West Indies Cricket Fans

Not quite the same thing as Stephen Lawrence, but the death of Mark Duggan is proving controversial....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25657949" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'Mark Duggan's family have said they will fight for justice after an inquest jury concluded by a majority of 8 to 2 that he was lawfully killed by police. Mr Duggan was shot dead by armed officers in August 2011 in Tottenham, sparking riots across England. Following the inquest at the Royal Courts of Justice, his aunt Carole Duggan said he had been "executed". Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has asked for a meeting with local community leaders. There were angry scenes outside the court, with supporters of Mr Duggan's family chanting "murderers" at Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley as he read a statement. Jurors concluded Mr Duggan did not have a gun when he was shot by officers who surrounded a minicab he was travelling in. But the jury said it was more likely than not that Mr Duggan had thrown a gun from the vehicle just before he was killed. The weapon was found about 20ft (6m) away from the scene....The Duggan's family lawyer Marcia Willis Stewart said "We can't believe this was the outcome. He had no gun in his hand, yet he was shot, he was murdered. "To us, that is unlawful killing."'

1) The jury was split 8-2, probably along racial and class lines...with the white jurors believing the white policemen, and the ethnic minority jurors believing the ethnic minority witnesses.

2) How can the jury seriously rule that Duggan was not armed when he was shot, and still come to the conclusion that he was "lawfully killed"?

He threw the gun away, which indicates he was about to surrender...yes, this was an execution.

mikesiva wrote:Not quite the same thing as Stephen Lawrence, but the death of Mark Duggan is proving controversial....

...

The case of Mark Duggan is indeed nothing to do with that of Stephen Lawrence, and I, for one, am totally bemused as to why you have chosen to conflate them in the same thread entitled "Justice for Stephen Lawrence"(instead of, for example, staring a new thread).

mikesiva wrote:...

1) The jury was split 8-2, probably along racial and class lines...with the white jurors believing the white policemen, and the ethnic minority jurors believing the ethnic minority witnesses.

...

What information or evidence do you have concerning the composition of the inquest jury or its deliberations to support these assertions?

MarcusGarveyLives wrote:

mikesiva wrote:...

1) The jury was split 8-2, probably along racial and class lines...with the white jurors believing the white policemen, and the ethnic minority jurors believing the ethnic minority witnesses.

...

What information or evidence do you have concerning the composition of the inquest jury or its deliberations to support these assertions?

No evidence at all...hence the use of the word "probably".

It's nothing more than a supposition based upon the fact that I've lived in England for more than a decade, and I know how English people think and behave.

How else could the jury come to this mind-boggling conclusion:

2) How can the jury seriously rule that Duggan was not armed when he was shot, and still come to the conclusion that he was "lawfully killed"?

An unarmed man of mixed heritage, was shot dead by police in London on August the 4th 2011.

This incident sparked social disorder for 3 days/nights in many inner cities around England and, unfortunately, culminated in more death, while the lasting effects it has on police relations with the Black community have yet to be fully contemplated.

In an attempt to shed more light on the matter, Mikesiva asked

How can the jury seriously rule that he was not armed when he was shot, and still come to the conclusion that he was "lawfully killed"?

A passage from the inquest report -

Lawful killing. If you conclude that it was more likely than not that the fatal shot
which killed Mark Duggan was the use of lawful force – then you would return a
conclusion of lawful killing

. http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

To conclude, the police found it necessary to use extreme force, and the jury agreed with that action - having followed him, they considered him a threat to themselves or members of the public.

As I see it the subjective use of the term " more likely " caters for any and all threats perceived or real and insulates police while providing sustenance to lawyers.

I would expect there are many black males in England who can attest to having suffered personally as a result of the application of such perceptions.

I know I have, so to answer Mikes question, he was threat to the police even without a gun.

MGL asked Mike :

What information or evidence do you have concerning the composition of the inquest..?

To which he replied : No evidence at all.

I personally don't think the composition of the jury is important at all as Truth and facts have no creed or colour.

For a wider perspective I would like to inform you of the 1st ever case of police murder in England. That of David Oluwale, a Nigerian man in Leeds, who was beaten to death by Police in 1969, after which they urinated on his body and threw him into canal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Oluwale" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"

Two c**tstables were subsequently tried by inquest and sentenced to 4 years in prison. It is one of the very few cases you will find in England of Police convictions, for manslaughter, perjury and grievous bodily harm.
One of the c**tstables was already being investigated for fraud and it is only through that inquiry that Oluwale's death even came to be investigated.

Finally, Gils, or anyone else who may commit a murder is not entitled to an inquest, simply a court appearance and jail time.

Only members of the police are afforded inquests, even in the case of cold blooded murder.

Topics split and merged....

Yes, Gils, those of us live in the UK know exactly what it's like.

It's unfortunate that Duggan was not allowed the luxury of a trial, to see if those allegations about him were really true.

The evidence presented to the inquest jury, the jury's verdict and the implications are addressed in the following pieces:

"Mark Duggan was demonised by the police and the facts of his killing ignored. It seems the marginalised live in a parallel, unjust universe ..."

This perverse Mark Duggan verdict will ruin our relations with the police (click for more)

"Middle England appears to have delivered its verdict on Mark Duggan. He was a gangster. He had a gun. The police shot him and there's nothing to see here. Move along. And that is a persuasive line of argument, more so now that an inquest jury has decided that the killing was lawful. Richard Littlejohn in today's Daily Mail puts it as only Richard Littlejohn would want to. "Duggan was a gangster not Nelson Mandela," is the heading above his broadside, as though nothing exists between those two extremes ..."

Duggan verdict: police can't take a life, mislead the public and just move on (click for more)

"All sane people were shocked - though possibly not surprised - when the inquest jury brought back the verdict on Wed 8 Jan 2014 that the Metropolitan Police had lawfully killed Mark Duggan on Thurs 4 Aug 2011 although accepting that he was unarmed when officer V53 shot him twice terminating his life with extreme prejudice. The jury system was again exposed for its inability to deliver justice in cases involving excessive police force, Afrikan victims and false media propaganda. The majority of jury members can be considered to have ‘bottled it’ and shown supreme cowardice in the face of factual evidence, witness statements and police incompetence. The decision allows British police forces to continue to behave as though it is open season to harass, intimidate, frame, abuse and kill Afrikans with impunity ..."

Nubiart Diary - Mark Duggan Killing Verdict (click for more)

Mark Duggan family marks third anniversary of his death (click for more)