Underlines why the Police like to be in command of all armed situations and why they aim for the large body mass rather than trying to "wing" someone in Wyatt Earp style.

I am happy with them being in command, it would indicate that they have a plan.

If the target runs then the plan goes out of the window, only Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ever ran out from cover into a barrage of guns, it doesn't make sense to sensible people.

It certainly doesn't.
Faced with an array of guns aimed by trained marksmen, I don't think my instincts would dictate anything other than puppy eyes and compliance.

Duggan might have thought it was a rival gang.
lol

I don't know what the other police statements were, I'm only going off what I've heard and seen on TV and the bits people have posted on here, and whilst there may not be anything sinister in this case I don't agree with the principle of the police being allowed to confer, and having several days to think about it, before giving their statement. I believe they should be treated like anyone else (suspects or witnesses) at an incident in being split up and giving a statement relatively quickly. Then a senior officer or investigator from the IPCC or whichever body is suitable can pull all the statements together and decide what happened.

As I said, I'm not trying to infer that the police were "covering up" here but when they're allowed to wait a few days, get into a room together and take several hours to confer before giving their full statements it can give that impression, especially in a not straightforward case.

Problem 1. As soon as the police performed the hard stop Duggan was doing a runner.
Problem 2. If Duggan hadn't done a runner, you've virtually forced him to take the taxi driver as a hostage.
Problem 3. In the films cops do hide behind car doors, settee's, wooden tables, behind force fields. In real life none of these are effective ways to stop bullets.
Problem 4. They were in a busy London street at 6pm. There's a significant risk of innocent people becoming involved in the standoff and no way for the police to control the area because you've got them all hiding behind cars.

ATM you're criticising the police for their "screw up" which left an armed gangster dead. But your solution is one which is likely to end up with dead gangster, dead taxi driver and possibly a dead cop and/or bystander.

The problems with your solution would be pointed out by every armed response officer and most people who spend a short time thinking about it.



The police were performing a hard stop. Three cars stopped the taxi and at the same time as that's happening the armed cops are jumping out of the cop cars and surrounding the vehicle. While that's happening Duggan is attempting to do a runner. Duggan died about 6-10ft from the car door. IMO if the police are attempting a hard stop on a suspected armed criminal and that suspect is getting out of his car at a similar speed as the police there's simply no way to know if he's trying to do a runner or trying to take out cops with him. So the cop was totally justified in shooting him.



I've read about de Menezes death. I've read about Hillsborough. The death of de Menezes was about 1,000 times more of a screw up than this. Hillsborough was about 1 million times as bad.

Anyone who, without even bothering to look up details of the situation, invokes the names of de Menezes and Hillsborough over Duggan has no place whatsoever calling themselves a stanch supporter of the police.

Personally, I think the post incident response from police after incidents like this absolutely and totally sucks. But IMO the reason that they have to be like this is because if they aren't lawyers like Mike Mansfield would be happy to see cops jailed for simply doing their job and every time a gangster ended up dead it would be a Euromillions rollover jackpot win for their families. That would result in every armed police officer stepping down and possible chaos for the country.

The death of Jean Charles de Menezes was an absolute tragedy. The death of Mark Duggan is a tragedy for his family, but for the rest of Britain it's one less gangster thug on the streets.

Life is full of problems.
But it is nice to know that we can rely on sensible people to solve them for us.
You're right, I will leave it to the experts.

Do you watch plenty of 'shoot-em-up movies?
I would wager probably so.

As for your rather comic quantification of tragedy scale, is there a set process dependent on how many 0's you put on the end of it?

Thanks for clarifying. Are you glad of that situation?


Why do you again answer a different question to the one asked?
I see no one else is responding to you. I'd happily discuss subjects with you, you're clearly not dumb, but not whilst you think you're playing "forum wars" and avoiding and evading questions (every thread we have conversed on) If you persist with that approach to discussion, then there is no point continuing.

No riots yet?

Must be winter over there.

Hertfordshire is going hysterical.

