Exactly that


We are meant to feel sorry for someone who wouldn't think twice on ruining someone else's life for his own gain.

Are we buggery and can you point to any Duggan supporters on here apart from Damo who tried to futilely suggest Duggan had little option but be a villain?
He is roundly condemned.
That is NOT the issue.
So please keep the tostesterone out of the debate.

The issue is the Police killing someone in dodgy circumstances and not the suggestion that they get away with.

Still it makes a change from the Police just murdering black men or people with mental health problems in Police stations.
At least they have now evovled into killing them on the street and , allegedly planting guns on them to justify it.

[url=http://news.sky.com/story/1192734/mark-duggans-aunt-shocked-and-bewilderedYou haven't been keeping up to date with the story then[/url.

Well your no better than the likes of Mark Duggan in this world if you think two wrongs make a right.

I think most people have little if any sympathy for the victim, most can understand the direct family's disappointment at the verdict, and then I think thats where the understanding starts to peter away - who were the chanting mob outside the courtroom for instance, who are the ones who are going on the "vigil" this weekend - more importantly did any of the 2011 rioters actually know the victim or ever hear of his name before they went out to rob a shop ?

Facts abound of course, according to this article [urlhttp://www.businessinsider.com/uk-firearms-police-to-trial-cameras-2014-1[/url there are fewer than 7000 trained firearms officers in the UK and in the year Mar '11 to Apr '12 they were involved in 14,261 operations, so 2 each although thats meaningless of course as many of the 7000 will not have been ordered to open up the gun box at all that year. In this period and during those 14,261 operations a police firearm was discharged on only FIVE occasions.

This information [urlhttp://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/19/deaths-police-custody-data#data[/url shows how many UK citizens have been shot and killed by UK firearms police and depending on the split from Apr to Mar of those two years in question you can see that either 2 or 3 people would have been "executed" (LOL).

So lets recap.
14,261 incidents when armed officers were used
5 occasions that a gun was discharged
2 or perhaps 3 deaths resulting

In that period Apr '11 to Mar '12 five people died in the riots that followed and were instigated by Duggans death and between 6 and 13 people were killed during police pursuits, puts gun death into a bit of context - does anyone REALLY think that the police are running amok with guns and "executing" any criminal daft enough to carry a gun of their own ?

Id prefer no-one dead and that we were ruled by the rule of law that has served us well since the time of King John. I would rather not tear up 1000 years of legal principle and protection because someone was ‘probably’ off to do some crime.

Deaths in Police custody 969 since 1990. www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/de ... ce-custody You would not want to be black and be picked up by the Police. since 1998 333 people died in police custody not one police officer was convicted. www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/ ... -convicted Ian Tomlinson, Charles de Menezes, Duggan Christopher Alder, Colin Roach . Just part of a long list. Join the Police, kill someone and get of with it. Dugan was lucky it was a nice quick clean kill. Much better than having 6 police officers kneeling on your chest and slowly suffocating you.

Deaths in Police custody 969 since 1990. www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/de ... ce-custody You would not want to be black and be picked up by the Police. since 1998 333 people died in police custody not one police officer was convicted. www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/dec/ ... -convicted Ian Tomlinson, Charles de Menezes, Duggan Christopher Alder, Colin Roach . Just part of a long list. Join the Police, kill someone and get of with it. Dugan was lucky it was a nice quick clean kill. Much better than having 6 police officers kneeling on your chest and slowly suffocating you.

Quote ="Durham Giant"Deaths in Police custody 969 since 1990. www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/de ... ce-custody You would not want to be black and be picked up by the Police.'" Any body would think the Met have suffered over the years with being stigmatised and labelleled as institutionally racist? Oh, wait on a minute...................................

Quote ="Durham Giant"Deaths in Police custody 969 since 1990. www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/de ... ce-custody You would not want to be black and be picked up by the Police.'" Any body would think the Met have suffered over the years with being stigmatised and labelleled as institutionally racist? Oh, wait on a minute...................................

