Duggan verdict

[steveo]

Something that has gone round my head a few times. Duggan was faced with armed police. He was unarmed. Why did he pull a phone from his pocket? That seems to be really odd. Did he want the police to think it was a gun?

He probably wanted to phone his Aunt and get her to come down and slag off the old bill.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

Something that has gone round my head a few times. Duggan was faced with armed police. He was unarmed. Why did he pull a phone from his pocket? That seems to be really odd. Did he want the police to think it was a gun?

If I was in that situation, there is no way I am going to reach into my pocket for a phone or anything. I am going to do exactly as I am told by the police for fear of getting shot.

Haven't you been paying attention at all? don't you know he was executed by the awful fascist police? Just ask Barna, he has the facts the jury did not - obviously.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I think there's a phrase that says 'those that can't do, teach'.
Thankfully, there's still a lot of people out there prepared to DO.

There's a nice variation of this phrase,which I first heard at teacher training college,back in the day.

"Those who can't teach,teach teachers."

I'm sure you won't be too suprised to hear that I've done a bit of teacher training in my time too.:smiles:

 

[Smudger]

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

Unarmed for about 30 seconds once he'd thrown his gun into a nearby bush you mean?

Bloody hell, with people like you around it's a wonder we're not all speaking German right now. I'm guessing you also think we should have left the Belgrano (packed with over 1000 armed men and enough explosives to destroy our entire fleet...) well alone too? Grow a backbone Barna. Sometimes you have to take action in life when faced with a significant threat. If you're happy for gangsters to be driving around London with guns in their pockets then fair enough but don't run down the good people amongst us with the plums to stop them.

 

[Firestorm]

Unarmed for about 30 seconds once he'd thrown his gun into a nearby bush you mean?

Bloody hell, with people like you around it's a wonder we're not all speaking German right now. I'm guessing you also think we should have left the Belgrano (packed with over 1000 armed men and enough explosives to destroy our entire fleet...) well alone too? Grow a backbone Barna. Sometimes you have to take action in life when faced with a significant threat. If you're happy for gangsters to be driving around London with guns in their pockets then fair enough but don't run down the good people amongst us with the plums to stop them.

From what I have read even fewer officers saw him throw the gun away than saw him with one in his hand
I also read that there was no evidence to link the gun found to him.

I cant actually see why people are arguing about this...
Those who support the verdict are confirming that someones belief (The officer believed the victim was armed) is good enough. Therefore actions based on belief should be accepted without dispute.
So why dispute others beliefs that it unlawful ?

Those who dont think that belief is enough and require full unequivocal factual substance, do not have enough at their disposal (unless they were on the jury) to form anything other than a belief and that is not enough ....

 

[steveo]

What matters is the jury found that V53 was mistaken in his belief that Duggan was armed at the time he was shot dead.

So now What matters is the decision of the jury? The jury found he was lawfully killed. So why did you start the thread in the first place?

Can you explain how you think what the jury said matters when it suits you but you cant understand it when it doesn't suit you.

 

[united we stand]

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.

I know you don't do hyperthetical, but if he did pull a gun out of his pocket, and raised it , and was shot would you believe this was the correct decision?

Secondly if he did pull a 'gun' out of his pocket and raised it , and was shot, and it then transpired that it was a toy gun , would you believe that the this was an error as 'an unarmed man' had been shot?

Genuinely interested in your opinion

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The important point is that the jury found he was mistaken.

The important point is that the jury found it to be a lawful killing.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

From what I have read even fewer officers saw him throw the gun away than saw him with one in his hand
I also read that there was no evidence to link the gun found to him.

I cant actually see why people are arguing about this...
Those who support the verdict are confirming that someones belief (The officer believed the victim was armed) is good enough. Therefore actions based on belief should be accepted without dispute.
So why dispute others beliefs that it unlawful ?

Those who dont think that belief is enough and require full unequivocal factual substance, do not have enough at their disposal (unless they were on the jury) to form anything other than a belief and that is not enough ....

A bit odd that there happened to be a gun found very close to where he was and intelligence suggested he had purchased a gun.

It's not often I find a gun yards from where I am standing but hey ho

 

[Firestorm]

A bit odd that there happened to be a gun found very close to where he was and intelligence suggested he had purchased a gun.

It's not often I find a gun yards from where I am standing but hey ho

Very True. But given there was no evidence. Eye witness or forensic to tie that gun to him how would you want the Law to work . Assumption or fact ?
Before his past gets mentioned again, Had he survived and was put on trial for possessing the firearm his previous criminal record would not have been allowed to be brought up.

