http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-522x293.jpg


Even on your BBCNews he had a gun
threw it.

Even if this was the case, why does it matter?

His character is not on trial. The right to have killed a surrendering unarmed man was.

Yes Jack
not good to have around
while possible unrest



Sign Of The Times

The Police had
other info.


Case Is Closed

Other info? Oh you mean:

Duggan fired shots at them so they had to fire back? Lie

Duggan aimed at them so they fired to protect themselves? Lie

Duggan had a gun on his lap when shot? lie

Finally, The gun was in the cab when he was shot? Yes, you guessed it...a lie.

We went from all that to "he threw it over a fence before we shot"

Case ****ing closed my arse.

I think the state just wants to protect itself.

Getting justice for the family in something like this is near impossible

It was a jury that came to this decision.

"Lawfully killed" is such a loaded term, it does just sound like a cover for the police force when mistakes are made. Why not rule it an accidental death; the officer was trying to save his life after he shot him, clearly he didn't intend to kill the guy.

No Other Info not in the public

The Public Jury has Closed the Case

I'm sorry to sound a little naïve but Mark Duggan did not have a gun in his possession so why was he shot dead and more importantly how did a jury decide this was lawful ??

Does that mean it is lawful for the police to shoot any unarmed person they decide... Surely that's wrong isn't it or have I missed something here ??

At least accidental death would make more sense but still ask the same questions as to how an accident like this involving firearms could happen..!!!

Exactly. They were privvy to all the information of the entire case...

He wasn't a very nice person, he DID have a gun & he paid the price. If big boys want to play with guns then they take the risk of getting shot. End of.

What the hell is wrong with the jury? I really dont get this at all? He is guilty 100% and what he did cannot be justified at all, I just dont get it :conf:

It's just letting a murderer go for the sake of it?

Well, with respect, the jury were privy to information that none of us here have seen.

I just cannot fathom this decision.
Nobody is disputing guy was shady, dodgy or a bit of a thug, but that does excuse the pre-meditated murder of an unarmed man.
They could have waited, they should have shown restraint and control.
You cannot allow this as a precedent because it just allows police to shoot ANYONE they choose because they may have a gun, or not.

This is a very dangerous and disturbing day for the UK judicial system

That's what I think too... I don't know about guilty/not guilty verdicts because I wasn't on the jury, but what I do take issue with is the ruling being a "lawful killing" and no consequences are to be faced. It's now set a precedent for any lethal force to be considered "lawful" which is frightening. If they believed the officer to be innocent of any crime, they should have termed it an accidental killing or something similar. Lawful killing is a worrying phrase.

No, it has not set a precedent for "any" lethal force to be considered lawful in future. There were obviously special mitigating circumstances in this case. None of us were at the trial, none of us know what evidence was presented, what information the jury was given nor what the mitigating circumstances were. So to claim there has been some kind of miscarriage of justice is wrong. None of us can say what should have happened because none of us are in charge of all the facts as they were in court.

I would have expected a verdict of accidental death given the verdicts returned by the jury regarding the five questions they had to consider.

In the period between midday on 3 August 2011 and when state amber was called at 6.00 pm on 4 August 2011, did the Metropolitan Police Service and the Serious Organised Crime Agency do the best they realistically could have done to gather and react to intelligence about the possibility of Mr Duggan collecting a gun from Mr Hutchinson-Foster? The jury said a unanimous no.

Was the stop conducted in a location and in a way which minimised, to the greatest extent possible, recourse to lethal force? Unanimous yes.

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.

When Mr Duggan received a fatal shot, did he have the gun in his hand? A majority of 8 to 2 said no, he did not have a gun in his hand.

Certainly the last answer in which the jury agrees he did not have a gun in his possession aimed at police suggests Mr Duggan could not be lawfully killed as he posed no obvious threat to any policemans life.

The testimony of the armed officer saying that he thought or in the heat of the moment it was possible Mr Duggan had a gun is NOT acceptable reason to take his life.

You have to see a firearm before you have realistic grounds to shoot someone surely to God, or else the Police can literally go and kill anyone they please and say they really thought that person had a gun.

So an accidental death would have made more sense or even an open verdict BUT to say it was lawful is a seriously worrying outcome for all of us...!!!!

It's a shame the police didn't act with more wisdom and restraint on that day. I do think for the most part they do a wonderful job, sometimes in no win situations. But I feel that the confrontation was created by them, they had other choices available to them.

I'm not sticking up for the police here because I really don't really know what happened (none of us do)... but they have to make split-second decisions under a vast amount of pressure and sadly those decisions aren't always the right ones... but they have to go on the information they have and react to the circumstance they're faced with. It's not a job I'd want to do.

I'm not saying there was a miscarriage of justice. I don't know the case. But a precedent has now been set - there has now been a ruling in the UK that it is possible to commit a "lawful killing" and that is what concerns me - if it's happened once, it can happen again; from the video footage it is clear that the officer was trying to save Mark Duggan's life - I don't think he intended to shoot to kill him but that is what happened; I find the wording of the verdict troubling. Surely ruling it an accidental death would have been more appropriate terminology? But what do I know...

This precedent will only be called into play if another case, with the same circumstances, arises in future. Setting a precedent doesn't mean that police can now just shoot someone and call it a lawful killing. That's what I mean... the circumstances and details of the case would have to be the same.

I'm sure the lawyers involved and particularly the judge, were very precise about the terminology that was used, bearing in mind what an explosive case this could turn into.

I do see what you're saying Zee, but really none of us are qualified to suggest other verdicts should have been reached without knowing exactly what went on at the trial, what evidence was presented and what information was disclosed. Although it's a troubling case, I do have faith in the justice system.

..this is a really tricky one because he wasn't armed at the time he was shot, so why did the police shoot at him..?..I know and understand that they have a very difficult job to do and split second decisions etc and sometimes there maybe mistakes made but that to me would then be accidental death, surely...


..I know it's probably not a very good comparison but Lee Rigby's killer's were kind of running at the police with weapons because they wanted to be killed..?..I think I read that...yet the police didn't shoot and kill them and yet Mark couldn't have been pointing a gun at them because he didn't have one..?..and he was shot and killed...


..I do have faith in the police and the justice system because we have no choice but to...but that doesn't mean that mistakes/misjudgements etc can't be made...but yeah, a really difficult one...

That is true,plus also the guidelines given to them as to what to consider reaching any verdict too.

As you said earlier, a split second decision was called for. I fully accept he was unarmed and that does raise alarm bells as to his death and how it happened.
However, did the officer 'believe' at the time that he was armed and in that split second was he justified in believing that so in effect the only way to protect others was to shoot to kill.

We didn't hear,as you say, all the evidence for or against the officer.
On the other side,if the guy had a gun but the officer not acted then others had been injured or killed, then the officer would be being hammered for not shooting.

For me, it has to be wrong for an unarmed man to be shot dead and while it maybe wasn't a deliberate aim to kill him I still think perhaps accidental death would have been a better verdict, if that verdict was even a possible one to give.
Were the jury only allowed to consider lawfully killed, unlawfully killed and open verdict as their choices.

While everyone has a right to their opinion, no one knows more about this case than the judge and the lawyers involved. No one knows how the verdict was reached, what the reasons for coming to that conclusion were nor how the jury was advised. Until we do, it's strange to me, for people to be suggesting other verdicts that may have been better, without being in charge of all the facts. I'm sure the verdict wasn't reached lightly, bearing in mind the explosive nature of this case. Also, drawing comparisons with the Lee Rigby case is unhelpful as the two cases were completely different.