[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72160000/jpg/_72160495_72160494.jpg[/img]
[i]Mark Duggan was killed in August 2011[/i]
[quote]Mark Duggan, whose death sparked riots in England in 2011, was lawfully killed by police, an inquest jury has said by a majority of 8 to 2.
The 29-year-old was shot dead by armed officers in August 2011 in Tottenham, north London.
Following the verdict at the Royal Courts of Justice, his aunt Carole Duggan said her nephew had been "executed".
Mr Duggan's brother Shaun Hall said: "We still fight for justice."
Jurors concluded Mr Duggan did not have a gun when he was shot by officers.
They also said it was more likely than not that Mr Duggan had thrown a gun from a taxi just before he was killed. The weapon was found about 20ft (6m) away from the scene.
The panel of seven women and three men said police had not done enough to gather and react to intelligence about the possibility of Mr Duggan collecting a gun from Kevin Hutchinson-Foster, who has since been found guilty of supplying the firearm.
But the jury said the taxi had been stopped in a location and in a way that "minimised to the greatest extent possible recourse to lethal force".[/quote]
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25657949[/url]
interesting, considering he wasn't holding a weapon
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;43463174]interesting, considering he wasn't holding a weapon[/QUOTE]
[quote]Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the stop? Unanimous yes
How did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found? A majority of 9 to 1 said it was thrown.[/quote]
While he was not holding the gun, at the time this information was not yet known, he was refusing to comply with police requests, and had very recently been in possession of a firearm.
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;43463174]interesting, considering he wasn't holding a weapon[/QUOTE]
It's not a criminal court case. It's a murder enquiry. The question wasn't whether he was carrying a gun upon being shot, it was whether the officers reaction to shoot was justified lawfully since he may have been carrying a firearm when he was exiting a vehicle with intent to fire.
I don´t see any problem here.
We don't know as much as they do in the court case, but I believe the question that is being asked, is did the police essentially use the confusing and dangerous nature of the situation to take liberties with his life that they shouldn't perhaps have taken.
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;43463550]We don't know as much as they do in the court case, but I believe the question that is being asked, is did the police essentially use the confusing and dangerous nature of the situation to take liberties with his life that they shouldn't perhaps have taken.[/QUOTE]
I assume when Police in any location receive word that the suspect may/may not be armed, they have a different moral. It becomes a life/death situation. In that time frame, there is a quick decisive move that could differentiate between a criminal being taken out, or a police man.
So I think if he was armed, or unarmed at the time, Police will still be wary and cautious. If he does not comply, and makes jerky movements toward them? Then he might just be asking for it.
'No justice, no peace'.
Great. More 70 years olds that aren't involved with this case having their generations old businesses burnt down then.
[QUOTE=Memobot;43464095]'No justice, no peace'.
Great. More 70 years olds that aren't involved with this case having their generations old businesses burnt down then.[/QUOTE]
This won't cause shit. The riots were the culmination of long-brewing social tension. It was just the catalyst, like the Rodney King incident.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
