Jump to content

Police cleared in Mark Duggan shooting as jury record verdict of "lawful killing"


Dazey

Recommended Posts

Thoughts?


Mark Duggan family reacts with fury to inquest verdict of lawful killing

Jury decides Duggan was lawfully killed despite concluding he was not holding gun when police shot him

Mark Duggan's family reacted with fury as an inquest jury ruled on Wednesday that he had been lawfully killed but had not had a gun in his hand when confronted by officers. By a majority of eight to two, the jury ruled that the 2011 shooting that sparked the worst riots in modern English history was lawful.

The jury said they were sure, by the same eight-to-two majority, that Duggan did not have a weapon in his hands when police surrounded him. By a majority, the jury concluded he "threw" the gun from a cab he was travelling in when armed officers forced it to stop. The family described the jury's conclusion as perverse and said they would consider a judicial review.

Duggan's mother, Pam, broke down in court on hearing the finding and his brother Marlon shouted at the seven men and three women on the jury as they left the courtroom. Later, outside the court, Duggan's brother Shaun Hall, with tears visible on his face, told the Guardian: "It's unbelievable. That's just about what I can say for now."

Duggan's aunt Carole Duggan said he had been "executed", while the family's lawyer Marcia Willis Stewart said they were in a state of shock and could not believe the outcome. She said: "On 4 August 2011 an unarmed man was shot down in Tottenham. Today we have had what we can only call a perverse judgement. "The jury found that he had no gun in his hand and yet he was gunned down. For us that's an unlawful killing."

As her words were interspersed with shouting from a gathered crowd, she went on: "No gun in his hand and yet he was killed – murdered as they have said, no gun in his hand." Shortly afterwards, the Metropolitan police's assistant commissioner Mark Rowley, struggling to be heard above shouting from supporters of the Duggan family, said the force's sympathy was with the family who had "lost a loved one", but officers had to make "split-second decisions when confronting armed criminals" and that there was a small risk that fatalities could follow.

Rowley said: "Armed criminals have shot dead more than 50 people in London in the last three and a half years. We send out well-trained, professional armed officers thousands of times a year to combat this threat, only firing shots once or twice. These careful tactics have significantly reduced gun crime.

"It is significant, then, that a jury of Londoners, who have seen and heard all the evidence, have today concluded that not only was the operation to stop Mark Duggan in the taxi conducted in a way which minimised to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force, but that Mark Duggan had a gun, and also that our officer had an honest and reasonable belief that Mark Duggan still had the gun when he shot him.

"We know the trust is not shared by everyone. I will be offering to meet Mark Duggan's family to express our sorrow. And we will continue working with local leaders to strengthen relationships. We know it will take time." The Tottenham MP, David Lammy, said questions needed to be answered to allow the relationship between the community and the police to heal.

The Labour politician said: "Despite this [conclusion], the reputation of the Metropolitan police has not emerged unscathed. "The jury found that a number of key errors were made by Operation Trident and Soca officers in the hours leading up to the shooting. There are fundamental and lingering issues that the Independent Police Complaints Commission investigation – now re-opened – must attempt to clarify.

"These questions must be answered not just for the sake of the Duggan family but to diffuse the confusion, conjecture and suspicion that continue to surround the events of that August evening." The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP, Diane Abbott, said she was baffled by the jury's finding, which she said would raise a lot of questions in the local community. Writing on Twitter, Abbott said: "If the Duggan jury believe that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot, how can they find it was a lawful killing? baffled." And she told BBC Radio 4's PM programme: "There's going to be a lot of questions asked in the community this evening."

Deborah Coles of the group Inquest, which supported the Duggan family, said the findings were not an exoneration of the police. "The Met should be very concerned that an inquest jury has found an unarmed man was shot dead by police and were critical of intelligence failings." The officers had intercepted the 29-year-old in an operation based on intelligence that he was part of a gang and had collected a gun. He was being followed by officers who believed he planned to pick up a gun from another man, Kevin Hutchinson-Foster, and then move on to Broadwater Farm, also in Tottenham.

But they found that the car had been stopped in a location and in a way that "minimised to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force".The jury said police had not done enough to gather and react to intelligence about the possibility of Duggan collecting a gun from Hutchinson-Foster.

The Metropolitan police shooting in north London on 4 August 2011 sparked the worst riots in modern English history.

