that could make sense is if Duggan was holding something the shooter thought was a gun - but wasn't. And made the rather big mistake of pointing whatever it was at armed police - after already being shot once. It makes no sense to me. If Duggan HAD been holding a gun and had been shot in possession, then it would at least be understandable -if unwise - if he had raised his own weapon to try to fire back, but if we accept he was not holding a gun then how to explain the police account? It's not like "Ihe had something which I thought could be a gun", or "looked like a gun"; the account is unequivocal.

Sorry to ask you to do my donkey work FA, but seeing as you are on the case so to speak, can you furnish me with the account of how the gun was thrown into the field.
I am not questioning that Duggan threw it or suggesting that it was planted.
It's just that for Duggan to throw it there he had to have opened the door or wound the window down at some stage.
Now I can tell, as a driver, if this has occurred.
What did the taxi driver say?

If he wasnt a member of that gang. If he wasnt carrying a gun.

The taxi he was in wouldnt have been stopped would it?

Only himself to blame.

I was just about to post the same thing. To be fair to the US police they have to deal with nutters with guns far far more frequently than we do so you can understand that they're more likely to "shoot first" so to speak. I remember seeing on one those police camera action type tv shows a police officer just pulls over a bloke just to give him a speeding ticket and as soon as he gets alongside the side window the bloke pulls out a gun and shoots the police officer.

But they are still too reckless and gung-ho over there.


I agree to a point. I'm only going off memory here so apologies if I'm wrong but didn't the police think he was on his way to commit a murder? So would have to stop the car he was in rather than wait til he got to his destination. I might be wrong on that though.
But if they've decided they need to stop the car I'm not sure what the best way is to be honest, if you just sit behind and put blue lights on you're relying on him pulling over and not driving off and then you've got a pursuit on your hands.

As I said, my biggest issue is with the gun. Either how did it get out of the car and over a hedge? Or as FA points out, if it was thrown that doesn't tally with the officer's statement. Unfortunately I'm very sceptical of the police in this kind of situation as I think their first reaction is just to close ranks.

It's one of the topics on the Jeremy Vine Show right now.

That seems a pretty poor justification for summary execution doesn’t it?

A court of law has proved that didnt happen. So your point is?

Actually a court of law decided that a firearms officer’s response to the specific threat he faced was lawful.

It did not decide that it was ok for the reasons you highlighted. Had the justification you highlighted been the justification they used, it is likely that officer would be facing a murder charge.

A court of law has decided that this didn't happen.
They haven't proved it.

Just to make it 100% accurate,

You are correct.

The family's solicitor Marcia Willis Stewart seemed to use rather emotive language outside the court too...



The jury said that they believed the police officer when he stated that he had an honest and reasonable belief that Mark Duggan still had the gun when he shot him.

Surely a solicitor should understand that that is all that is required ?

I don't know if there was any direct evidence positively explaining how the gun came to be where it was other than the Guardian reported the taxi driver as saying:

According to the IPCC at the time, the evidence that Duggan got out and ran was corroborated by at least one officer.

Again according to the Guardian:

It will be interesting to read what they say about that when they produce their final report, although due to their misinformation and criticisms of their investigation, its conclusions are doomed before they are ever even made. As well as the other many curious aspects - including the police moving the car from the scene and then bringing it back - it being initially denied that they had authorised this.

Cheers FA.
It's all very murky, which is a bit depressing.

I should think the solicitor's problem is that the officer gave firm and unequivocal evidence that Duggan definitely had a gun, and that the gun was pointed at the officer. Not "something that looked like a gun", but very specifically, a gun in a sock. And a gun in a sock was recovered from the scene, so that gun. So taking the jury's findings at face value, if they find that Duggan had no gun at that time, but was specifically said to have been shot because he not only had a gun but was pointing it at police, then the question would be on what any such "honest and reasonable belief" could possibly be based. I must admit that one beats me. As would any suggestion that an experienced and highly trained firearms officer could be certain he saw a gun in a sock where there was no such thing.

agree with that

Based on what I've read I don't think there was a case for recording a verdict of unlawful killing. But I was surprised that, having decided that Duggan didn't have a gun when he was shot, they didn't record an open verdict.