ChatterBank0 min ago
Jury Concludes Mark Duggan Lawfully Killed
76 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'll always struggle with that one (his decison to supposedly throw the pistol).
Why exit the vehicle with it in your hand? If one intends surrendering to Police with hands in the air, why not leave the pistol on the back seat?
Only Mark Duggan will be able to explain his mindset that day, so we'll never know.
Why exit the vehicle with it in your hand? If one intends surrendering to Police with hands in the air, why not leave the pistol on the back seat?
Only Mark Duggan will be able to explain his mindset that day, so we'll never know.
Not disputing the decision of the jury, since they have been the ones party to the evidence and arguments etc, but it does seem puzzling to me on the face of it that the jury conclude that an unarmed man can be lawfully shot and killed by the police - I thought there needed to be a "clear and present danger" or imminent threat to the public/police from a weapon for such a killing to be deemed lawful?
Was he supposed to have exited the taxi gun in hand and then thrown it away?
Was he supposed to have exited the taxi gun in hand and then thrown it away?
Duggen had got the gun because he feared being killed by a fellow drug dealer.
The taxi he was in was blocked by an unmarked police vehicle. It is fair to assume when he exited the vehicle he did not think they were police officers. Once they had called and identified themselves he slung the weapon.
The taxi he was in was blocked by an unmarked police vehicle. It is fair to assume when he exited the vehicle he did not think they were police officers. Once they had called and identified themselves he slung the weapon.
@ Gromit
"The taxi he was in was blocked by an unmarked police vehicle. It is fair to assume when he exited the vehicle he did not think they were police officers. Once they had called and identified themselves he slung the weapon."
Thanks for the clarification. But I remain a bit puzzled, to be honest - If they had called out and identified, and he had then thrown the gun away, why the need to shoot him?
"The taxi he was in was blocked by an unmarked police vehicle. It is fair to assume when he exited the vehicle he did not think they were police officers. Once they had called and identified themselves he slung the weapon."
Thanks for the clarification. But I remain a bit puzzled, to be honest - If they had called out and identified, and he had then thrown the gun away, why the need to shoot him?
//A black life aint woth anything//
What about the black lives this man was destroying in supplying class A drugs/
//Mark Duggan was a member of a violent gang involved in gun crime and dealing class A drugs, a senior detective has told an inquest.
Det Ch Insp Mick Foote headed Operation Dibri which targeted Tottenham gang TMD, a group he said contained "48 of Europe's most violent criminals".//
What about the black lives this man was destroying in supplying class A drugs/
//Mark Duggan was a member of a violent gang involved in gun crime and dealing class A drugs, a senior detective has told an inquest.
Det Ch Insp Mick Foote headed Operation Dibri which targeted Tottenham gang TMD, a group he said contained "48 of Europe's most violent criminals".//
i am naturally suspicious of the notion that if the Police can persuade a jury that just because THEY THOUGHT someone was a threat then they were entitled to deliver lethal force legally.
That has been discredited in a number of cases when unarmed, non threatening people have been gunned down.
In this case however, Duggan did have a weapon at or immediately before the shooting and behaved in a manner that could be threatening. Regardless of whether he thought he was dealing with rival drug dealers or not, the moral is if you are going to play gun-toting 'Gangstas' in the street then you are contributing to what happens next.
That has been discredited in a number of cases when unarmed, non threatening people have been gunned down.
In this case however, Duggan did have a weapon at or immediately before the shooting and behaved in a manner that could be threatening. Regardless of whether he thought he was dealing with rival drug dealers or not, the moral is if you are going to play gun-toting 'Gangstas' in the street then you are contributing to what happens next.
The taxi he was in was blocked by an unmarked police vehicle. It is fair to assume when he exited the vehicle he did not think they were police officers. Once they had called and identified themselves he slung the weapon.
---------------------
Strange he didn't come out all guns blazing then, as he believed his life to be in imminenet danger.
Unpalatable though it is for his family, he will not be a loss to society and his demise doubtless means that others will not die as a result of gun/drug related dealings and violence.
---------------------
Strange he didn't come out all guns blazing then, as he believed his life to be in imminenet danger.
Unpalatable though it is for his family, he will not be a loss to society and his demise doubtless means that others will not die as a result of gun/drug related dealings and violence.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.