Duggan verdict

[Massimo Giovanni]

And according to criminal law (look it up TUIB!) possession is not exclusively about immediacy of a gun; for example he would "legally" have been in possession of the gun if he had it under the seat of the car. My understandings are that verdicts are decided using law as a basis for the judgement rather than hindsight and emotional values formed from a desire, no matter how well meaning, for a prefect set of circumstances or "what if" scenario in a utopian world.

 

[superblue24]

Found this on faceache, and couldn't agree more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...EJOHN-Duggan-gangster-not-Nelson-Mandela.html

 

[OldBlueLady]

Found this on faceache, and couldn't agree more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...EJOHN-Duggan-gangster-not-Nelson-Mandela.html

Littlejohn has that spot on, but because it's him and the Mail there will still be those here who don't accept it.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

And according to criminal law (look it up TUIB!) possession is not exclusively about immediacy of a gun; for example he would "legally" have been in possession of the gun if he had it under the seat of the car. My understandings are that verdicts are decided using law as a basis for the judgement rather than hindsight and emotional values formed from a desire, no matter how well meaning, for a prefect set of circumstances or "what if" scenario in a utopian world.

I believe Mr Tangled Up In Blue is already "acquainted" with English criminal law. I would ask people to refrain from speculating as to why he fled to Spain.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Found this on faceache, and couldn't agree more.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...EJOHN-Duggan-gangster-not-Nelson-Mandela.html

Very good read and 100% correct

 

[Swiss Tony]

I believe Mr Tangled Up In Blue is already "acquainted" with English criminal law. I would ask people to refrain from speculating as to why he fled to Spain.[/QUOT
No crime involved,mrs Thatch told him to leave.:Red card:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

We know that now, the police didn't at the time. If you had been that copper, would you have taken the chance that what was in Duggan's hand was a phone and not a gun? Why are you such an idiot so much of the time?

Anyone who you disagree with, has to be wrong and therefore, ipso facto an "idiot",right? :nope:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

And according to criminal law (look it up TUIB!) possession is not exclusively about immediacy of a gun; for example he would "legally" have been in possession of the gun if he had it under the seat of the car. My understandings are that verdicts are decided using law as a basis for the judgement rather than hindsight and emotional values formed from a desire, no matter how well meaning, for a prefect set of circumstances or "what if" scenario in a utopian world.

Actually there is a Police protocol involved here:-

"If someone is in police custody there is a protocol. If you know someone is not holding a gun, you arrest them. You don't execute them. They executed Mark."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ailblock:Editable trailblock - news:Position2

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Anyone who you disagree with, has to be wrong and ipso facto an "idiot",right? :nope:

Maybe isdiot wasn't the correct choice of words. You miss the point as usual though. Why are you so pro Duggan, I really don't get why you are that way inclined.

Do you honestly, with hand on heart, think that the police were wrong to shoot Duggan? You swerve so many questions that you clearly have no answer for and I really would like to know why you feel the way you feel about this case.

You are an SUFC fan so I'd never hate you but sometimes you do make me think you are a bit of an idiot, that or someone that thinks the opposite to everyone else to get a reaction.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Actually there is a Police protocol involved here:-

"If someone is in police custody there is a protocol. If you know someone is not holding a gun, you arrest them. You don't execute them. They executed Mark."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ailblock:Editable trailblock - news:Position2

The police didn't know Duggan wasn't holding a gun did they, that is why they shot him, to avoid the possibility of Duggan shooting someone. If he had left his phone in the car, came out and held hands up or laid on the floor, he would have been arrested. He didn't, he got out of the taxi with the phone in his hand so the police didn't know it wasn't a gun. They were protecting themselves and the public

Very bold statement indeed about he police executing Duggan. I would like to see how that stood up in a court of law

 

[chapperzUK]

Actually there is a Police protocol involved here:-

"If someone is in police custody there is a protocol. If you know someone is not holding a gun, you arrest them. You don't execute them. They executed Mark."

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/11/mark-duggan-vigil-anger-restraint?guni=Keyword:news-grid%20main-1%20Main%20trailblock:Editable%20trailblock%20-%20news:Position2

They believed he was holding a gun, so what protocol do they follow there or do you not have it available because the Guardian didn't quote that?

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

The police didn't know Duggan wasn't holding a gun did they, that is why they shot him, to avoid the possibility of Duggan shooting someone. If he had left his phone in the car, came out and held hands up or laid on the floor, he would have been arrested. He didn't, he got out of the taxi with the phone in his hand so the police didn't know it wasn't a gun. They were protecting themselves and the public

Very bold statement indeed about he police executing Duggan. I would like to see how that stood up in a court of law

He's been using "execute" in this thread from early on. Believe the family and their supporters started using the incorrect term. Probably thinks it makes him sound cool.
Think this thread has shown a few up on here. All for justice as long as it the kind of justice they agree with.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Maybe isdiot wasn't the correct choice of words. You miss the point as usual though. Why are you so pro Duggan, I really don't get why you are that way inclined.

Do you honestly, with hand on heart, think that the police were wrong to shoot Duggan? You swerve so many questions that you clearly have no answer for and I really would like to know why you feel the way you feel about this case.

You are an SUFC fan so I'd never hate you but sometimes you do make me think you are a bit of an idiot, that or someone that thinks the opposite to everyone else to get a reaction.

The one inescapable fact about this sorry affair is that when Duggan was gunned down he was unarmed.The rest is pure conjecture.

I'm quite prepared to accept that Duggan was no angel.I'm not prepared to accept that British Police ever have carte- blanche to gun down unarmed men in the streets of London (or anywhere else in the UK).

