Mark Duggan, the right verdict?

G

Geezah

Senior member
 Monifieth
Jury has decided that Mark Duggan was lawfully killed after being shot by a police officer who thought he was carrying a gun.

One of the sticking points seem to be that the victim was not armed. It appears that he threw his gun away just before he was shot dead.

So, we have a known criminal who carries a gun on the streets, confronted by a police officer who for a split second believes he is going to be killed by Mr Duggan. What would you do if you were in the PCs position? In any case can the police officer safely assume that he was only carrying one gun?

A tragic situation and waste of life, but surely the less guns on the street the better for all of us and our loved ones. 'Live by the sword, die by the sword'. I hope that common sense prevails.
 
If you carry a handgun, how can you expect anything else! And what a colossal waste of our tax money to defend the case, and then I can't wait to contribute towards the numerous appeals. Pft

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
Yes. Absolutely. It's all very easy to judge from an armchair, it would be a whole different story if some of these people saying otherwise were themselves put in the exact same situation as the officers concerned and had to make the decision. If the officer had hesitated and Duggan had actually ended up shooting one of them then the police would have been castigated for not acting decisively enough with a known criminal, and he'd be submitting a diminished responsibility plea, out in 5yrs on good behaviour... :headbang:
 
dr_john said:
The police have a duty to protect the law abiding public from thugs like this.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you can't just justify just popping one in their head as a matter for dealing with it.

If so, should they not do the same to paedophiles, those who rape and so on and so forth?

Yes Mark had a shady and questionable history at best, but considering the question of if he has a gun in his possession or not really does make me think that it's leaning to the unlawful side.
 
You know stuff like this makes me sick. Listening to his family outside the court room trying to turn this into some sort of cause celebre of 'the downtrodden poor black ghetto versus the Metropolitan police racists' turns the stomach. This was a violent thug, this gun would've been used to either kill, maim or threaten. He got what he deserved. As far as this officer was concerned they had to make a split second judgement. He created the situation that put that officer in that position. When will people start to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions?
 
Agree anyone who has a rep for carrying a gun knows the risks they are taking - guns are used for only one thing so why should the police as our public servants take any additional risks

As for the protesting family they would be better investing their efforts in ensuring the kids etc don't turn out the same
 
original guvnor said:
You know stuff like this makes me sick. Listening to his family outside the court room trying to turn this into some sort of cause celebre of 'the downtrodden poor black ghetto versus the Metropolitan police racists' turns the stomach. This was a violent thug, this gun would've been used to either kill, maim or threaten. He got what he deserved. As far as this officer was concerned they had to make a split second judgement. He created the situation that put that officer in that position. When will people start to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions?
Click to expand...

x2, couldn't agree more.

Officer had a split second decision to make. Certainly doesn't sound like an "execution"
 
You know stuff like this makes me sick. Listening to his family outside the court room trying to turn this into some sort of cause celebre of 'the downtrodden poor black ghetto versus the Metropolitan police racists' turns the stomach. This was a violent thug, this gun would've been used to either kill, maim or threaten. He got what he deserved. As far as this officer was concerned they had to make a split second judgement. He created the situation that put that officer in that position. When will people start to accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions?
Click to expand...

+1
I can think of other countries where he wouldn't have even made it out of the car!
 
NeilP said:
dr_john said:
The police have a duty to protect the law abiding public from thugs like this.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you can't just justify just popping one in their head as a matter for dealing with it.

If so, should they not do the same to paedophiles, those who rape and so on and so forth?

Yes Mark had a shady and questionable history at best, but considering the question of if he has a gun in his possession or not really does make me think that it's leaning to the unlawful side.
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting that executing people on the street is any way of dealing with problems as you suggest Neil, this was a lawful killing. The guy had 'previous' so the police will be extra vigilant when dealing with him. How could the officer know whether Duggan had another firearm concealed on him ready to ambush the police on confrontation?
 
NeilP said:
dr_john said:
The police have a duty to protect the law abiding public from thugs like this.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you can't just justify just popping one in their head as a matter for dealing with it.

If so, should they not do the same to paedophiles, those who rape and so on and so forth?

Yes Mark had a shady and questionable history at best, but considering the question of if he has a gun in his possession or not really does make me think that it's leaning to the unlawful side.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying - but he did have a gun, he just threw it at some point during the stop, and was found a natter of feet from his body. Plus if you're associated with fire arms, have been associated with attempted murder - you wouldn't think twice if you were that policeman.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
NeilP said:
dr_john said:
The police have a duty to protect the law abiding public from thugs like this.
Click to expand...

If so, should they not do the same to paedophiles, those who rape and so on and so forth?
Click to expand...

Totally different situation. When they encountered Duggan the police had very reasonable suspicion that he was armed and prepared to shoot anyone in his way.
 
dr_john said:
NeilP said:
dr_john said:
The police have a duty to protect the law abiding public from thugs like this.
Click to expand...

If so, should they not do the same to paedophiles, those who rape and so on and so forth?
Click to expand...

Totally different situation. When they encountered Duggan the police had very reasonable suspicion that he was armed and prepared to shoot anyone in his way.
Click to expand...


Yep shoot Paedophiles on sight - armed or not!
 
-Tom- said:
NeilP said:
dr_john said:
The police have a duty to protect the law abiding public from thugs like this.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you can't just justify just popping one in their head as a matter for dealing with it.

If so, should they not do the same to paedophiles, those who rape and so on and so forth?

Yes Mark had a shady and questionable history at best, but considering the question of if he has a gun in his possession or not really does make me think that it's leaning to the unlawful side.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying - but he did have a gun, he just threw it at some point during the stop, and was found a natter of feet from his body. Plus if you're associated with fire arms, have been associated with attempted murder - you wouldn't think twice if you were that policeman.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


wasnt it found that there was no tangible evidence that the gun was his and nothing to prove he threw it away?
 
domsz4 said:
-Tom- said:
NeilP said:
Yes, but you can't just justify just popping one in their head as a matter for dealing with it.

If so, should they not do the same to paedophiles, those who rape and so on and so forth?

Yes Mark had a shady and questionable history at best, but considering the question of if he has a gun in his possession or not really does make me think that it's leaning to the unlawful side.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying - but he did have a gun, he just threw it at some point during the stop, and was found a natter of feet from his body. Plus if you're associated with fire arms, have been associated with attempted murder - you wouldn't think twice if you were that policeman.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


wasnt it found that there was no tangible evidence that the gun was his and nothing to prove he threw it away?
Click to expand...

Who knows, well somebody might but I doubt anyone will know for sure. However - I still stand by the fact that if you have armed police chasing you, having being under surveillance for however long with an arm full of previous arrests for gun crime/attempted murder then the "victim" has to take the responsibility for their actions. You don't stumble into being stopped by armed police who have reason to fear for the safety of life of themselves and others.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom