• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mark Duggan

scaramanga said:
But just like stop and search, he could (if he had some kind of made up prejudice) disproportionately focus the cameras on racial minorities, or gingers, or those wearing bow ties until he found someone doing something wrong, right?

So anyone innocent being stopped and searched should have no complaint as they have nothing to hide, right?
Click to expand...

To be fair, gingers wearing bow-ties should be stopped at all times for their own good! Preferably by family members before they leave the house.
 
Dorothy said:
You have accused him of making a 'potentially dangerous statement' yet you happily suggested that a police firearms team had (and I paraphrase) got fed up staking Duggan out so they just decided to kill him. Something which you have absolutely no proof of whatsoever. The real danger is when people present fantasy in place of the facts or into an argument where there are 'holes' or 'discrepancies'. What if? Maybe? It is absolute conjecture and total hearsay. The only eye witness accounts we have so far have been shown to be at the best 'varied', with the main witness having changed his story for one reason or another. From the transcripts it is fairly apparent that the nobody was 100% certain of when Duggan discarded the weapon, how he discarded it (by this I mean the exact timing and specifics of him supposedly 'throwing' it away. What we are led to believe is that the police were only there on that day because they had intel that suggested Duggan has just collected a weapon and was on his way to use it. Knowing he had that weapon, the alleged intent and their belief that he had been involved with gun crime in the past ensured that there was a firearms presence and in broad daylight they attempted to apprehend Duggan. An officer or officers made an instant snap judgement to shoot at Duggan and nobody is privy to his actions, body language, what was said other than those directly involved. The firearms officers are involved thousands of times throughout the year but amazingly we see only isolated mistakes. A jury found Duggan's killing 'lawful' based on the facts they had, not the nonsense spouted from others with their own agendas. Do we trust the police 100%? In every organisation there are those who think they are above the law but the conspiracies are utterly baseless and as ever largely nonsensical. If someone within the police force had wanted to kill Mark Duggan they could have done it far more surreptitiously than by surrounding a vehicle in broad daylight across the road from a large apartment block and shooting him. Think about it properly. Words like 'executed' and 'assassinated' are simply pathetic. He was shot in a police operation 'lawfully' and I'm sure everyone involved wishes they had not needed to kill him considering the capital that has been made of it.
Click to expand...

Dorothy…you started with what was a fair and (for the purposes of debate) interesting counter point that frankly was undeniable. I have no proof. You are correct. I do not know. You are correct. And I agree, the real danger is when 'people present fantasy in place of the facts'…but as I move through your increasingly skewed observations, I notice that you admit that 'no-one was 100% certain' of when Duggan discarded the weapon or how he discarded it.

So, take that as you have said it. Nobody is sure. And answer me this. Why the **** was a man shot when no-one was sure he was armed?

You speak very sternly about the 'nonsense spouted from others with their own agendas'…what are you talking about? Why don't you spell that out? Are you saying that questioning the shooting of someone who was not armed is 'agenda-drive'? Do explain.

By the end, you've gone on about 'words like 'executed' and 'assassinated' are simply pathetic'…can I ask, are you making a general point with regards to some opinions expressed here? Certainly hope so, because in terms of replying to me, I didn't go close to using those words.

Finally, the marksman will be haunted by it, absolutely. I wonder if the unit commander who made the call bore any of that pressure?

BTW, are you in law enforcement?
 
spursman17 said:
I dont see how people are making an issue of this case. The man was a gangster involved in intemidating others and involved in drugs for his own finacial gain.

The police were following him knowing he was picking up a firearm. A firearm was found 6 meters from his dead body. If this man had gone and took the right path in life then he wouldnt be in this situation.

As for his family, uneducated about sums them up and that includes those who used his death as an excuse to loot and riot.
Click to expand...

I agree with the last three sentences wholeheartedly. Sadly, uneducated does sum them all up, as does the path chosen. The thing is, last I checked, those are not solely enough to shoot someone dead. As for the lack of education, well, I could waffle for hours about that and doubtless get some people going, but sadly, you get what you pay for, and if the UK and the US continue to ignore public education, then this is more often than not the net result.

BTW, your first sentence describes Ollie North perfectly. And a slew of others in 'public offices' around the world...
 
scaramanga said:
But just like stop and search, he could (if he had some kind of made up prejudice) disproportionately focus the cameras on racial minorities, or gingers, or those wearing bow ties until he found someone doing something wrong, right?

So anyone innocent being stopped and searched should have no complaint as they have nothing to hide, right?
Click to expand...

