Mark Duggan Verdict

Considering that members of the Met police tried to stitch up a government minister from the party of law and order for motives that remain unknown, then I hate to think what they would do to make sure that the killing of a guy involved in London gang crime is perceived as lawful.

So I remain sceptical. Which is not to say that I believe the police planted evidence or were not justified in shooting him or whatever. Just that I remain sceptical.

You start taking that attitude then nothing the Police ever do can be taken at face value and you're on the first step to becoming a paranoid conspiracy theorist!

Reply 21

Seathestars

11

I think as others have said, he bought it on himself and wasn't exactly a nice lad. I also agree with the point though that if possible police should try and make shootings like this non-fatal.

Reply 22

Nerd2

18

Original post by theoferdinand

Keep it coming guys . Just out of interest is there any solid "proof" that this guy was a gangster ?

They would certainly have suspicion, he was involved with certain gang members, he appeared in rap videos alongside other suspected gangsters, for example he was in a rap video with a rapper named Giggs, who just so happens to have been in prison for possession of a firearm. Also many other rappers, who claim to be gangsters and associated with gangs paid tribute to him after his death. Also police could of have intelligence of Duggan's activities from witnesses, this information and the name's of the witnesses would obviously not be open to the public for witness protection.

Reply 23

theoferdinand

OP

10

Original post by pol pot noodles

What proof exactly are you looking for? The Met Police Trident gang unit declared him a gangster and drug dealer, that's about the best 'proof' you'll get beyond anecdotes from people who live in North London.

This is why i wanted proof .
Just done a quick google search and they also said

But Det Ch Insp Foote said he was "very lightly convicted". Minor offences like cannabis possession and the sale of stolen goods were all he had on his record.

Some of the police intelligence on Mark Duggan was graded 'E', the lowest on the scale the police use to grade accuracy.

A grade e criminal is hardly a gangster lol

Reply 24

pol pot noodles

19

Original post by theoferdinand

This is why i wanted proof .
Just done a quick google search and they also said

But Det Ch Insp Foote said he was "very lightly convicted". Minor offences like cannabis possession and the sale of stolen goods were all he had on his record.

Some of the police intelligence on Mark Duggan was graded 'E', the lowest on the scale the police use to grade accuracy.

A grade e criminal is hardly a gangster lol

A member of a criminal gang is a gangster though. Sort of the definition. No one claimed he was Al Capone.

Reply 25

theoferdinand

OP

10

Original post by Nerd2

They would certainly have suspicion, he was involved with certain gang members, he appeared in rap videos alongside other suspected gangsters, for example he was in a rap video with a rapper named Giggs, who just so happens to have been in prison for possession of a firearm. Also many other rappers, who claim to be gangsters and associated with gangs paid tribute to him after his death. Also police could of have intelligence of Duggan's activities from witnesses, this information and the name's of the witnesses would obviously not be open to the public for witness protection.

Would you be kind enough to provide me links to these videos please

Interesting verdict.

Original post by felamaslen

Whatever, he was a gangster and to portray him as a victim is nonsense.

Original post by alow

Police stop someone who they believe to be carrying a gun, they don't cooperate, policeman thinks he's about to get shot, policeman shoots them.

Am I missing something? This seems totally fine to me. He had it coming.

So bloody what if he was a gangster, or a drug dealer, or whatever illegal activities he partook in. So is it ok for me to get shot because I don't cooperate with them, any police officer can say he thought this or thought that.

Mark Duggan did not HAVE a gun on him, the gun that was fun 6m away from the car had no PROOF/EVIDENCE that Mark Duggan handled it, so it was obviously planted. Even if he did handle the gun, all claims state he through the gun out before the car stopped, so he was UNARMED when outside the vehicle.

The police officer is a murderer. Can you explain the above?

Reply 28

MostUncivilised

3

I am naturally quite skeptical of the police, but I defer to the judgment of the inquest.

The man was a drug trafficker and armed menace; the police may have made a mistake, but they did so without malice and it is, in many ways, the consequences of Duggan's own actions.

Reply 29

alow

19

IntriguedUser

x

I would be completely fine with you getting shot if you were purposefully endangering the lives of others.

It's so obvious the gun wasn't planted, do you think they would have put it that far away from the body?

Get over it. He was a bad person who ended up forcing a police officer to kill him, do you think that was an easy choice to make?

Reply 30

username1221160

19

Original post by pol pot noodles

You start taking that attitude then nothing the Police ever do can be taken at face value and you're on the first step to becoming a paranoid conspiracy theorist!

There is a difference between being a paranoid conspiracy theorist and being sceptical.

