Mark Duggan "Lawfully Killed" According to Jurors

[Socialist Sid]

My link is the misinformation given out by the police and not the characters of these unfortunates after they have been killed. The actions of the police and then the follow up not anything else. Maybe the families of Hillsborough should have just let go. I mean they were drunken, thieving scousers weren't they ?

I even have sympathy for the copper who killed Duggan.

Yep, should have definitely shot all the Scousers, after all, the police said they were bad boys, and as we all know, the police are never wrong.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Yep, should have definitely shot all the Scousers, after all, the police said they were bad boys, and as we all know, the police are never wrong.

They are wrong, on more occasions than they should be. But this was a lawful killing that was correct. That's what the jury, who unlike you, heard all the evidence, decided.

 

[Questions]

I get it completely , I didn't say you defended duggan, you attempted to use the area where he grew up as an excuse for his lifestyle, I commented that this was patronising bollox, clear enough for you ?

The debate was whether his mother could have stopped him being the man he was or whether his general upbringing in that area could and may have had some bearing on it all.
I'm not his apologist on this, my point is the usual claptrap and boll ox from the police when they have to face an enquiry.
The taxi driver says nothing was thrown by Duggan after the car was pulled over......... The copper who shot him says that he definetly had the gun protruding from the sock and pointed it at him. The gun was over the wall with no prints on it.
Get real ffs Bushy. So you don't care that the kiddie got shot dead. I know all that. Your Charles Bronzon I know.

 

[Brightonfan1983]

To quote William Munny

"You just shot an unarmed man"

"Well he shoulda armed himself".

Reminds me of the Bill Hicks skit on the US/UK 'relationships' with Iraq et al -

"Pick up the gun"
"I don't want no trouble mister"
"Pick up the gun"
*picks up gun, gets shot*
"You all saw him, he had a gun."

 

[Questions]

The death of Jean Charles de Menezes was an issue where you should put your efforts to make sure it doesn't happen again.

This was someone reaping what they sow, nothing to get upset about. It is proven to be a lawful killing which will and should happen again in the same circumstances.

You are still missing the point. I am not talking about the cock-up of the killing of an innocent man but the lies and subterfuge that followed when the IPCC and to some extent the papers wanted the full truth. ian Blair's part in it and everyone else who played their part in that shameful side of things. Read up on it or it's pointless having a debate on these things.

 

[WATFORD zero]

You are still missing the point. I am not talking about the cock-up of the killing of an innocent man but the lies and subterfuge that followed when the IPCC and to some extent the papers wanted the full truth. ian Blair's part in it and everyone else who played their part in that shameful side of things. Read up on it or it's pointless having a debate on these things.

I agree that trying to have a debate with you is pointless, since neither you or I were party to the evidence that the decision was based on, and those who did see all the evidence have made their decision regardless of me or you (or our prejudices).

 

[beorhthelm]

Read up on it or it's pointless having a debate on these things.

so, at the end of the day, are you saying the jury who heard all the evidence has got it wrong. really thats we need to get down to, do we or do we not trust the jury and the process.

 

[1066familyman]

My link is the misinformation given out by the police and not the characters of these unfortunates after they have been killed. The actions of the police and then the follow up not anything else. Maybe the families of Hillsborough should have just let go. I mean they were drunken, thieving scousers weren't they ?

I even have sympathy for the copper who killed Duggan.

Well bloody said!

The majority on this thread seem to be taking great delight in some sort of perceived triumph of good over evil. They lambast anyone who dares suggest the police have a track record of covering up, falsifying evidence and looking after their own, thus causing some of us to always have a natural mistrust of the police and the justice system that so often appears to fail to secure the conviction of a police officer.

The vocal majority are quick to question anyone who dares question this jury decision by asking what evidence the doubters have seen that the jury here did not. Yet these claimants of the moral high ground have no qualms about gloating over the death of a 'nasty piece of work' and then launching character assasinations on the whole Duggan family and everyone they've ever known or been associated with. I'm sure these upholders of the moral high ground have got extensive information on the backgrounds of all the 'low life scum' they besmirch?

Whilst it appears clear that Mark Duggan was no angel, and anyone in possession of an illegal firearm puts themselves at risk, I fail to see why such a scenario must automatically exonerate police actions and conclude that the jury must have got the decision right based on the evidence that was presented. I think there's still more questions than answers in this case, because yet again the IPCC has been found wanting in a very alarming way.

I'm also curious to see whether charges are eventually brought against officer E7 (police firearms officers are as a matter of routine afforded anonymity in such cases) for having "no lawful justicfication" for opening fire on and killing Azelle Rodney. I mention this case because there are some remarkable similarities between the two cases and closure has still not been reached in the Azelle Rodney case, even though he was killed in 2005. It's a case that makes for some very interesting reading to say the least.

 

[Questions]

I agree that trying to have a debate with you is pointless, since neither you or I were party to the evidence that the decision was based on, and those who did see all the evidence have made their decision regardless of me or you (or our prejudices).

