No, I'm Just offering another point of view.

But he was living the capitalist dream - just the products his gang were dealing are illegal but they do generate 'Super normal profits'. Unlikely Mr Duggan was too concerned about the misery he was inflicting when he was down at the jewellers spending his tax free profits?

He was hardly living the capitalist dream as a low end drug dealer. If he was then he would had surrounded himself with wealth and not poverty. Kim Dotcom is a better example of a criminal living the capitalist dream.



A bit of jewelry doesn't take you into capitalist dreamland..

I'm no expert on firearms, and like others haven't read the full details of the case, but I do wonder why, based on the fact that he may have had a gun (or may not have) at the time, the highly trained coppers didn't seek to incapacitate him (instead of using lethal force) with a shot to the shoulder of the arm carrying the alleged weapon, then one to the leg to knock him down. Why shoot him in the chest?

This was what I was most shocked by. Clenched fist salute "no peace without justice" other than shout "lets riot" they couldn't have gone much further in instigating a riot. Deliberate or naive? The aunt seemed eloquent enough that it wasn't naive stupidity. Anyway, little bit of celebrity for her.



On Duggan: I have very little sympathy for a gun carrying drug dealer. I have every sympathy for the police going about their business being faced with someone suspected to be armed and dangerous.

My concern is not that the officer acted within the law, given the circumstances, but that he mistakenly shot Mark Duggan.

This is deemed acceptable in the very difficult circumstances that the officer found himself in and I have every sympathy if someone thinks that their life is in danger.

I in no way think that an officer would have any reason to execute someone, so for the family to claim that is quite outrageous.

But the fact remains that this man was shot by mistake and I would hope that lessons will be learned in terms of how people are apprehended. The old movie cops would have been behind their cars for protection ordering him to come out with his hands up not sticking their nose into his face.

Is there a procedure in cases like this, not least for the protection of the officers?

Or is it all suck it and see?



I have no sympathy for Mark Duggan and his criminal ways, but I am concerned that he was killed in error and I do hope that the police themselves do not take the attitude that these things happen occasionally ...tough!

That Duggan was a villain and he is no great loss is an understandable but slightly worrying aspect in viewing the legitimacy of his killing.

We live in one of the wealthiest countries with some of the greatest opportunities opportunities to do what you want and live comfortably. You're in the lucky 10% of the world population. If you can't do it here, you won't do it anywhere else.

Chris, firearms officers are trained to shoot to stop the subject continuing to be a threat. (This is a different philosophy to that of armed forces training). To stop effectively and efficiently you are taught to aim for the centre of the largest area, the torso. The idea of aimed shots into the shoulder (which is a terrible place to receive a bullet) or any other specific part of the body is a total fantasy and only happens in the movies. No matter how good you are at hitting a target on a range, hitting a person who is moving is very difficult indeed. Firearms officers also have to be extremely aware of the "backdrop" during an incident and minimise danger to anyone who finds themselves nearby; being trained to aim at the centre of the target mass minimises the risk to third parties. Like you I have limited information about what took place in this specific incident, but I am trying to explain some of the practical issues firearms officers face on the rare occasions when firearms are drawn, and even rarer occasions when shots are fired.

I thought he was in the back seat of a car wasn't he? And the police were in another car that pulled up alongside. Which would make it very difficult to shoot him in the leg.









If it hadn't been for the thing about the gun being found over a hedge on the street and not on Mark Duggan's body or in the car then I'd have much more sympathy for the Police's position on this.



I understand that if you're an armed police officer following a man you believe often carries a firearm, is a member or leader of a gang responsible for several murders and shootings, you've got information he had a gun earlier today and then when you stop the car he starts bending down or appears to be reaching for something that you've got a very difficult decision to make very quickly. Hesitate and you, your colleagues or a passerby could be shot. Fire and you could be shooting when you don't have a reason to. So the actual officer that shot him I don't have any reason to doubt did it for the "right reasons" so to speak.



What worries me is this gun found over a hedge. It might well be the case that Duggan did actually throw it out of the car window, which might be why the officer shot Duggan as he thought Duggan was going to use rather than throw the gun. But unfortunately there are too many cases of the police closing ranks and lying or misleading for me to just instantly believe them when something like this happens.



I also think the family and some members of "the community" have been pathetic on this. The scenes outside and inside the court were ridiculous. I'm sure they're upset at their loss, but in the end if he hadn't been known to carry a gun and wasn't a member of a violent and vicious gang then armed police wouldn't have even been there.

The story is a perfect illustration of one huge difference between UK and US, though. The incident wouldn't have merited half a column inch over there. I agree largely with Him, but we should all be grateful that life, and the right to it, is held in so much greater regard over here.

You see that’s my issue with it, I agree with what you said regarding the gun being over the hedge. But my worry is how the police, knowing how difficult incapacitating him in that vehicle would be, and knowing all they knew about the threat he caused, ever expected that situation to end any differently to what it did. What was the outcome they hoped for by pulling up alongside in the car?

What I can't reconcile is the account of the shooter with the finding that Duggan was not holding a gun:





The only way that could make sense is if Duggan was holding something the shooter thought was a gun - but wasn't. And made the rather big mistake of pointing whatever it was at armed police - after already being shot once. It makes no sense to me. If Duggan HAD been holding a gun and had been shot in possession, then it would at least be understandable -if unwise - if he had raised his own weapon to try to fire back, but if we accept he was not holding a gun then how to explain the police account? It's not like "Ihe had something which I thought could be a gun", or "looked like a gun"; the account is unequivocal.