A mistake was made and the person (or persons) responsible should be brought to book,IMO.

The Duggan family have acted with great restraint ever since the verdict.Some people on this board could learn from their example.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

The one inescapable fact about this sorry affair is that when Duggan was gunned down he was unarmed.The rest is pure conjecture.

I'm quite prepared to accept that Duggan was no angel.I'm not prepared to accept that British Police ever have carte- blanche to gun down unarmed men in the streets of London (or anywhere else in the UK).

A mistake was made and the person (or persons) responsible should be brought to book,IMO.

The Duggan family have acted with great restraint ever since the verdict.Some people on this board could learn from their example.

Can you clarify what the mistake was? You said before the police protocol is 'If you know someone is not holding a gun, you arrest them'. The police did NOT know Duggan wasn't holding a gun. If, indeed, the phone was a gun and he opened fire, killing innocent people, what would your stance be? Yes, it's conjecture, because we now know he wasn't holding a gun. But in the split second he pulled the phone out, the police had to make a choice as to whether there was danger to life or not. Considering there was intelligence suggesting Duggan had a gun, the police must have concluded there was danger to life.

Why did Duggan pull his phone out? Was he trying to intimate he had a gun? If I had guns trained on me, the last think I would do is pull anything out of my pocket. I'd have hands in the air ot be on the floor.

 

[OldBlueLady]

A mistake was made and the person (or persons) responsible should be brought to book,IMO.

This is what I have huge problems with, a man was doing the job he was trained for. He did what he believed to be right in a decision that took a micro second....why do we always have to apportion blame?

As others have said, if Duggan HAD have had a gun, would we still be having this argument? They believed he did, intelligence had led them to hold this view. The FACT that a gun was found very near by would suggest there is a huge likelihood that the intel was correct but that the scumbag had managed to disassociate himself from it in the seconds leading up to it. It was NOT an execution!!!

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

The one inescapable fact about this sorry affair is that when Duggan was gunned down he was unarmed.The rest is pure conjecture.

I'm quite prepared to accept that Duggan was no angel.I'm not prepared to accept that British Police ever have carte- blanche to gun down unarmed men in the streets of London (or anywhere else in the UK).

A mistake was made and the person (or persons) responsible should be brought to book,IMO.

The Duggan family have acted with great restraint ever since the verdict.Some people on this board could learn from their example.

Unbelievable. The inescapable fact of this is that there has been a four month trial with a sworn jury who have heard all of the evidence and not just the bits the Guardian wishes to highlight.
Like I have said before, you may not like the outcome but that doesn't mean it isn't the correct outcome.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Can you clarify what the mistake was? You said before the police protocol is 'If you know someone is not holding a gun, you arrest them'. The police did NOT know Duggan wasn't holding a gun. If, indeed, the phone was a gun and he opened fire, killing innocent people, what would your stance be? Yes, it's conjecture, because we now know he wasn't holding a gun. But in the split second he pulled the phone out, the police had to make a choice as to whether there was danger to life or not. Considering there was intelligence suggesting Duggan had a gun, the police must have concluded there was danger to life.

Why did Duggan pull his phone out? Was he trying to intimate he had a gun? If I had guns trained on me, the last think I would do is pull anything out of my pocket. I'd have hands in the air ot be on the floor.

The mistake was clearly that an unarmed man was shot dead.That is clearly an error of judgement at the very least.

This is what I have huge problems with, a man was doing the job he was trained for. He did what he believed to be right in a decision that took a micro second....why do we always have to apportion blame?

As others have said, if Duggan HAD have had a gun, would we still be having this argument? They believed he did, intelligence had led them to hold this view. The FACT that a gun was found very near by would suggest there is a huge likelihood that the intel was correct but that the scumbag had managed to disassociate himself from it in the seconds leading up to it. It was NOT an execution!!!

The point is that the Police Officer concerned did not do the job that he was trained for correctly.Otherwise an unarmed man would not have been shot dead.

 

[superblue24]

The mistake was clearly that an unarmed man was shot dead.That is clearly an error of judgement at the very least.



The point is that the Police Officer concerned did not do the job that he was trained for correctly.Otherwise an unarmed man would not have been shot dead.

barnablue gets it wrong again.

a split second choice was made, at that moment that copper thought kill or be killed. The same split second decision gets made on a regular basis and 95% the right decision is made and Duggan was a victim of that mistake but not a loss of much face value. The worst loss would have been the scenario that duggan would have had a gun and the officer not been sure, given him the benefit of the doubt and been shot dead. Split second decisions and I have no problem with the way it panned out over the alternative which would have been a tragedy and no doubt left a young family of respectable morals.

no way should the officer be involved in this like he's some kind of murderer.

 

[steveo]

The one inescapable fact about this sorry affair is that when Duggan was gunned down he was unarmed.The rest is pure conjecture.

This question required a yes or no answer Barna, try not to doge it in your usual manner.

If the Police had been certain he was unarmed, would they have shot him?

 

[Firestorm]

This question required a yes or no answer Barna, try not to doge it in your usual manner.

If the Police had been certain he was unarmed, would they have shot him?

I am sure that he was only shot by one armed officer. Now either that means that there was only one armed officer present or that other officers has sufficient doubt as to his being armed that they did not pull the trigger.
Was the killing lawful....yes a jury decided it was.
Should shooting an unarmed man , regardless of whether anyone thought he was armed or not, ever be considered lawful, is another question.
As for " the police didnt know he wasnt armed" reason for shooting some, I think that it is dangerous, Particularly if the original suspicion is based on heresay (at the time it was just heresay as it was not proven until months afterwards) .