Mark Duggan: Family call for calm after 'baffling' verdict

Jan 9, 2014

London MPs express surprise as jury rules that killing of Mark Duggan was lawful

THE inquest verdict of the Mark Duggan inquest has been described as "baffling" and "perplexing" by north London MPs – and greeted with anger by members of his family.

The inquest jury found that Duggan – whose death sparked riots across England in August 2011 – was unarmed when he was shot dead by firearms police but was still killed using lawful force.

Outside the court yesterday, the victim's aunt, Carole Duggan, told reporters that her nephew had been "executed". She added: "We are going to fight until we have no breath in our body for justice for Mark, for his children, for all the deaths in custody."

Today she vowed to fight the decision "through the courts", the BBC reported, and called for calm on the streets of London.

"No demonstrations, no more violence," she said. "We will have to fight this and go through the struggle peacefully to get justice."

The Independent described the result of the inquest as an "explosive verdict" and says the inquest concluded with the "jury abused and police denounced as murderers". Some Duggan supporters stormed out of the courtroom, others had to be restrained, and a door was reportedly smashed in.

Lee Jasper, an adviser on race and policing, also accused the police of "murder" and said it was now "open season on black men". The lawful killing verdict was a surprise to some even on the police side, says The Guardian.

Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner Mark Rowley was drowned out as he tried to read a statement outside Scotland Yard yesterday, with furious Duggan supporters shouting insults such as "racists" and "scum".

Rowley expressed condolences to the family but defended the actions of his officers. "No officer sets out at the start of the day to run an operation that results in someone dying. So our sympathy today is with Mark Duggan's family. They have lost a loved one," he said.

"But the task our officers face in making split-second decisions when confronting armed criminals means there is a risk – a very small risk – that this will happen."

The Met has since announced that firearms officers are to wear video cameras, with commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe admitting the force must "do more to build trust" with communities.

David Lammy, the MP for Tottenham, where Duggan was shot, said the jury's findings should be respected but added that aspects of the verdict were "somewhat perplexing and seemingly contradictory".

Diane Abbott, the Labour MP for neighbouring Hackney North and Stoke Newington, tweeted that she was "baffled" by the jury's finding.

Abbott's comments were described as "irresponsible" by Henry Smith, the Conservative MP for Crawley, who said politicians needed to be careful not to "say things that inflame matters".

Meanwhile, Mayor of London Boris Johnson extended his sympathy to the Duggan family but defended the police. He told the Daily Telegraph: "On any given day highly trained Metropolitan Police firearms officers can and do face life threatening situations in which they have to make instant judgements under incredible pressure."

Sign up for our daily newsletter

Disqus - noscript

Correct decision. Good riddance to this vile gangster. Piece of scum no right minded person will be sorry to see the back of.

Murder is murder ! Killing an unarmed man is murder. The killing of Menezes in Stockwell was murder. The killing of Smiley Culture was murder. All killings were carried out by the Met.

The police are just a part of the protection racket that runs this country. Crimes perpetuated by corporations and goverment agencies very rarely meet with the same punishments any individual committing the same 'crimes' will.

Pay your taxes and do what you are told or go to prison enfored by their angencies. Governement is just a 'legalised' mafia.

He was a thug and a gangster , he wanted that gun to kill with
At the same time ,I don't agree with the Jury's decision he was executed , he never had a gun on him , The police are very adept at covering things up and looking after their backs
You have only to look at how many people are killed in police custody, no officer has ever been charged
my verdict is murder by the state

Such reasoning is how some countries have police death squads - and when that happens the rule of law ends.

Live by the law of the jungle, the jungle has taken revenge.
Justice has been served...

He was shot because the trigger happy officer was pumped up on adrenaline and, that for the officer 'he could' (shoot him)[they don't get that many chances to fire off rounds outside the range] and ........ because he wasn't white!
A white man from real life.
Villain he might have been but no need for this, condolences to his more sensible family.

The police arranged for him to have the gun so they could shoot him - that's why the POLICE INFORMANT gave it to Duggan. What went wrong is Duggan tossed the gun - so the police had to produce a story to cover it up.

You are sorry excuse for a human being.

Law of the jungle states that riots that follow are 'justified' - so you have no problem with burning buildings and looting shops then?

...or is your 'law of the jungle' like Boris's 'survival of the fittest' - which means you set the rules in such a way that you start out with an advantage?

Does this also mean the killing of PC blakelock in the tottenham riots was also 'justice done' for the death of cynthia Jarret?

Can you see where this is heading? - is is thinking things through not high on your list of priorities?