If they were known drug dealers, gangsters what have you they would be in prison. If the police/CPS could prove they were drug dealers/gangsters etc then they would be found guilty in a court of law. If they can’t prove it in a court of law, then killing them because they were described as ‘known drug dealers’ is absolutely mental. What you are describing isn’t no-nonsense policing. Its extra-judicial murder.

You may think this makes you sound like a big man, a no-nonsense tough love kind of guy. It doesn’t. It makes you sound like you haven’t properly thought through the consequences of what you are proposing, or that you aren’t smart enough to work out something people worked out over a thousand years ago.

It is the rule of law, police get charged with offences ( occasionally) and are acquitted by jury's often made up of people like Rover 49, Jerry Chicken, Cronus et al who all think , " dey is black*, dey is criminals*, dey are scum* " ( *delete as appropriate) , police are lovely and cuddly and they would never kill anyone illegaly or unjustly

You may have one the lottery of life, not everyone in this country has been as fortunate as you. A little humility and there but for the grace of God go I might be well placed.

A lack of the ability to empathise with others isn’t a symptom a hard-working, tough love, no-nonsense, self-made guy. It’s a symptom of psychopathy and sociopathy.

Quite. You would always find civilised western countries apprehending and prosecuting suspects. The thought that you could kill and maim a bunch of people on suspicion there are some wrong uns amongst them, by, say, sending a drone to fire a high-explosive missile into the lot isn't the sort of thing they would go for at all.

If you read the news reports around the case Duggan wasn’t some random person who found himself suspected of being a member of a violent organised criminal operation by accident. He portrayed himself as a gangster, and the Police though he was a gangster because he associated with known gangsters, and prior to the shooting they were monitoring his behaviour, they were suspicious of regular taxi rides he took between locations in London known to be associated/controlled by violent gangs (those who are a little worldly wise will know taxis are used in this way to shift drugs/guns/cash/other because they are less likely to be stopped than a stolen car or a car registered to a known criminal). Now his family might claim this was a mistake, he was just a bit of a loveable rogue who liked to pretend he was a “gangsta”, and who despite being officially unemployed and from a less than affluent background inexplicitly had money to spend taking taxis to visit his mates who just happened to be known/suspected violent organised criminals. For me it’s a bit of a stretch to believe the harmless rogue theory.

As far as the shooting incident is concerned I must admit I found the reports confusing, but then I haven’t had access to the detailed information the jury had. They seemed to have seen enough evidence to accept he had a gun in the car and that he probably threw it away at some point during the stop (someone else has already been sent down for supplying that particular gun to him). There is then the question of the shooting itself, they accept that the Police officer who shot him believed he had the gun at the time and was a genuine threat, although it appears with hindsight he had probably got rid of the gun by that point. Nobody seriously seems to think that he didn’t have a gun at all, and that the Police inexplicably fitted him up in the most contrived and awkward way possible.

What really annoys me is some of the views I’ve seen expressed in the media from “community leaders”, there is explicit race mongering, there is pandering to the criminal subculture Duggan belonged to and those who wish to appease and accommodate it, and talk of “injustice” done to Duggan’s family. He wasn’t shot because he was black, that had absolutely nothing to do with it, only a fool would believe that had he been a white gangster transporting an illegal gun it would have all been rosy. Would it help the people who go in for this type of idiocy if the Met printed out fliers to circulate amongst gangsters to confirm that they are an equal opportunity service when it comes deploying armed response against armed gangsters, and a warning they might like to consider alternative pursuits if they don’t want to get shot?

Interesting. I'm not doubting you, you understand, but you couldn't by any chance just provide a link to the stats for composition of juries by racial prejudice in the "acquitted police killer" cases you refer to, could you?

Doesn’t matter though does it. Whether or not he was a ‘gangsta’ is a bit irrelevant, we have a process for dealing with that. His death is no more justified if he were Tony Soprano incarnate than if he was the new Ghandi. His death is only justified by the officer who shot him having and honest and reasonable belief that he or the people around him faced an imminent threat.

If that is the case, what happened is fine. If it isn’t, what happened is murder. Everything else is irrelevant.

No i couldnt. But i also did not state it was based purely on racial prejudices hence the delete as appropriate comment.