The inquest, which began in September, was told by police that Duggan was shot twice after he produced a gun when surrounded by armed officers. The narrative verdict was delivered at the Royal Courts of Justice in central London, after the jury had deliberated for six and a half days. They were originally sent out on 11 December 2013 and then broke for two weeks for the Christmas and new year holidays.

Duggan died "within 10 heartbeats" of a bullet striking his aorta. The jury was told police believed Duggan was a member of TMD, Tottenham Man Dem, which officers believed had links to guns used in nightclubs. The officer who shot Duggan twice, known as V53, testified he had seen a gun in Duggan's right hand, and believed the suspect was preparing to use it. V53 said he had acted in self-defence, fearing that his own life or the lives of his colleagues were in danger from Duggan.

The key issue for the jury was whether Duggan was holding a gun, as the marksman said, when he exited the cab and came face to face with armed police. V53 and a second officer, W70, told the jury they had both seen Duggan holding a gun but were surprised when they could not find it later. In fact, a gun, wrapped in a sock, was found on the other side of a fence three to six metres (10-20ft) away from where the fatally injured Duggan fell to the pavement, the jury heard. The gun was capable of being fired but had not been "racked", so was not ready to fire.

Neither the gun nor the sock had any DNA or fingerprints from Duggan on it. Gun residue was also absent from the deceased, save for a speck in his back pocket which the jury was told was scientifically irrelevant. His fingerprints were on a shoebox found inside the cab in which it is believed the gun had been stored, and traces of the drug ecstasy were in his bloodstream.

Edited by Dazey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fix up. Best case scenario, Police bungled the operation killing him with a mobile phone in his hand. They then took his gun from the shoebox in his car and chucked it in the nearby field to make it look like he had the gun in his hand at some point and had been disarmed by being shot - or that he threw it there himself, the point being that the Police were establishing that he did have the gun in his hand at some stage. Worst case scenario, the above accept the gun was a plant, i.e. he did not even have a gun in his car. The Police stiched him up like a kipper, albeit, a dead kipper.

Either way, it is a complete Police cover up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been talking to a friend in law school, just because he didn't have a gun in his hand doesn't mean it can't be a lawful killing due to suspicion and motive and other things you can't really gauge.

After he was shot it descended into a cover up to try and justify their actions, much like the Brazilian guy who was shot on the underground a few years back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like the jury came to the conclusion (and it is a conclusion not a verdict, this isn't a trial) that Duggan wasn't armed but the police thought he was and opened fire. I'm curious as to what police rules of engagement are regarding firearms though, at what point their line is crossed to justify opening fire.

It also does seem odd that he manages to throw the gun a good few metres from him while in a car. Yet at the same time surely if you wanted to stitch someone up surely you'd plant the weapon in the car, not in a garden a good few feet away?

Edited by ADPT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a very complicated case....what was he doing to begin with in order to be chased/surrounded by (armed) police? And I thought that (most) police in the UK weren't armed (with guns)?....so does that mean this guy did something bad enough to warrant the calling of armed police?

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a very complicated case....what was he doing to begin with in order to be chased/surrounded by (armed) police? And I thought that (most) police in the UK weren't armed (with guns)?....so does that mean this guy did something bad enough to warrant the calling of armed police?

He was being observed under Operation Trident, a police initiative to deal with gun crime in black communities, with a special operation such as this and the fact it was dealing specifically with guns the officers would be armed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

never heard of this case but from what i read it seems like he was being watched due to him being involved with guns. it was also reported he was under suspicion of being a gang member and dealing drugs.

i really cant make heads or tails from it to be honest, the eye witness descriptions are all over the map. as for use of lethal force i dont know what that entails in england, in the US the police can use lethal force as long as they feel their life is threatened. their was a case a while back where a man was pulled over by the cops and he went and reached for his wallet in the glove box and was shot 16 or 17 times.

in this case the police only fired 2 shots which is remarkably low compared to the US where if you would reach for your phone in a "threatening manner" you would be shot many more times than that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

never heard of this case but from what i read it seems like he was being watched due to him being involved with guns. it was also reported he was under suspicion of being a gang member and dealing drugs.

i really cant make heads or tails from it to be honest, the eye witness descriptions are all over the map. as for use of lethal force i dont know what that entails in england, in the US the police can use lethal force as long as they feel their life is threatened. their was a case a while back where a man was pulled over by the cops and he went and reached for his wallet in the glove box and was shot 16 or 17 times.

in this case the police only fired 2 shots which is remarkably low compared to the US where if you would reach for your phone in a "threatening manner" you would be shot many more times than that.

