Mark Duggan shooting inquest in London finally starts...

[littlebabyjesus]

Because no one with an axe to grind would ever say something like that. Make up the police had done something they hadn't.

Wasn't there a guy who said he could be sure of what he saw from the window of a 9th story window? Common sense tells you that some people will exaggerate, lie, or make things up, including the police themselves

Sure, confidence in that one witness's report should only go so far. However, he's the only witness not to have been proven a liar. Which means he's the only witness, effectively.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Might I suggest that it was the difficulty they had getting a gun to appear that ended up confusing the testimonies.

Still V53 was only too happy to stand up in court and present a version of events which given the known facts of the case cannot possibly have been true.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Tell that to the jury!

I would but they don't seem to understand logic or facts so there's probably no point.

 

[scalyboy]

When one serves on a jury, one swears to judge the case on the evidence. Not on previous news reports, or anything else. The evidence, and ONLY the evidence.

If the jurors were swayed by press innuendo, they are beyond despicable.

Could the reports of Duggan's alleged criminal past have formed part of the evidence, though? As in, supporting evidence for why the police might have been trigger-happy... if they believed him to be a violent armed gangster? Or would it be inadmissible (as it would be in a trial)?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Could the reports of Duggan's alleged criminal past have formed part of the evidence, though? As in, supporting evidence for why the police might have been trigger-happy... if they believed him to be a violent armed gangster? Or would it be inadmissible (as it would be in a trial)?

In the inquest the nature of the police's intelligence on Mark Duggan was discussed. Coincidentally, this might have served to create a poor estimation of Duggan's character in the minds of the jury. Of course even if he made his living selling stolen human kidneys to kebab shops it still wouldn't be legal to kill him while he was unarmed and surrounded.

 

[8ball]

I would but they don't seem to understand logic or facts so there's probably no point.

Well, 80% of them don't.

Which seems to be the going rate for humans tbf.

 

[leanderman]

I would but they don't seem to understand logic or facts so there's probably no point.

Funny and quite possibly true - but also dismissive and superior!

 

[laptop]

No getting around the fact that the verdict shows that the jury thought both that the policemen involved were lying and that they had killed him legally. It wasn't tiny lies either. It was full-on fabrication. So we know you're lying your head off, but we choose to believe that you thought you saw a gun - just that bit we believe, everything either side is a fabrication.

Mmm. The way the questions were posed encouraged the jury to do that. But it didn't have to follow them.

I'm forming a picture of someone like an accountant becoming the chair of the jury, and taking it through all the questions separately, steering the members away from the bigger picture.

(Interesting question: it's illegal to discuss what did go on in a jury room. But is this that? The above, your honour, is fiction and not based on experience at all. Oh no.)

 

[PursuedByBears]

Good piece on Mark Duggan by the artist taxi driver

 

[frogwoman]

Going to a vigil for mark duggan at the weekend.

 

[ShiftyBagLady]

This is not, strictly speaking, about the verdict but what has been pissing me off about this story all day is everybody asking the family to 'call for calm' or praising them 'calling for calm' as though they had incited the riots which followed Duggan's death. It was never their idea or their fault or their responsibility that people rioted after he was killed, the onus is not on them to call for calm

 

[Treacle Toes]

This is not, strictly speaking, about the verdict but what has been pissing me off about this story all day is everybody asking the family to 'call for calm' or praising them 'calling for calm' as though they had incited the riots which followed Duggan's death. It was never their idea or their fault or their responsibility that people rioted after he was killed, the onus is not on them to call for calm

Spot on. It has been boiling my piss too. Like they have the responsibility and power to control the situation, implying they did after Mark was killed also.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Funny and quite possibly true - but also dismissive and superior!

I'm happy to dismiss people who make excuses for murder. Fuck them and the horses they rode in on. Their decision makes it more likely that this shit will happen again, and ensures that a murderer will never face justice.

 

[likesfish]

The met have actually fired only 4 times in 6 years out of thousands of times armed poice have been deployed.

They may well have fucked up every time the trigger is pulled but a fuck up rate of less than one in a thousand is pretty good even though a fuck up is usually fatal.