Are you talking about The killing of Menezes or Duggan ?

 

[TottonSeagull]

Well bloody said!

The majority on this thread seem to be taking great delight in some sort of perceived triumph of good over evil. They lambast anyone who dares suggest the police have a track record of covering up, falsifying evidence and looking after their own, thus causing some of us to always have a natural mistrust of the police and the justice system that so often appears to fail to secure the conviction of a police officer.

The vocal majority are quick to question anyone who dares question this jury decision by asking what evidence the doubters have seen that the jury here did not. Yet these claimants of the moral high ground have no qualms about gloating over the death of a 'nasty piece of work' and then launching character assasinations on the whole Duggan family and everyone they've ever known or been associated with. I'm sure these upholders of the moral high ground have got extensive information on the backgrounds of all the 'low life scum' they besmirch?

Whilst it appears clear that Mark Duggan was no angel, and anyone in possession of an illegal firearm puts themselves at risk, I fail to see why such a scenario must automatically exonerate police actions and conclude that the jury must have got the decision right based on the evidence that was presented. I think there's still more questions than answers in this case, because yet again the IPCC has been found wanting in a very alarming way.

I'm also curious to see whether charges are eventually brought against officer E7 (police firearms officers are as a matter of routine afforded anonymity in such cases) for having "no lawful justicfication" for opening fire on and killing Azelle Rodney. I mention this case because there are some remarkable similarities between the two cases and closure has still not been reached in the Azelle Rodney case, even though he was killed in 2005. It's a case that makes for some very interesting reading to say the least.

Sorry mate, but the guy was happy to carry a gun and therefore I take it he was willing to use it. The firearms officers know if they fire a shot they are suspended pending an investigation. Personally I am happy that we have brave men and women of the police force who put themselves on the line to protect us. Bleeding heart liberals like you disgust me!

 

[Questions]

Well bloody said!



I'm also curious to see whether charges are eventually brought against officer E7 (police firearms officers are as a matter of routine afforded anonymity in such cases) for having "no lawful justicfication" for opening fire on and killing Azelle Rodney. I mention this case because there are some remarkable similarities between the two cases and closure has still not been reached in the Azelle Rodney case, even though he was killed in 2005. It's a case that makes for some very interesting reading to say the least.

2005, amazing isn't it. Don't forget though he'd was getting a lift to have his haircut that day. He wasn't completely innocent.

 

[Questions]

so, at the end of the day, are you saying the jury who heard all the evidence has got it wrong. really thats we need to get down to, do we or do we not trust the jury and the process.

It depends what is put before them. That isn't always a true picture of events though is it.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Are you talking about The killing of Menezes or Duggan ?

I said a verdict of lawful killing so i was talking about Duggan of course, De Menezes was an open verdict after the judge banned an unlawful killing verdict. Maybe you should read up on it. If you did, you may realise they are very very different.

 

[1066familyman]

Sorry mate, but the guy was happy to carry a gun and therefore I take it he was willing to use it. The firearms officers know if they fire a shot they are suspended pending an investigation. Personally I am happy that we have brave men and women of the police force who put themselves on the line to protect us. Bleeding heart liberals like you disgust me!

Well I'm saddened (liberal alert) to hear that I disgust you. Slightly surprised to learn that I'm a "Bleeding heart liberal". But never mind, life goes on, and so does the debate.

Remember - "No justice, no peace"





By the way, to save you the bother. That slogan was around donkeys years before Mark Duggans auntie used it.

 

[1066familyman]

It depends what is put before them. That isn't always a true picture of events though is it.

Surely it's always the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Hence there's never any successful appeals in courts of law.

 

[Questions]

I said a verdict of lawful killing so i was talking about Duggan of course, De Menezes was an open verdict after the judge banned an unlawful killing verdict. Maybe you should read up on it.

You mean the coroner Sir Michael Wright.......keep reading.

 

[WATFORD zero]

You mean the coroner Sir Michael Wright.......keep reading.

Well done, you've convinced me the two cases are very similar.

 

[Questions]

Well done, you've convinced me the two cases are very similar.

If I have convinced you then you may leave now.

 

[Billy the Fish]

so, at the end of the day, are you saying the jury who heard all the evidence has got it wrong. really thats we need to get down to, do we or do we not trust the jury and the process.

The point is that it's never quite as fair a process when the OB are protecting one of their own.

All they have to do is make up a cock and bull story and the majority will just say "he's a scumbag, he deserved it". That's a very dangerous path to start travelling down.

 

[beorhthelm]

It depends what is put before them. That isn't always a true picture of events though is it.

you have no truer picture though. does seem that some a happy to ignore they are questioning the whole judicial process here. i dont have time to go over all the details and conflicting stories. the jury did and came to a conclusion which i think we should be respecting a bit more rather than get bogged down in arguments about policing.

another conclusion seems to be that we should remove all armed police, as we cant be sure they will never make a mistake.