Oi, I'll have you know me, the farmers and all the London club based footballers are only slightly miffed, we may even go to Hitchen and wave a fist in the air for a few seconds but we are not hysterical, we aren't Buckinghamshire you know.

I saw someone yesterday in York who puffed their cheeks and if I'm not mistaken slightly shrugged.

Trouble brewing?
I was informed of a roll of the eyes in Harrogate yesterday.

Trouble brewing?
I was informed of a roll of the eyes in Harrogate yesterday.

At least you got two accounts that agreed with one another.
lol

The information was that seismic I had to re-check.

Nevertheless, I see this as progress in the Duggan case.
Lessons have been learned.

Quote ="Rooster Booster"No riots yet? Must be winter over there.'" No, it's not that. newsthump.com/2014/01/09/duggan- ... -in-stock/

Quote ="Rooster Booster"No riots yet? Must be winter over there.'" No, it's not that. newsthump.com/2014/01/09/duggan- ... -in-stock/

I wasnt indulging in 'forum wars' i simply wasnt indulging in your straw man. I was completely consistant in what i said. It was you who tried to change that.

The poster who asks if I'd trust a surgeon or a manufacturer of surgeons tools to perform surgery on me, wasn't persisting in my "straw man"

I worked out: the usage of "Smokey" refers to your evasiveness.

You clearly take an approach that tries to "win" an argument. All that approach does though is entrench your "opponent" further into their original viewpoint.
If you would try questioning (which requires the honest and direct answering of questions in response) you would do a better. Well, "better" depends on what your aim is.

Just check back on how this one started and where we helped Damo set his expectations.

actually i never actually asked you that either. Maybe fully reading what I actually put would have solved the problems you are having?

No, but you asked an equivalent question.

You misuse the term "straw man" by the way.

A "straw man" argument involves building a false view of your opponents (and that's the only description to use in this circumstance, because it isn't an approach that comes to an agreement) position and then discrediting that.
Examples of a straw man argument could be:
- Misrepresenting those arguing for a freer economy as proposing an economy entirely without rules and regulations that would allow crime as a business: i.e. holding a gun to someone's head and demanding payment, and treating that as an agreed transaction.
- Asking if someone would prefer surgery/prescription from a surgeon/doctor or a surgical instrument manufacturer/prescription drug manufacturer. As such building the "straw man" that your opponent is proposing manufacturing business perform surgery/medicine prescription.

Do those scenarios seem familiar at all to you?

i didnt misrepresent your argument at all. I simply argued against it. I never argued that you had said you wanted an entirely free market, i said that your 'freer' market was a myth. You can either be a free market, or you can be regulated. I didnt misrepresent your views at all, i simply argued against them.

In your other example i gave a specific example where the 'straw man' was actually in effect happening. I said this was a consequence of applying free market principles to that market. At no stage did I say that was your idea.

A better example of a straw man would be your response to this statement

[iI am however still, as i assume you and everyone else on this board is, far closer to bottom end of that scale than the very top.[/i

being

[iDo you really believe, that if we put the world population in a line, ordered richest to poorest, you would be towards the poor end of that line?[/i

that was your attempt to misrepresent the statement i made.

So if you weren't trying to suggest I was proposing an entirely free market that allowed crime as a business, why did you describe the scenario of crime as a business and ask if I thought it was valid?
On my scale of wealth statement, go back to the start of that and see who was misrepresenting what.

I can see I've brought you around on viewpoints (although in saying this now I realise I'll reverse that and entrench you back to your prior viewpoint) and your evasion and misrepresentation confirms that.

You're in an awkward position now, presenting yourself as:
- A "forum wars" player who evades questions and misrepresents. I see even Starbug is getting fed up with it, and you getting a little abusive in response.
- Genuinely unable to understand, or remember far enough back in a thread, both your own and other contributors posts.

Neither makes you a poster worth discussing with. I see Sal gave you a few responses, but suspect he'll get fed up with your approach too, if he hasn't already. Then who will you engage with on the boards?