Until a stun gun that actually works is developed or people stop using weapons in crimes people are going to die in confrontations with police.

 

[leanderman]

I'm happy to dismiss people who make excuses for murder. Fuck them and the horses they rode in on. Their decision makes it more likely that this shit will happen again, and ensures that a murderer will never face justice.

That's the heart of it: The jury knew that an unlawful killing verdict would brand him a murderer.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's the heart of it: The jury knew that an unlawful killing verdict would brand him a murderer.

they had open verdict available to them too. I don't get the leniency some here are giving the jury. They failed in what they needed to do.

 

[leanderman]

they had open verdict available to them too. I don't get the leniency some here are giving the jury. They failed in what they needed to do.

They heard the evidence - it's their call. Whatever you or I think they need to do.

 

[phildwyer]

they had open verdict available to them too. I don't get the leniency some here are giving the jury. They failed in what they needed to do.

Do we know the class, race or gender composition of the jury?

 

[leanderman]

Do we know the class, race or gender composition of the jury?

I heard only that they are north Londoners, some from around Tottenham.

I guess they are as representative, or not, as a criminal jury.

They have asked for confidentiality - unsurprising after apparently ugly scenes at the high court - and the animosity their verdicts have drawn.

 

[phildwyer]

I heard only that they are north Londoners, some from around Tottenham.

I guess they are as representative, or not, as a criminal jury.

They have asked for confidentiality - unsurprising after apparently ugly scenes at the high court - and the animosity their verdicts have drawn.

The verdict would certainly be easier to understand had the jury been unrepresentative of the community in terms of race or class.

Does confidentiality regarding personal identity preclude the release of such information?

 

[Fuchs66]

Oh right....... but they're also designed to be totally lethal

Of course they are! What do you think the main purpose of shooting someone is?

 

[Pickman's model]

let's not get sidetracked into issues round the jury's background or identity now.

 

[ska invita]

re the jury, ian bone posted this today

‘I WLL MISS YOU’ JUDGE TO DUGGAN INQUEST JURY

Having taken the extraordinary step of giving the jury three weeks off over Christmas the judge prefaced the jury’s verdict by saying how much he would ‘miss them’. More significant than might seem at first. Judge Cutler seems to have develop an avuncular relationship with the jury – to the extent that they were reluctant not to follow his directions……or rather they were bamboozled by his five steps approach. Rather than simply ask for one of three possible verdicts the judge instructed them to deliver five separate verdicts on police procedures that day – the first being was the police information on Mark Duggan handled well. They were then instructed to follow a ‘if you think this then this must have happened’ approach which bamboozled them into delivering a nonsense verdict

--------------------------

Supposedly as that list of 5 verdicts was being read out in court the family and supporters felt increasingly hopeful, and it made the final incongruous verdict all the more depressing

 

[phildwyer]

let's not get sidetracked into issues round the jury's background or identity now.

It's not a sidetrack.

This looks like a case of jury nullification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

 

[8ball]

This seems to be what they're telling us. The jury weren't ask to give a verdict on the question of Duggan's magic gun, so that whole thing can be ignored.

What is the indication that the jury thought the police were lying?

 

[sim667]

Of course they are! What do you think the main purpose of shooting someone is?

Er.... you can have non lethal projectiles, rubber bullets etc (although I do understand people have died as a result of impact by a rubber bullet).

 

[8ball]

Er.... you can have non lethal projectiles, rubber bullets etc (although I do understand people have died as a result of impact by a rubber bullet).

That seems a bit disingenuous given the type of rounds used. And a rubber bullet at that range would very likely be lethal anyway.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's not a sidetrack.

This looks like a case of jury nullification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

no, this looks like you trying to fuck up the thread

 

[phildwyer]

no, this looks like you trying to fuck up the thread

Seriously Pickman's: Not Here. OK?

 

[8ball]

Seriously Pickman's: Not Here. OK?

Your claim to the moral high ground has been denied. Please contact the Rhetorical Land Registry within 14 days if you wish to appeal this decision.