I have concerns about that.
It should be looked at. But, we don't know the details, the court did, and the court found it to be lawful.

It could be they just shot an unarmed man for no reason.

Or, it could be that they knew he was armed (which was true) and they didn't know he had just thrown the gun away (who knows) and they were nervous and when he went to his pocket to get his phone they thought he was going for a gun and shot him (which is the court's basic finding)

Moral high ground was not the right way for me to put it, I more meant that if you are carrying a gun and the police know you're carrying a gun, then you can't exactly take being shot as a surprising outcome.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:11, 2 replies, latest was 11 years ago)

plus you are a known troublemaker - ok this by itself isn't enough to warrant being shot, but it is an explanation as to why the police were more nervous
he wasn't exactly an innocent 6 year old boy
( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:14, Reply)

The court heard the evidence from several police officers who, of course, closed ranks and supported one another.
The jury was always likely to trust the word of one or more police officers.
I probably would too.
Yes Duggan was a wrong'un, but that doesn't mean the policeman with the gun was whiter than white.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:23, Reply)

A jury of Londoners said he was lawfully killed on the evidence.
They probably wish they had your namby pamby wishy washy wavy gravy assumptions to help them.
(Set your faces to Stunned Bigly, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:28, Reply)

They had a lot of conflicting evidence to sort through though. It certainly wasn't as open and shut as that.

( GeordieJay Bummers are deaf, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:30, Reply)

The court heard evidence from a lot of people, not just the police
I didn't say they were angels. I didn't say they didn't make a mistake. They shot a man who was at the time, unarmed.

What matters, as to whether it's lawful, is whether it was reasonable to presume he was armed, thus making any gesture such as reaching inside a jacket, a potential threat.

You're the police. You knew he started off with a gun. You didn't see him throw the gun. I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume he's probably still got a gun.

Edit: "who, of course, closed ranks and supported one another" ? You've got actual evidence of that? Who's making up things to suit their prejudices now?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:30, Reply)

or another gun in a different pocket
or a mate with a gun. or a knife.
( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 15:31, Reply)

That's not a knife.

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Thu 9 Jan 2014, 16:00, Reply)