quite a simplistic view………..because, possession, in possession, 'has with him,' immediate access to, are all wide and varied…… was Duggan compliant………did he throw the weapon away from the taxi……..did the Officers have a honest held belief he was in possession of a gun……………………..best you ask the jury this one then as they have announced they believe the Officer... perhaps the dishonest cops have got at the jury……aih!
Perhaps it went like this.......... "Armed Police! Duggan!Throw the gun down! Throw the gun down!" (not that one was seen) "Oh alright, Officer" (gun is lobbed through the railings) "Bang!; bang!" (unarmed man dead......hi-fives all round) .............oh, that is what the jury seem to agree happened..................
I'm glad I don't go shooting as often as I used to............ ..............but I'm struggling with how an armed officer is brave when the other party didn't have gun in his hand.....
As far as I know so far - they didn't, they said he was lawfully killed and it was likely that imminently before he was shot that he did have control of a gun ?
From what I read, 8 jurors reckoned he had lobbed it over the fence, one thought he chucked it on the path and the other said there was no evidence he had one.... But in all ten cases..........how could he have had control of a gun, if it wasn't in his hand?
I thought jury members were not allowed to discuss any aspect of the trial outside of the jury room ?
I think you are getting a bit confused, 8 jurors believed he threw the gun away, all 10 believe that the police thought he still had the gun. The copper thought he had a gun, duggan turned suddenly towards him, he made a judgement call and pulled the trigger. End of story.
And what if he had another gun or there was uncertainty as to what he threw away. Bottom line is the intelligence was spot on - that man had a gun. And on approach if there was any uncertainty by the police or he didn't comply immediately or precisely then he's gonna get shot..
There's always a 'What if'.......... However IIRC, from the formation of PT17 (formerly D11) to CO19, SO19 and now SCO19, I don't recall any of that armed group having been shot let alone killed by someone with a gun (unless it was by one of their own, which I think the number is two)..........could wrong, but I don't think so. Yep, Duggan was a toe-rag and probably a coward, therefore IMO he would have flung the d*mn thing immediately..... I'm not in support of Duggan by any means, but I am concerned about the readiness of Plod to cover their a*ses and falsify evidence when they have cocked up, having been on the end of that sort of behaviour four times to date.....
So now you are saying you have the evidence they have committed purjury better get in contact with Pete quick to tell his mates…………….you do have the evidence don't you? you know the stuff the investigation the defence barristers the judge the jury have missed………forking lighten up!
The jury can only reach conclusions on the evidence placed before them. So the policeman gives evidence that he believed Duggan had a gun (or still had a gun), and there is no evidence to contradict this, i.e. there is no evidence that the policeman did not believe Duggan had a gun - what is the jury to do?They have no basis for reaching any other finding. That doesn't mean you, or I, or anybody else, have to accept the jury's conclusion. We can think anything we like.
For people questioning how far the gun was away from him, guns are quite heavy, and the smooth finish has an inherently low friction coefficient. Throwing a gun in a panic situation will see it travel far further over a Tarmac surface than you might expect, it carries a lot of inertia and has minimal friction to slow it down.
Er isn't that the point of a Jury, to come to a conclusion? And isn't it the job of the legal teams to prove / disprove the evidence? If we don't have to accept the result then why bother? I don't have to accept that the Earth is round even if the evidence says otherwise, it doesn't mean i'm right to do so...
WTF are you rambling on about? I wish people that are supposed to be in responsible positions could spell and punctuate their grammar properly. At least that way I could make some sense of what they are trying to say.
So, OK..........Off I go out pigeon shooting on land where I have permission to do so. However, someone walking their dogs on land where they aren't permitted to walk, takes offence that I am carrying a gun and phones Plod. Plod arrive in ARVs and jump out point various 'implements' at me and tell me (sorry, shout their effing heads off at 15 metres range) to put the gun down and then lie down. So I calmly put the gun down and lie down in the mud and crop (which made me virtually invisible because of the camo clothing) and I get roughly searched etc etc etc. This is despite they had already walked past several dead pigeons and a 50 decoy pattern in the field.....f*** knows how they saw me if they couldn't see them, because their excuse for the 'hard' approach was that they didn't know I was a pigeon shooter. It seems at the point I put the gun down but before I laid down, a lot of you would have had me shot. What a bunch of c***s you are if that's the case.........unless of course you like pigeons, in which case, tough.
