Mark Duggan was not armed when shot by police

[Terpit]

Well IMO the police knew he had a gun on him. As far as we know, he pointed a sock at them (it was found inside a sock right? common sense to carry it that way, dna, finger prints etc), they shot him knowing he was an armed, violent and nasty tnuc

i dont think that's acting like American police at all, doing more harm than good? stnuc that carry guns need a good bullet in the chest

[bennyfroobs]

the bush gun was clearly planted tbh. theres been a few witnesses saying they saw a policeman plant it, there was also cctv footage of an officer slyly walking over to where the planted firearm was found on the night of the incident. surely duggans DNA would be on the gun, or the sock? and not just the box that it was supposedly kept in? (that couldve just been any old random box with his dna on fs) if they knew the gun was in the box, how did the gun magically teleport from inside the box to behind the fence? if it was behind the fence all along how would they have known it was originally inside the box? such a load of bollocks lol

this whole case stinks. the amount of inconsistencies from the police is ridiculous. there was a good amount of officers who gave statements in favour of duggan being unarmed the whole time. cant remember the article i read recently that highlighted the huge amount of inconsistencies, it might have been the guardian or independent i forget which one.

deplorable imo

[m8son666]

lol you're more of a paranoid conspiracy theorist than i thought you were benny

[bennyfroobs]

the vast majority of witness reports didn't say he pointed a sock at them. that was actually slyly added into the police report about 4 days after the actual incident. the original reports didnt say anything about a sock, a gun, nothing. their excuse for this was "yeah, the initial reports are intentionally brief". really, so brief that you leave out the important fact that someone was pointing a sock gun at you?

smells like bullturds

[m8son666]

have you got a link to the initial reports? havn't actually read them tbh

[DJoe]

@terpit

no thats the whole point He didn't point a gun at them ffs. There isn't a shred of evidence that he did and plenty of evidence that he didn't. read the inquest report or there is no point in forming an oppinion. (the sock didnt have his dna on it anyway but not important, well leave that to the conspiracy theorists).

Its not the polices place to shoot someone just because they are armed (he wasn't armed), violent and nasty stnuc. its their place to arrest him and he can then get the right sentence etc.

Carrying a gun isn't punsihable by death, besides we dont have the death penalty in this country.

It has done far more harm than good by straining police-public relations massively, if that didn't need happening more. look at the riots ffs

The police in england should not be shooting first asking questions later. and definitely should be consistent afterwards with their explanations etc.

[DJoe]

[Terpit]

if the police shot a gang member who had a gun in his car over here, i would be glad, one less scum bag on the streets. how many people do you reckon he's assaulted/mugged/raped? because come on, only serious people carry guns in their vehicles

[bennyfroobs]

thats not the initial police report, thats a misleading and incorrect newspaper article

as i said before, the policeman shot himself lol (or was shot by one of his collegues), the round was from an mp5

[m8son666]

have you got a link to the initial reports? havn't actually read them tbh

[bennyfroobs]

yeah www.google.com

[m8son666]

lol i have tried google all that comes up is newspaper articles, do you not remember where you saw it?

[DJoe]

if the police shot a gang member who had a gun in his car over here, i would be glad, one less scum bag on the streets. how many people do you reckon he's assaulted/mugged/raped? because come on, only serious people carry guns in their vehicles

Your missing the point completely. We have courts, juries, judges for a reason in this country and an innocent until proven guilty system, the police carried out an operation and he he was alive he would have been arrested and probably imprisoned. he would have been off the streets if he hadn't been killed anyway.

what happened instead was that a man not behaving in a manner that put anyone's life at risk was shot once, then shot again fatally whilst falling. this triggered (not the only cause, and not justification for) a riot which caused millions of pounds worth of damage and led to 4 people losing their lives.

The police officer responsible for shooting mark duggan has not been charged and the killing deemed lawful (oxymoron?). this policeman has kept has job and suffered 0 professional or legal consequences.

Has the good outweighed the bad?



@mason
my memory was that 2 shots were reported being fired, the fist from duggan's gun and that a radio saved a policemans life. i can't find anything anymore either.

The police statement was retracted though but it was widely reported on, immediately falsely informing the public and justifying the shooting

[Terpit]

tbh none of us were there so we don't know what happened, how do you know the witnesses aren't as anti police as you are?

he could have been threatening to shoot the police as far as we know, is there any video footage? or just unreliable witness accounts?

[DJoe]

read the fucking inquest report

INQUEST TOUCHING UPON THE DEATH OF MARK DUGGAN
1
Form 2

Record of an inquest

The following is the record of the inquest (including the statutory determination and,
where required, findings) –

1. Name of the deceased (if known):
Mark Wayne Duggan

2. Medical cause of death:
Gunshot wound to the chest


3. How, when and where, and for investigations where section 5(2) of the Coroners
and Justice Act 2009 applies, in what circumstances the deceased came by his or
her death:

a) when;
4 August 2011 at 18.41

b) where;
Ferry Lane

c) how;

Question 1
In the period between midday 3rd August and when state Amber was called at
6.00pm on 4th August 2011, did the MPS and SOCA do the best they
realistically could have done to gather and react to intelligence about the
possibility of Mr Duggan collecting a gun from Mr Hutchinson Foster?

If no, what more could have been expected of them?
- With respect to the Trident investigation, there was not enough
current intelligence and information on Kevin Hutchinson
Foster. There was no emphasis on exhausting all avenues which
could have affected reaction and subsequent actions.

- Insufficient information regarding any relevant intelligence
gathering or activity on Mark Duggan or Kevin Hutchinson
Foster between 9pm on 3 August (after surveillance lost him)
until new intelligence came in from A10 on 4 August. INQUEST TOUCHING UPON THE DEATH OF MARK DUGGAN
2
Question 2
Was the stop conducted in a location and in a way which minimised to the
greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force?

