Well the verdict is in [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mark-duggan-inquest-family-say-we-still-fight-for-justice-as-jury-finds-london-man-was-lawfully-killed-9046813.htmland here is one report.[/url
I found myself getting angry when it was announced and found myself siding with those shouting down the mouthpiece officer as he was attempting to give his comments.

Have I any right to logically feel this way? After all I wasn't there at the scene of the shooting and I don't have all the evidence and I didn't have to come to a considered verdict.
So I am coming from a position of ignorance, which isn't good I admit.

But Hillsborough and de Menezes spring to mind.
I would like someone to convince me that my feelings are unfounded.

And why were the police so confrontational anyway?
Was there not another way?

Is it right to put an officer into this kind of life or death split second decision situation?

Sounds like a typical Police balls-up.... However, I struggle to have any sympathy for somebody who embraces the lifestyle that Duggan obviously did.

What's the old saying.... 'He who lives by the sword.....'??

Yes, but that is part of the problem that we and more importantly the police have.
Prejudging a situation and the person involved.

From my position of ignorance I think the decision was sound and correct based on evidence heard. As I understand it the principal findings of the jury were that he had a gun, which he had thrown away shortly before being shot and that the shooting was lawful (in that it was within the law pertaining to firearms officers). The question, I suppose is whether or not the evidence presented had been doctored or not.

So an unarmed black man was shot dead by a police officer? Tupac would have had a field day with this one

It's dem police, dey all hate de black man, innit

That might account for racist policing then.

How do you suggest the police deal with people they expect to be armed criminals on their way to commit a crime?

The issue of the gun. If it was Duggan's then TBH I have no sympathy for him. If the police planted it then there are massive problems facing the police with criminals inside the force and police criminally protecting them.

For me, I choose to believe he threw the gun when getting out of the car. I don't think the cops would have planted the gun as far away from the body as he threw it. If you're going to execute a guy and plant a gun why would you be planting it so far from him?

I agree - However, I think people like Duggan are a stain on society and, as such, I won't lose any sleep over his demise.

To compare his death with Hillsborough is laughable - One was the death of 96 innocent people watching a football match, the other was the death of a toerag who would probably have met an early death anyway - Unfortunately, it just happened to be at the hands of the police, giving his family and cohorts the chance to have their time in the limelight, crying injustice and other laughable nonsense.

There is still an IPCC enquiry into this incident so posters should be very careful what they write.
I doubt whether any of you have ever been in a position to make a shoot/no shoot decision in a split second. Much easier to judge from behind the safety of the keyboard, eh?

I have zero sympathy for the Mark Duggans of this World. He chose his lifestyle, and was apparently well known as a gang member to most people in his area. You carry a gun, and given the rise in gun crimes in London, then you must surely expect that one day you will face the lethal consequences of such bravado, in the shape of a better armed, better trained Policeman.

As for the antics outside the Court of that braying mob....dear God, did that woman actually give a clenched fist salute at the end of her diatribe?......I simply compare the attitude of the parents of Lee Rigby with these people, and shake my head at their ignorance.

It's not the events I am comparing, I would have thought that obvious.
It's what happened after the events.
The police interpretations of what happened.

I assume in cases like the Duggan case that the officers are separated as quickly as possible and that they are then interviewed separately and that those reports are secure.

It wasn't a good start with the first release stating that shots were exchanged when they weren't.

[url=http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdfHere is a clear reading of the jury's decision in favour of 'lawful killing' in this case.[/url

I can fully understand why the jury came to its conclusion given the situation as described and shown on TV, which is all most of us know about this incident anyway. If the jury believed the police officer to have genuinely considered himself and/or his colleagues under imminent threat of death then I can't see how they could have concluded that the shooting was anything other than lawful given the presence of a gun and knowing as he or she did that Duggan was a highly placed member of the most violent gang in London.

It's no surprise that Duggan's family are up in arms but perhaps they should consider the lifestyle their son lived and how that lifestyle had its potential consequences.

You assume wrongly unfortunately.

The police are allowed to confer before submitting themselves to interview (not compulsory), or even writing up their notebooks

How do you feel about that?

Couldn't agree more. Anyone who chooses to live by the sword can have no complaints when another sword cuts back. Trash like him are a scourge on society, they think they're above the law and have no qualms about hurting others, and I'll go as far to say I'm actually pleased that scum is off the streets. No sympathy whatsoever.

His family is another matter. Whether they're innocently or deliberately naive, or simply astoundingly blind to his activities, his mother (and aunt) raised him and loved him and he's been taken away. No parent should have to bury their children. Her anger is entirely understandable.

When guns are in play and police are required to arm themselves and make split-second decisions of life and death, occasionally incidents will occur that raise questions. But when armed police have been deployed around 13,000 times between 2010 and 2012 and shots are fired on only 4 occasions, we can hardly say they're trigger-happy, irresponsible, or out executing people. To suggest otherwise is laughable.

How the gun ended up 20 feet away seems to be the key point for debate and it seems entirely plausible it could have been thrown by Duggan. But the fact is that he was possession of the weapon immediately prior to being shot, and that for me vindicates the officer. It was known he was carrying a weapon and as such they have to treat the situation accordingly.

Occasionally - extremely rarely - police have been shown to collude and conspire. But let's remember there are hundreds of thousands of criminal investigations, arrests, trials, judgements, etc that are entirely fair and just, and the vast majority of police do an honest job. Unfortunately in the light of a few dodgy incidences too many people now take the stupid line and decide anything slightly controversial must be a conspiracy.


"Right lads, who fired those shots? Dave? Right Dave, stand 20 metres over there. Andy, you go and sit in the van. Barry, you go and stand over the road. Kev, sit down in the corner and face the wall. I'll wait by the bus stop over there. Remember now, no talking.
"What do you mean, secure the crime scene?"

Have the riots started yet?

How did he get out of the taxi, with his hands in the air?

Gravely concerned. A group of allegedly conspiring criminals would certainly not be offered the same facility

Some people have no choice but to embrace chaotic lifestyles because every other option is probably dire. Not everyone has the willpower to live legitimately when the capitalist system keeps kicking them down.

I haven't heard any of the evidence at all, haven't seen any of the coverage (was away all day yesterday), haven't read anything in the newspapers yet, but my initial reaction is the same as yours, he who lives by the sword etc etc.

For anyone critical of the police and what they have to deal with on a daily basis, think what your daily life would be like if you didn't have a police force to deal with the scum of society, the sort of people who would routinely carry a gun, the sort who's lifestyle includes drunkeness and drug-addled and the accompanying abdication of responsibility that those habits introduce, the sort who would call the police to their house and then shoot two of them for no reason that they can explain, and the sort of people who would steal cars for a laugh and then encourage a pursuit putting dozens of lives at risk.

And some of those police officers are doing it voluntarily.

A criminal gets killed every now and again from actions that he initiates himself - tough.

Are you on a wind up?

No, I'm Just offering another point of view.

But he was living the capitalist dream - just the products his gang were dealing are illegal but they do generate 'Super normal profits'. Unlikely Mr Duggan was too concerned about the misery he was inflicting when he was down at the jewellers spending his tax free profits?

He was hardly living the capitalist dream as a low end drug dealer. If he was then he would had surrounded himself with wealth and not poverty. Kim Dotcom is a better example of a criminal living the capitalist dream.

A bit of jewelry doesn't take you into capitalist dreamland..