I can however remember reports where it stated all white jury ( they have stopped doing that now).

The point is that juries in this country are notorious for not convicting police officers in these types of cases. Sometimes due to the juries, sometimes due to the judges, sometimes the failure of the cps tp prosecute effectively and sometimes due to the fact the police investigate themselves.

The Point stands that 100s of people die at the hands of the police and yet the police are very rarely held to account or successfully prosecuted.

Statistically some of these deaths at the hand of the police are criminal acts

You don't actually understand statistics, do you?

Yes statistically you are more likely to ignore the important point and play petty intellectual point scoring games.

( based on your last post anyway

)

It's not a petty intellectual point. You are claiming that statistics somehow guarantee that [isome[/i deaths in Police custody [imust have been[/i a result of criminal acts. Statistics are capable of no such thing. That's a fairly central plank of your argument based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

I'd say that's rather relevant to the discussion, wouldn't you?

[size=150Do you want to comment on the fact that the Police kill large numbers of people and very very rarely are successfully prosecuted for their actions.

Do you have any views on this or are you wanting to be a pedant [/sizeabout the way i presented some information.

Should i change it to balance of probabilities add in the word likelihood would that make you happier.

Maybe that would just obfuscate things though and you would have to concentrate on the main point.

[size=150Police kill and get away with it FACT[/size

LOL, good job I have a sense of humour and don't jump up and down demanding that you retract your accusation of racism, I can write off your slur on my fictional character as simple foolishness on your part so don't worry about it.

Calm down dear.

As has already been pointed out to you, statistics prove very little but as you are leaning on them very heavily for your ridiculous outbursts then could you provide the breakdown of those deaths in custody to show which ones were due to a police officer killing a detainee and better still what methods they used (you know, the bit where you mentioned suffocation), I'm assuming that you have those statistics haven't you ?

*you're

Where was the second wrong? A court of law found the shooting was lawful. Or don't you understand that?

Perhaps you'd prefer the gun had been delivered to be used in a crime somewhere? Perhaps to shoot an innocent person? To cause the death of another rather than himself? No, I have no problem with someone peddling guns meeting a sticky end. Lawfully, of course.


Care to prove any of that that? Links? Quotes? Or is that a totally fabricated accusation? Perhaps you should read my first post in this thread on page 2 where I mention the police and people like you in paragraph 5. You're a perfect example.

Oh look! You've thrown race in there. I haven't mentioned race, most people haven't mentioned race, yet somehow there it is. That's embarrassing even by your usual aimless ranting standards.



Perhaps you think Duggan and his associates just need a hug eh? Poor misguided little cherubs.

A few pennies possibly. Otherwise, you're exaggerating.

The issue is not whether Duggan himself was a nice person: the issue is whether the police acted correctly.

They do have form – look up Harry Stanley, for instance, an entirely innocent man who was shot dead on the grounds that he was carrying a repaired table leg in a bag (which must have been a gun) and sounded a bit Oirish to someone who couldn't tell the difference between Irish and Scottish but had rung the police with this devastatingly incriminating evidence of terrorism, which they decided was absolutely trustworthy.

Part of the problem is how the courts deal with such situations. In the Stanley case, the coroner had only allowed the jury to return a verdict of either lawful killing or an open verdict. That was changed at a judicial review and a verdict of unlawful killing was returned, leading police to hand in their firearms authorisations in protest. That was overturned in the High Court and returned to an open verdict.

The officers involved were later interviewed in the light of some new forensic evidence, but no prosecution occurred. They stated that they acted in self defence. But given the facts – a man coming home from a pub, carrying something entirely innocent, for entirely innocent reasons (it had been repaired), is challenged by police and turns to face them and is then shot dead – it's rather difficult to maintain that.

So the message that it sends out is that you can shoot dead someone on the grounds of a staggeringly inaccurate 'tip off' and claim you acted in self defence when there is nothing to maintain that.

I'm not suggesting that I know the answer, and I will stress that I do think that the police have an unenviable job, but the issue is not whether society is better off without a Duggan or not, not least because these things do not only conveniently happen to the Duggans of this world.