I’m kinda annoyed at this. There is no reason in my mind that you can shoot an unarmed man dead because he “poses a threat”. If he’s unable to shoot due to not having a gun, or even if he did have the gun, there are lots of places on his body that would have prevented him continuing and enabled a capture.
- Did the Metropolitan Police Service and Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) do the best they realistically could have done to gather and react to intelligence about the possibility of Mr Duggan collecting a gun from Mr Hutchinson-Foster? The jury found they hadn’t.
- Was the stop conducted in a location and in a way which minimised, to the greatest extent possible, recourse to lethal force? The jury said yes.
- Did Mr Duggan have the gun with him in the taxi immediately before the stop?” Yes
- How did the gun get to the grass area where it was later found?” A majority of 9 to 1 said it was thrown.
- When Mr Duggan died, did he have the gun in his hand? A majority of 8 to 2 said no, he did not have a gun in his hand.
So, 9/10 people said the gun was thrown but 2/10 say he had it in his hand when he was shot? Having read the wording on the jury’s form, I am really quite frustrated that it leads the jury to a decision.
Did V53 honestly believe or may he honestly have believed, even if that belief is mistaken, that at the time he fired the fatal shot, that he needed to use
force to defend himself or another
Talk about a whitewash. Literally. I do believe that the outcome of the incident would have been different if the deceased had been Caucasian.