 

[MK Shrimper]

I've lived in MK over 10 years now and I've been round and round less times than this thread.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Very True. But given there was no evidence. Eye witness or forensic to tie that gun to him how would you want the Law to work . Assumption or fact ?
Before his past gets mentioned again, Had he survived and was put on trial for possessing the firearm his previous criminal record would not have been allowed to be brought up.

I suspect he may have got off dependent on how good his lawyer was. I don't trust a court of law for a reason.

I was turning right into a parking space at Asda (and I was indictaing right) when a scooter driver flew down the side of me and obviously i nearly knocked him off. I hit my horn, he stopped, got off his bike and came towards me. I got out to defend myself. He was right in my face, foaming at the mouth etc threatening me. When he calmed down, I got back in my car and parked. He then came over and tried to grab my keys. After a struggle, I got the keys and locked the car. He then rammed his scooter into my rear bumper.

I went to the police with a witness and photos of the damage to my bumper. He was charged but despite the witness and the photos he got off. His lawyer was better than mine and swayed the judge.

My point is, doesn't really matter what evidence there is, whether Duggan had finger prints on the gun or not, if he had only been shot and charged with firearms offences, if your lawyer is better than theirs, more persuasive, the evidence counts for jack all

 

[OldBlueLady]

My point is, doesn't really matter what evidence there is, whether Duggan had finger prints on the gun or not, if he had only been shot and charged with firearms offences, if your lawyer is better than theirs, more persuasive, the evidence counts for jack all

Ain't that the truth. Wonder if he had legal aid??!!!! There's a whole other can of worms to open!

 

[Firestorm]

I suspect he may have got off dependent on how good his lawyer was. I don't trust a court of law for a reason.

I was turning right into a parking space at Asda (and I was indictaing right) when a scooter driver flew down the side of me and obviously i nearly knocked him off. I hit my horn, he stopped, got off his bike and came towards me. I got out to defend myself. He was right in my face, foaming at the mouth etc threatening me. When he calmed down, I got back in my car and parked. He then came over and tried to grab my keys. After a struggle, I got the keys and locked the car. He then rammed his scooter into my rear bumper.

I went to the police with a witness and photos of the damage to my bumper. He was charged but despite the witness and the photos he got off. His lawyer was better than mine and swayed the judge.

My point is, doesn't really matter what evidence there is, whether Duggan had finger prints on the gun or not, if he had only been shot and charged with firearms offences, if your lawyer is better than theirs, more persuasive, the evidence counts for jack all

No offence, but why did you have a Lawyer ?

 

[united we stand]

I suspect he may have got off dependent on how good his lawyer was. I don't trust a court of law for a reason.

I was turning right into a parking space at Asda (and I was indictaing right) when a scooter driver flew down the side of me and obviously i nearly knocked him off. I hit my horn, he stopped, got off his bike and came towards me. I got out to defend myself. He was right in my face, foaming at the mouth etc threatening me. When he calmed down, I got back in my car and parked. He then came over and tried to grab my keys. After a struggle, I got the keys and locked the car. He then rammed his scooter into my rear bumper.

I went to the police with a witness and photos of the damage to my bumper. He was charged but despite the witness and the photos he got off. His lawyer was better than mine and swayed the judge.

My point is, doesn't really matter what evidence there is, whether Duggan had finger prints on the gun or not, if he had only been shot and charged with firearms offences, if your lawyer is better than theirs, more persuasive, the evidence counts for jack all

Maybe you were not a very credible witness, if your match reports are anything to go by:winking:

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

What I think (and I have no particular opinion either way) really doesn't matter here.

Finally, something we can agree on!

 

[davewebbsbrain]

No offence, but why did you have a Lawyer ?

Bad term clearly. A prosecutor then...who was crap. About 25 years old he looked

 

[Firestorm]

Bad term clearly. A prosecutor then...who was crap. About 25 years old he looked

Thanks .
It must be frustrating when the CPS dont treat the case as seriously (by appointing a Junior) as the victim.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Thanks .
It must be frustrating when the CPS dont treat the case as seriously (by appointing a Junior) as the victim.

The defending lawyer was a very pushy woman, obviously money and career driven who twisted everything I said. I'd hate to in a big court case.

 

[steveo]

I've lived in MK over 10 years now and I've been round and round less times than this thread.

patience MK. We are just waiting for someone to admit he is tangled up in knots.