Jury Concludes Mark Duggan Lawfully Killed

[ChillDoubt]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25648913

[Ric.ror]

Do you think his family were aware of his 'activities'?
It must have been a terrible shock to hear of his death and then find out he was some drug dealing low life
No wonder they are all finding the verdict difficult to accept

[ChillDoubt]

Do you think his family were aware of his 'activities'?
---------------------
Without a doubt. They had already conceded he 'was no angel'. Their words. No more are needed I feel.

[Ric.ror]

Do we know specifically who he was carrying the gun to protect himself from?

[ChillDoubt]

Any one of the rival gangs in the link I gave earlier, I would guess.

[LazyGun]

This decision tree of the juries decision makes for interesting reading;

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf

[saintpeter48]

I am sure that if I was stopped by armed police and they were shouting at me to put my hands in the air, drop anything I had in my hands and too lay on the floor, arms and legs spread, I would do so in an instant!! This piece of poo chose the life he led, no one forced him into drugs and crime and the streets are better off without him and his like. He might well've been a lovely son to his mother who no doubt turned a blind eye to his life style, you live by the sword you die by the sword, simples!!

[jomifl]

He wasn't bright enough to realise that concealing from the police that he had got rid of the gun(by throwing it out of the taxi window) would leave them to assume that he still had it. He must have been aware that the police would assume (for their own safety)that the object that he was holding was a gun. If he had raised his (empty) hands he would almost certainly still be alive.

[mushroom25]

Peter Pedant: //after Stephen Waldorf 1980s again - a completely unrelated motorist......//

erm, not exactly. Sue Stephens, Waldorf's passenger, was known to David Martin, the intended target.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/14/newsid_2530000/2530649.stm

[New Judge]

I was not being sarcastic when I spoke of judgements being made from comfy armchairs, LG. Time and again smart-arse lawyers spend two years picking over the bones of a decision which one of the participants (often a police officer or a soldier) had to make in a split second, with the consequence of a wrong choice usually meaning he or somebody else will have their brains blown out. After their two year deliberation, made in the comfort of agreeable offices in Lincolns Inn, they have a far clearer idea of what should reasonably have been done.

I believe that the officers must believe or have good reason to believe that they or somebody else in in imminent danger. The jury obviously felt they had good reason to believe, hence their verdict. Arguing over the details is somewhat pointless as we don’t actually have all the details. It took three months to provide the jury with all the facts.

Of course Duggan’s family are upset. But if no other good comes of this one lesson that may be learned (if not acted upon) is that if you roam around with a gun, even if you throw it away as you are intercepted, somebody might just shoot you.

[LazyGun]

Have you read that decision tree I posted, NJ?

Makes for very interesting reading.
The jury concluded that Duggan did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot.
Despite this, it seems they went on to conclude that it was a lawful killing, and it is this that puzzled me.

Looking at that decision tree though, it appears that they decided it was a lawful killing largely because they took at face value the armed police officers account - officer V53 -that he honestly believed Duggan had a firearm, which I suppose is fair enough.

But issues do remain, I feel. Some of their evidence is still contradictory. It worries me. Cases like the blind man being tazered by the police, by the guy killed having a chair leg or whatever.

[jomifl]

LG, we often see what we expect to see, especially at night under stress.

[Gromit]

Now we know a few details of the incident, I thought it might be interesting to reproduce how the incident was initially reported.

// A Father of four was shot dead after apparently injuring a police officer in a terrifying shoot-out on a street in north London last night.
A gun was found at the scene and a spokesman for the independent police watchdog said it appeared the officer was shot first before police returned fire. //

// However, there are conflicting reports about the shooting. One report said the gunman opened fire at an officer whose life was saved when the bullet hit his radio. The officer was taken to hospital with minor injuries and discharged last night. //

[Peter Pedant]

mushie

from the same site:

Film editor Mr Waldorf, 26, had no direct connection to David Martin.


It was pleaded in court that Sue M had chosen Mr W as he looked like David Martin. but I dont think Mr W knew anything about that.
It was pleaded in evidence that Sue M had come into a pub where W was had looked around as if she was looking for someone, spotted him and came over and started chattinghim up....

I dont think W would have taken the job (being Sue M's no 2 boyf ) if he had been given all the info

[Gromit]

The judge instructed the jury thus...

"If you are sure that he did not have a gun in his hand, then tick the box 'unlawful killing'", Judge Cutler.

In the deliberation paper posted above! 8 out of ten ticked the box that said they were sure he did not have a gun in his had. Yet they then ticked the box lawful killing.

Seems odd?

[Gromit]

Further:


The jury began deliberations on 10 December 2013. The jury interrupted deliberations over Christmas and resumed on 7 January 2014. They delivered their conclusions at approximately 16:00 on 8 January 2014.

Before christmas the Judge Cutler had instructed them: "If you are sure that he did not have a gun in his hand, then tick the box 'unlawful killing'".

They did indeed conclude he did not have a gun in his hand but did not tick the box 'unlawful killing'.

Did the jury make a mistake? Or were the Judges instructions wrong?

[pixie373]

Neither. They might be 100% sure he didn't have a gun in his hand. The question is- did the police think he had.

[Gromit]

"Are YOU sure he did not have a gun in his hand.." is addressed to the Jury.

The Judge did not instruct "Did the police think he had a gun then find a lawful killing verdict".

Two complete different statements.

[pixie373]

I see what you mean, gromit. If that's accurate, the judge must have been wrong.