The Met police have a very poor record over the last decade when it comes to shooting or killing people (Forest Green shootings, that Brazilian guy and that newspaper vendor). After such events the Police go into self-preservation mode and tell the nearest journalist about how their actions were justified. If I remember correctly from the time, Mark Duggan originally shot a police office who only survived because the bullet hit a radio. Of course, this later turned out to be false.

Then there are the recent allegations that the police tried to smear those campaigning regarding the Stephen Lawrence murder.

Then there are the findings from the Hillsbrough enquiry that police falsified witness statements, colluded and gave false reports to the media to shift the blame.

Etc.

So I think a healthy scepticism of the police is very much justified.

Reply 31

Nerd2

18

Original post by theoferdinand

Would you be kind enough to provide me links to these videos please

[video="youtube;5y2vMPUA2lQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y2vMPUA2lQ[/video] skip to the 5:11 mark
By the way I'm not saying this proves he was a gangster but certainly could vouch for police suspicion.

Reply 32

Mindless Behavior

11

Original post by Mr Smurf

There is no legal requirement for him to be armed the second they start firing. He had one seconds before. Shooting him on his hand to get him of the wheel or whatever is the stuff of films. Armed police will aim for centre mass.

If he had had one seconds before they started shooting wouldn't they have seen him throw the gun like they claimed he did? And why did they go from saying that Mark Duggan shot at a police officer to that he threw a gun (which didn't have his fingerprints/DNA) over a fence? And even if there isn't a legal requirement, why would they shoot someone who was unarmed? I really doubt they genuinely felt like they were in danger.

I strongly dislike criminals (and I'd even say that the death sentence is appropriate in some cases). He obviously wasn't a model citizen but in my opinion it still wasn't just to shoot him in the chest while he was unarmed.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 33

Nerd2

18

Original post by theoferdinand

Would you be kind enough to provide me links to these videos please

[video="youtube;iUTpEOsaCj0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUTpEOsaCj0[/video] skip to 1:11, "more hatred for the feds (police) since they bun (killed) Mark"

Reply 34

JG1233

10

Some of the comments on here are amazing me.

There is no doubt he wasn't a law abiding citizen who needed to be arrested and charged. But that is what he needed to be, arrested and charged. The amount of people who seem to find it perfectly ok he was shot dead, despite not even having a gun in his possession at the time, shocks me. These people are basically saying the police are the judge and jury, and can decide to murder criminals if they see fit. That is not the way British Justice should work, just because he is a criminal doesn't mean public execution is ok.

The police also tried initially claiming Duggan shot at them before they returned fire, until evidence was released those claims were false the police seemed perfectly content to just lie their way out of the situation.

This verdict just generally seems to re-iterate the precedent that police can shoot whoever they want, as long as they later come out and say they really believed they were under threat because they saw a persons hand go towards a pocket.

Reply 35

thecrazycanes

I back the police officers intuition to be honest. The police had him on their radar for quite a while and for them to kick off and shoot him without appropriate suspicion seems highly unlikely. While it is unfortunate he died I would much prefer to see a dead gangster than a dead police officer.

Reply 36

IntriguedUser

12

Original post by alow

I would be completely fine with you getting shot if you were purposefully endangering the lives of others.

It's so obvious the gun wasn't planted, do you think they would have put it that far away from the body?

Get over it. He was a bad person who ended up forcing a police officer to kill him, do you think that was an easy choice to make?

In what way was he endangering the lives of others, he was unarmed. The exact same as your mum walking down the high street. The police officer will go to hell, have nightmares. He was wrong, it was unlawful and he was unarmed. Nothing more.

Reply 37

IntriguedUser

12

Original post by thecrazycanes

I back the police officers intuition to be honest. The police had him on their radar for quite a while and for them to kick off and shoot him without appropriate suspicion seems highly unlikely. While it is unfortunate he died I would much prefer to see a dead gangster than a dead police officer.

Without appropriate suspicion. He was UNARMED, what don't you get?

Reply 38

alow

19

Original post by IntriguedUser

In what way was he endangering the lives of others, he was unarmed. The exact same as your mum walking down the high street. The police officer will go to hell, have nightmares. He was wrong, it was unlawful and he was unarmed. Nothing more.

The police had good reason to think he was, and he was generally detrimental to society.

No such thing as hell so we can count that out but what he did was obviously lawful (by the jury saying it was). He will have to lice with it for the rest of his life, but it's easier now he knows he was justified in his actions.

Reply 39

theoferdinand

OP

10

Original post by Nerd2

[video="youtube;5y2vMPUA2lQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y2vMPUA2lQ[/video] skip to the 5:11 mark
By the way I'm not saying this proves he was a gangster but certainly could vouch for police suspicion.

Thanks for that . I see where you are coming from

Mark Duggan Verdict

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you