I find the outcome baffling. The jury finds against Mark despite the fact that they agreed that he wasn't armed.

I remember lying in bed in France when Jean Charles de Menezes was killed and my boyfriend said: One less b*****d and I thought I wasn't convinced. No trust in the police then and, all these years later, no trust in them now.

I was kinda flummoxed at the result too ..I don't get why it is lawful to kill someone after they have dropped their gun ..but I have refrained form commenting because I presume the jury were directed as to what constitutes a lawful killing and found from evidence given that they had to find it was lawful. .  still flummoxed as to how tho. .

 

I was watching this morning yesterday and the bit where they discuss the news and they were talking about this case and that because of this armed police will have to wear video cameras, which I thought was a great idea as any bit of doubt is taken away if it is there on film...   one of the guests discussing it, a Journo Guy who I think is a right far right  twat,  thought this was a dreadful idea.. I was like eh? How it that a bad idea, it protects the Police as well as their possible victims too if they know everything they do will be on film..

As with most of these fascinating stories, ones opinion depends on personal media choices.
As a Guardian reader I'm bound to have a more Liberal attitude but the guy was obviously a wrong 'un whose luck ran out. These firearm situations aren't an exact science and there is a certain amount of risk for criminals who arm themselves.
I don't believe that he was executed. Trident knew that he was armed in advance and you wouldn't want the police to risk their own lives. But maybe there are a few lessons to be learned.

Apparently there is a vigil today. So don't forget.  If it does kick off then the safest place to take cover is in Waterstones. (Other book sellers are available)

I suppose when you believe someone is carrying a gun and on past history is prepared to use it, self -preservation comes first. However if a member of the public (hypothetical I know, because guns are illegal) and shot someone in the same circumstances, would they get off or be done for murder/ manslaughter?

 

The law is a very strange country

There probably isn't even one of those in Tottenham. 

 

But in response to Carport. Agreed, the perceived danger was a reason for the shooting but without the evidence of Duggan's gun having been seen thrown by any witness it seems difficult to arrive at anything other than an open verdict. If the officers were so highly trained why did they not observe that crucial event?

I heard on the news at some point, that the jury were shown the police shooting the lee Rigby killers, the opinion was that it's the split second life or death decisions that officer's have to make,which seems to have convinced the jury that the shooting of Duggan was lawful in those circumstances.

Quite honestly I am of the opinion that if you are a violent criminal and have  been known to carry  weapons, then you put yourself at greater  risk of  of an unhappy outcome  in a confrontational situation.

hmmmmmmmm  don't get the correlation that the jury decided it was lawful after being shown the video of the Lee Rigby murderers getting shot. .they were racing at the police with gun and knives in hand .. we all saw the video of that.. so were pretty obviously armed and had 'murderous' intent in mind.. wasn't that Duggan bloke just getting out of or sitting in his car after having been pulled over.. am even more befuddled how it was considered lawful now.. tho way back a guy carry a table leg was gunned down by cops so maybe that makes it ok then

 

Think I'd have a shed load of guilt laying hard on my head if I was the cop that took that shot

 

Will reiterate tho that I do not know the full story nor what the jury were given as guidance as to what constitutes a lawful shooting in Law as  a basis for their verdict......

As far as I could make out ,Olly, it was the demonstration of how officers are required to make life and death decisions within a split second.It's easy to sit here detached and logical after the event and having had the benefit of replays and slo- mo of the event.The jurors seem to have accepted that it was not an execution, in the case of Duggan,but that the thought processes the officer used in that decision were made  under the same stressful conditions, and it turned out to be a wrong decision.

The guy with the table leg.......
Members of the public tipped off the police that a foreign sounding drunken guy was in a possession of a firearm. A recipe for disaster.
I don't know how the police knew Duggan was armed. Maybe they had his armourer under observation. Maybe one of his own gang tipped the police off?
But as said above. Gun crime is a risky business. Outside the lad's family I doubt that anyone is particularly surprised. There will always be a few opportunists who might use it as an excuse to steal things, and I notice today that "the anarchists" (sic) with their wacky weekend brand of planned spontaneity are involved too.

Strikes me from all this that guns are bleedin dangerous things no matter who is holding them, legal or not..

 

I used to like a bit of clay pigeon and target shooting but the thought of shooting something living sickens me

 

Tho as was said in the moment you never know what you will do I suppose, which is a shame for all concerned  

He wasn't just a bloke getting out of his car when the car was pulled over, the police knew who was in the car and where they would be,they went out with the intention to stop the car because the occupants were  up to some thing nefarious, they also knew that people in the car  were probably armed( I think all this info was from a tip off)that is why it was an armed police unit that was involved.

I don't have a lot of time for the Met. but Duggan put himself in that position,the police reacted to it.

Yes, but in the Rigby murders case the police shot to disable having been run at with knives. Why this didn't happen in the Duggan case baffles me in view of the witness statements from the officers that no-one saw him throwing the gun away yet these highly trained specialists still thought it expedient to shoot first before asking questions. 

 

It should at the least been an open verdict.

Maybe the officers in the Rigby case were better than the ones in the Duggan case?

I am not sure of the implications of  any of the verdicts, maybe the 'lawful killing ' one is to reflect that there was not an intention or premeditation  to kill Duggan.