If no, what more could have been expected of them?














Question 3
Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the
stop?






INQUEST TOUCHING UPON THE DEATH OF MARK DUGGAN
3
Question 4
How did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found?

8:2

The Jury, in a majority of 9:1, concluded that Mark Duggan
threw the firearm onto the grass.

Of the 9, 8 have concluded that it is more likely than not, that
Mark Duggan threw the firearm as soon as the minicab came
to a stop and prior to any officers being on the pavement.

1 concluded that Mark Duggan threw the firearm whilst on the
pavement and in the process of evading the police.

1 juror was not convinced of any supposition that Mark
Duggan threw the firearm from the vehicle or from the
pavement because no witnesses gave evidence to this effect.




INQUEST TOUCHING UPON THE DEATH OF MARK DUGGAN
4
Question 5
When Mr Duggan received the fatal shot did he have the gun in his hand?

If you are sure that he did not have a gun in his hand then tick the box
accordingly and then go on to consider unlawful killing, lawful killing or an
open conclusion;



If you find that it was more likely than not that he did have a gun in his hand
tick the box accordingly and then go on to consider lawful killing or an open
conclusion;




if you conclude that it is more likely than not that he did not have a gun in his
hand then tick the box accordingly and go on to consider lawful killing or an
open conclusion.



INQUEST TOUCHING UPON THE DEATH OF MARK DUGGAN
5
Conclusions - lawful/unlawful killing and open conclusion
Unlawful. You have to be sure that the act was unlawful – that is that it was not
done in lawful self defence or defence of another or in order to prevent crime. It is
not for V53 to prove that he did act lawfully – before you conclude that his act
was unlawful, you must be sure that it was unlawful.

Any person is entitled to use reasonable force to defend himself or another from
injury, attack or threat of attack. If V53 may have been defending himself or one
of his colleagues then go on to consider two matters:

1) Did V53 honestly believe or may he honestly have believed, even if that
belief is mistaken, that at the time he fired the fatal shot, that he needed to use
force to defend himself or another; if your answer is NO then he cannot have
been acting in lawful self defence and you can put that issue to one side; if
your answer is YES then go on to consider:
2) Was the force used – the fatal shot – reasonable in all the circumstances?
Obviously if someone is under attack from someone he genuinely believes is
violent and armed – then that person cannot be expected to weigh up precisely
the amount of force needed to prevent that attack. But if he goes over top and
acts out of proportion to the threat then he would not be using reasonable force
and his action would be unlawful.

The question whether the degree of force used by V53 was reasonable in the
circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as V53 believed
them to be – but the degree of force is not to be regarded as reasonable in the
circumstances as V53 believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those
circumstances.

(Alternatively a police officer may use lawful force to prevent crime. Here two
points arise:
1) Did V53 shoot Mark Duggan in order to prevent crime; and
2) Was the force used reasonable or unreasonable in all the circumstances?)
INQUEST TOUCHING UPON THE DEATH OF MARK DUGGAN
6
Only if you are sure that Mr Duggan was killed unlawfully will you come to this
conclusion and record it as such.

Lawful killing. If you conclude that it was more likely than not that the fatal shot
which killed Mark Duggan was the use of lawful force – then you would return a
conclusion of lawful killing.

Open conclusion. An open conclusion should be recorded when there is
insufficient evidence to the necessary standard of proof for you to record any
other “substantive” conclusion as to how Mark Duggan came to his death.

You may record an open conclusion if:
1) You are not satisfied so that you are sure that Mark Duggan was unlawfully
killed; and
2) You are not satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mark Duggan was
killed lawfully.


4. Conclusion of the jury as to the death:

INQUEST TOUCHING UPON THE DEATH OF MARK DUGGAN
7
5. Further particulars required by the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 to be
registered concerning the death:

Date and place
of death
Name and
surname of
deceased
Sex Date and place
of birth
Occupation
and usual
address
Ferry Lane
4 August
2011
Mark
Wayne
Duggan
Male 15/09/1981 Clothes
retailer.
13 Rowland
Hill Avenue
London N17
7LU







Signature of Coroner (and jurors):

Signature of Coroners

Signature of Jurors

[Terpit]

tldr

he's guilty

[+] Spoiler

[DJoe]

im giving u the benefit of the doubt lol

[DJoe]

this is a good article
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ons-police

[Terpit]

If it was just a normal bloke I would be on your side, but he had a fucking gun in his car, not a hunting rifle, a pistol, a gun designed to shoot other humans, not deer.

[DJoe]

yeah i get that but does that but why does that mean he should be shot rather than arrested and charged for possessing an offensive weapon.

If you read what i posted it is clear from it that it wasn't a kill or be killed situation for the policeman. and that he didn't have to kill him

Do you think it that if someone has a gun and the police are aware of this they should be shot on sight?
If you don't agree with this, then why should the policeman not be made responsible even in the slightest for his actiuns

and then does the fact he had a gun and was unsavoury justify this:

'During the inquest the IPCC's mishandling of the crime scene was revealed, including the fact that it gave permission for the mini-cab to be removed before investigating officers had even looked at it or had it forensically searched for evidence. It further transpired that the IPCC failed to respond to crucial independent witnesses, even those who tried to respond to their own urgent witness appeals. The IPCC has chosen not to explore the possibility that the gun was planted at the spot it was found, even though it was 7m from his body and two independent witness gave the IPCC statements – and later testified – that they had seen an officer remove a gun from the mini-cab some minutes after Duggan had been killed.'


also does that justify the fact that the first shot went through duggan and hit another policeman, putting someone else's life in danger.