The jury (of 10) has decided (by 8-2) that Mark Duggan was lawfully killed even though they rejected the police version of events and also found (again by 8-2) that he was not armed, as the police had claimed.

This is quite a perverse decision (and probably the worst possible outcome).

Although someone can kill someone else if they honestly feel that their life is in danger - the situation here is surely quite different.

The police would have been "hyped-up" and were numerous - so each individual officer would not have felt a particular threat against himself.

On the other hand, Duggan was taken by surprise, and surrounded by numerous officers (all armed).

This is not at all what the "lawful killing" verdict was intended for.

One feels that the Jury - who, remember, could NOT reach a unanimous decision - just wanted to wash their hands of this altogether.

But Det Ch Insp Foote said he was "very lightly convicted". Minor offences like cannabis possession and the sale of stolen goods were all he had on his record.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25363828

==

... but that did not stop them doing everything they could to smear his name !

==

Some of the police intelligence on Mark Duggan was graded 'E', the lowest on the scale the police use to grade accuracy.

It was, said the coroner, "certainly a very poor quality indeed" and DCI Foote told the inquest "I had no information on which I could have arrested Mark Duggan."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25363828

==

so .... not enough evidence for an arrest -
but "enough" to turn Tottenham into the Wild West ?

The police are utterly out of control and whenever caught out dig themselves into deeper holes.

Individual accountability. We need it even more and it will come in 2014. Hillsborough... NOTW... Milly Dowler and those poor other two girls murdered due to one Surrey police officer's incompetence...

Assistant Commissioner Rowley said: " ... our officer had an honest and reasonable belief that Mark Duggan still had the gun when he shot him."

news.sky.com/story/1192172/mark-duggan-i...police-chief-heckled

That simply does not stand up.

It would be a reasonable defence for one man, being attacked by a gang ...... but it is NOT a defence for a member of that gang attacking an individual.

If he was shot with a gun in his hand, how did it end up behind a fence up to 20 feet away inside a sock? But if it was planted - a claim fiercely denied by officers involved in the shooting - why would anyone put it there?

Lawyers for the family allege that a police officer removed a handgun from the minicab after Mr Duggan was shot and planted it in the grass behind a fence.

The barrister for the Duggan family, Leslie Thomas, questioned how a member of the police team, V59, had been caught on CCTV cameras walking to where the gun was found.

"I'm going to suggest to you, V59, that you knew where the gun was before the officers had gone round, because you and all of your colleagues had planted it there," he said.

A Metropolitan police officer, who was there to support the IPCC, wrote in a statement that during informal briefings at the scene he was told that "officers had apparently thrown a firearm found in his possession over a fence so that it was out of reach and it would no longer pose a threat to them". No officer said that happened.

all above from - www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mark...vidence-9046789.html

So ... how come 12/15 police officers (there were four cars full) all fail to see a gun - but the officer who fired did?

How could all these police fail to see Duggan "throw" the gun away - neither gun nor the sock it was in had any DNA from Duggan on them - when they would ALL have been focused on him?

More questions than answers as the police dig an even bigger hole for themselves.

The police are now on a major charm offensive, and crying that "the public don't understand what a difficult job they do"

Perhaps we should send them a little one word reminder of why they are not trusted; and why no one believes a word they say?

PLEBGATE !

A serious indictment of policing strategy before, during and after the Tottenham riot in October 1985 was presented by an independent inquiry in July 1986, which also located the cause of the riot within this 'real and bitter history of racist policing'.

The Broadwater Farm Inquiry, a six-member panel chaired by Lord Gifford QC, was set up by Haringey Council in February 1986 to provide an 'independent and fair assessment' of the serious disorder on the estate following the death of Cynthia Jarrett. The Inquiry gathered evidence from over 100 organisations, and through 22 public hearings, involving 77 witnesses, 80 recorded interviews and visits to 178 homes on the estate.

The report was very critical of both senior police leadership and many junior officers, the former showing 'a frightening lack of understanding and sensitivity' to black people and organisations.

The Inquiry was extremely critical of the report of Deputy Assistant Commissioner Richards which contained several 'grossly misleading' allegations (some of them later withdrawn) concerning 'lakes of petrol'. It also strongly criticised Commissioner Sir Kenneth Newman for making 'highly irresponsible' statements reducing the riot to an ultra-left wing conspiracy and for portraying the Farm and its residents as a criminal community through his previous description of 'symbolic locations' where police are not wanted. The press very quickly took up such themes and presented the Farm as 'a hellish place of criminal activity and racial hatred' and, the report said, vilified local council leader Bernie Grant in a crude and racist manner.

The Inquiry also investigated the policing situation on the estate after the riot and discovered a 'serious over reaction to the October 6 disturbances which continued for an excessive time'. An 'amazing' 9,165 officers were operating on the estate or held in reserve from 10 to 14 October. Incidents of what the report called 'racist and oppressive policing' were mentioned, including the smashing down of 18 front doors to homes with sledgehammers. It asked, were the police 'acting in this way simply to intimidate not just the occupants of the particular flats, but the estate as a whole?' The report also raised serious questions about the civil liberties of those who were subsequently detained, arrested, charged and tried.

all from - www.runnymedetrust.org/histories/race-eq...er-farm-inquiry.html

I prefer two words ITK, Jonathan King. Or, if it has to be one, Hillsborough.

In The Know (as always) wrote:
Perhaps we should send them a little one word reminder of why they are not trusted; and why no one believes a word they say?

PLEBGATE !

PROOF ! -

Plebgate PC pleads guilty (to telling lies and misleading the public) and offers to resign.

he is to have psychiatric reports

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25682652

remember this next time you are told to believe a policeman !

Mmm ... I wonder.

If the Duggan verdict was due today - when the Jury know that
the police DO tell lies -

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25682652

and they DO have sex with underage girls -

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/453113/Police-...ith-14-year-old-girl

I wonder if they would have been so keen to believe the police "version" of events
(against ALL the evidence) ?