What was the verdict? "The police acted lawfully" is not a verdict available to any inquest jury. It's an opinion, but no exoneration - they are not empowered to apportion blame nor clear anyone of it. They should have returned an open verdict given how contradictory their findings were, "he had a gun he had no gun he threw the gun" - there was a gun found adjacent to the scene, but no evidence that it had been put there by Duggan- so irrelevant to the circumstances of his death. He was unarmed. It may have been an honest mistake - but generally honest mistakes resulting in killing someone in the street would not be not considered lawful. Why should the police not be held to the same standard as the rest of us?

I expect the jury were guided by the judge to give one of several verdicts. The other options may have been 'too strong' so the jury went for this one. This is a problem with guidance given by judges.

Also - it was a 8 - 2 majority - so 2 jurors must have dropped out - and 2 disagreed - so out of the original 12 only 8 agreed with the verdict. Hardly a ringing endorsement for the 'option' taken by the jury - no wonder it was confusing.

The verdict is like voting in the UK - you have to choose between various shades of slime - and accept the 'best of a bad bunch' rather than get what you actually want.

He had a gun - he just did not have it in his hand when he was shot, fidiot had thrown it into the grass. The police were also well aware what he planned on doing with that gun, they acted to prevent larger loss of life. I have no sympathy - you want to play with guns then don't come crying when you get shot.

Yes I'm sure they were guided to their verdict, But this was an inquest, chaired by a coroner, and the verdicts available to them are limited in law to a few categories: accident, misadventure, suicide, etc. If the situation is unclear or confusing then they can return an open verdict which is a way of saying we're not absolutely certain what happened. The judge and jury in an inquest are proscribed from apportioning blame or exoneration to any party, they are limited to determining the facts - which they failed to do - hence the anger and confusion now.

"fidiot had thrown it into the grass" You were there were you? - because there is no evidence to say it was his gun - there were no prints on it - it could have been there from a totally different incident. Gamgs often hide weapons to retrieve later - or didn't your expertise tell you that?

"The police were also well aware what he planned on doing with that gun"

...and the police are mind readers too? My my court will be interesting when the police get to suggest 'what my intentions were' - when I meet them in court.

" I have no sympathy - you want to play with guns then don't come crying when you get shot."

....good advice - so what about Jean Charles DeMenezes? - or was that 'different'?

You are a suckling pig on the teat of the bloated state which you actually believe will 'keep you safe' if you demonstrate undying loyalty.

So 8 of the 12 original jurors were happy to plump for the verdict they did - but with the comments they made - makes me think they did not understand the options.

Don't be surprised - the entire jury had to be dismissed in the case of the corrupt politician lying about speeding because they could not understand the responsibilities they had.

Also the 'defence' by the police is to say "12 ordinary member of the public found this verdict" - when in fact it wasn't 12 - and a lot of people are now excluded from jury service for many reasons - including that they have not registered to vote (yet). The days of justice by your peers are over.

Whatever happened to following the rule of law. I guess you prefer anarchy.

A gun carrying gang member gets shot and the family calls it an execution. Sorry that's actually called justice. People must accept responsibility for their actions. Live by violence, die by violence.

For all you naysayers, put on a pair of Copper shoes, walk a mile in them then make all the vile comments you wish to about what you encounter on your walk.

Do the criminals abide by the rule of law?
Those who live by the sword(gun) shall die by the sword(gun).

People who choose to live outside the law are "outlaws" in the sense of the Old West of America.
These sort of people should be deemed to have forfeited their "Human Rights".
Nothing to do with his ethnicity!

His prints were on the box the gun was in, and the guy who sold it him is already in prison for that crime. The jurors unanimously agreed he had the gun in the car and almost unanimously that he threw it into the grass. Again, no sympathy - this so-called peace loving family man was a known gang leader already suspected of at least one shooting. You live by the sword then there is a fair chance you will die by it - mea culpa.

Those who live by the sword . . .

Whilst shooting an unarned gangster smacks of U.S. style policing, why pick up a gun unless one intends to use it?

From a cynical point of view, my taxes won't be used to house yet another of society's misfits.

I don't know who the woman is in the photo but what a DOG. Yuk! Hard or what?

What some people fail to understand is that this was not a court of law, where people are found either Guilty or Not Guilty of a crime. This was an INQUEST to establish the facts about a death.

The purpose of the inquest is to answer just four questions:
1. Identity of the deceased;
2. Place of death;
3. Time of death; and
4. How the deceased came by his death.

And that's it. It is not the purpose of an inquest to determine, or appear to determine, criminal or civil liability, to apportion guilt or attribute blame. It should, however, set out as many facts as the public interest requires.