Mark Duggan - Justice?

I posted a few years ago on this topic and at the time was upset at the Metropolitan Police over this issue.

The Metropolitan police in future need to be much more reticent to push details out to the press about these affairs. Another "lawful" killing that occasionally boils my blood is  the John Charles de Menezes case ( careful with that wikipedia), don't get me started on that one! 

The similarity with the Mark Duggan incident was that at first the Met. Police gave out strong messages that they had shot a terrorist. as the days passed it became clear a horrible accident had occurred. 

The Mark Duggan case has caused such outrage, not necessarily for what happened, but because a story went out onto the ether that not only had he fired but an officer was saved by his own radio when a bullet became lodged in it. And slowly the picture emerged that Mark Duggan's gun had not been fired, not only that but he had not touched it directly (it was inside a sock), and just for good measure wasn't even holding it when he was shot. The bullet found in the radio was in fact from a Metropolitan Police gun

In my opinion this is why the Met have lost trust on this issue and hence the shameful heckling of the assistant Chief Constable after the hearing.

As has been said no officer sets out to create a lethal force situation and use it and I believe this was the case with Mark Duggan. What the Met needs to be more careful of is what they say to the press afterwards. Unfortunately the Jury's verdict has now been lost in the howl of indignation caused by misinformation at the time of the incident.

My problem with lethal force, as practiced by the UK police forces, is down to whether the armed officer feels they have a credible threat to public safety. If the answer is yes, the officer drops the suspect in the street and gets a pat on the back afterwards. 

There have been several high profile cases over the years of innocent victims being slain in error. Fortunately there are not more.

I am conflicted here. I want the protection of armed police when absolutely necessary and I DO want them to use it in the interest of public safety.  But occasionally it seems like the threat level threshold is too easily reached. 

In my last article about Mark Duggan I commented that it was wrong or counter productive to place too much responsibility at the hands of the armed officers. They have a moment to make a decision - live or die. It is too much to expect these people to have make any more deep seated decisions. The responsibility must lie with the officer whose decision is to send the armed officers in in the first place. It is that officer that is calmest and furthest away from the action, the one most capable of rational thought as they are not in the midst of all the shouting.  

In conclusion, Let us not forget the Mark Duggan DID go and buy a lethal weapon. Had he not we would not be having this issue. I think the jury probably served justice although there were a few worries (if they believe he was unarmed at the time of the shooting what made the officer feel he was a threat?). The Met need to wait until more evidence is in before releasing statements to the press!