After reading Tater Totts' response to my questions....I can't really disagree with any of this. If it happened in the U.S....under similar circumstances....I really don't see the results being much different. Of course, everything is relative....but from the sounds of it....the guy was no saint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only difference is if this had occurred in the US he would have had more bullets in him.

It certainly is possible...on the other hand, like I said....it could have gone the other way...very relative situation...but unless you're in a police officer's shoes (who most likely did not want to kill anyone...especially since it happened in the UK) who feels their life is threatened....who are you to judge the police?

As for the cover up conspiracy....maybe....but nonetheless, they were trying to cover up something almost justified to begin with, imo. I seriously doubt anyone had the intention of going out to kill this man for the thrill of it.

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only difference is if this had occurred in the US he would have had more bullets in him.

It certainly is possible...on the other hand, like I said....it could have gone the other way...very relative situation...but unless you're in a police officer's shoes (who most likely...especially since it happened in the UK) who feels their life is threatened....who are you to judge the police?

As for the cover up conspiracy....maybe....but nonetheless, they were trying to cover up something almost justified to begin with, imo. I seriously doubt anyone had the intention of going out to kill this man for the thrill of it.

Well there was certainly a public backlash after this occurred, caused widespread riots in London and other cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there was certainly a public backlash after this occurred, caused widespread riots in London and other cities.

I'm not surprised there was. There could have easily been a backlash in the U.S. for a similar occurrence. There usually is. Until all the facts come out though, I usually withhold my opinion. Seems like a jury found it to be a "justifiable killing"....and that's what the judicial process is about. :shrugs:

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this case highlights that the ''good ole' unarmed British bobby'' does not really exist anymore. In truth, British cops are armed to the backside just like their American counterparts. British police armed with massive Koch machine guns are a regular feature on British high streets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this case highlights that the ''good ole' unarmed British bobby'' does not really exist anymore. In truth, British cops are armed to the backside just like their American counterparts. British police armed with massive Koch machine guns are a regular feature on British high streets.

Really? I've been on this earth for 23 years and in that time I think I have maybe seen police on the street armed with machines guns twice or three times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this case highlights that the ''good ole' unarmed British bobby'' does not really exist anymore. In truth, British cops are armed to the backside just like their American counterparts. British police armed with massive Koch machine guns are a regular feature on British high streets.

Do they routinely patrol or do they need to be called?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity....what is the general consensus in the U.K. about the case??

From what I've seen today there has been a fair bit of anger and confusion over how it was a lawful killing if he was unarmed but the main problem has been a lack of transparency so people aren't really sure why they came to that conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity....what is the general consensus in the U.K. about the case??

From what I've seen today there has been a fair bit of anger and confusion over how it was a lawful killing if he was unarmed but the main problem has been a lack of transparency so people aren't really sure why they came to that conclusion.

Fair enough...can't blame people for asking questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this case highlights that the ''good ole' unarmed British bobby'' does not really exist anymore. In truth, British cops are armed to the backside just like their American counterparts. British police armed with massive Koch machine guns are a regular feature on British high streets.

Do they routinely patrol or do they need to be called?

Patrol. There are always two big buggers with kochs walking down Northumberland Street in Newcastle looking like they own the place. There are also armed cops at train stations and airports. I mean the normal cops still carry tazers. The idea of the 'bobby' with his truncheon is about as antiquated as Sherlock Holmes - we Brits like to be smug about this in face of the yanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this case highlights that the ''good ole' unarmed British bobby'' does not really exist anymore. In truth, British cops are armed to the backside just like their American counterparts. British police armed with massive Koch machine guns are a regular feature on British high streets.

Do they routinely patrol or do they need to be called?

Patrol. There are always two big buggers with kochs walking down Northumberland Street in Newcastle looking like they own the place. There are also armed cops at train stations and airports. I mean the normal cops still carry tazers. The idea of the 'bobby' with his truncheon is about as antiquated as Sherlock Holmes - we Brits like to be smug about this in face of the yanks.

That's what I was getting at.... :lol: ....thought there were a bunch of cops patrolling London with M16's for a second..... :lol:

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...