Being that i've carried a CCTV licence since the age of 18 (not that i use it nowadays), i can tell you it's not as easy to simply pick and choose where you're pointing the camera. Everything has to be justified, so someone disproportionately focusing the camera on a certain group of people would be pulled up on it within a day.
 
Kingdawson said:
Being that i've carried a CCTV licence since the age of 18 (not that i use it nowadays), i can tell you it's not as easy to simply pick and choose where you're pointing the camera. Everything has to be justified, so someone disproportionately focusing the camera on a certain group of people would be pulled up on it within a day.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I had no idea…is there a separate regulatory body which monitors how CCTV is set up, both in the private and public sectors? This is interesting stuff mate.
 
ringo said:
Ch4.
Police chief on live link says to Ch 4 news journalist, that police are making progress with local community.
Ch 4 news journalist turns to ex gang member turned community liaison person standing in street next to journalist and asks if he believes police are making progress.
Ex-gang member turned community liaison person says no - and explains that he was just stopped and searched on the way to Sky studios to do an interview, detained from his business for 45 minutes and then released without charge!

Brilliant news moment.
Click to expand...

Maybe the police recognised him from his gang days?
 
The Portugeezer said:
So the Police have a shoot to kill policy if they suspect you have a gun basically. There's been numerous cases where the police royally ****ed up and end up assassinating innocent people because they thought they were packing and no one is really held accountable for their crimes.

Yep corruption is rife everywhere. The police here are no different, just they exercise a little more restraint than in other countries.
Click to expand...

Yes, pretty sound policy really.

In this case the only criminal was Duggan. In this case the police did not commit a crime by shooting him.
 
Dorothy said:
It limits the opportunities to get compo. Perhaps the civil courts might be an option. The misinformation that people would have you believe is that the police just run around town wantonly shooting people they don't like the look of, who are always guilty of nothing. The reality is that the police run thousands of armed missions each year with barely a shot being fired.
Click to expand...

According to BoJo there were 10,000 despatches of armed police [over a certain period] and firearms were discharged just 6 times.
 
Kingdawson said:
Being that i've carried a CCTV licence since the age of 18 (not that i use it nowadays), i can tell you it's not as easy to simply pick and choose where you're pointing the camera. Everything has to be justified, so someone disproportionately focusing the camera on a certain group of people would be pulled up on it within a day.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd find no shortage of police officers who would say almost precisely that about "stop & search"
 
Kingdawson said:
I have no "authority issue" as you put it. I make judgement based on the evidence provided, and have come up with the conclusion that he's lying about seeing a gun. The entire Jury? who cares...didn't they also judge that Jean Charles de Menezes was also lawfully killed despite conclusive evidence that the police lied? I mean a policeman admitted to deleting footage which showed he wasn't running away...and they still ruled "open verdict" ffs.

As i said before, it is more then likely that Mark Duggan was scum, more then likely he's been involved in dodgy activity, but i don't believe that the marksmen saw a gun.
Click to expand...

Does that mean you don't belive he THOUGHT he saw a gun, either?
 
thfcsteff said:
Dorothy…you started with what was a fair and (for the purposes of debate) interesting counter point that frankly was undeniable. I have no proof. You are correct. I do not know. You are correct. And I agree, the real danger is when 'people present fantasy in place of the facts'…but as I move through your increasingly skewed observations, I notice that you admit that 'no-one was 100% certain' of when Duggan discarded the weapon or how he discarded it.

So, take that as you have said it. Nobody is sure. And answer me this. Why the **** was a man shot when no-one was sure he was armed?

You speak very sternly about the 'nonsense spouted from others with their own agendas'…what are you talking about? Why don't you spell that out? Are you saying that questioning the shooting of someone who was not armed is 'agenda-drive'? Do explain.

By the end, you've gone on about 'words like 'executed' and 'assassinated' are simply pathetic'…can I ask, are you making a general point with regards to some opinions expressed here? Certainly hope so, because in terms of replying to me, I didn't go close to using those words.

Finally, the marksman will be haunted by it, absolutely. I wonder if the unit commander who made the call bore any of that pressure?

BTW, are you in law enforcement?
Click to expand...

Sofa Special Branch ;) Not in law enforcement in any shape or form. Just take a keen interest in why people flock and herd around such peculiar causes and end up getting manipulated so easily into seeking a far more outlandish explanation as to why this event happened.

With words like 'assassinated' and 'executed' I'm referring to those who are using them to sensationalise it without having one iota of proof with which to justify them. You will always find someone who agrees with you no matter how outlandish your (none singular) ideas are. Think about Scientology, other religions and beliefs and it becomes clear how easily some are led.

I think it interesting to look at the psyche behind much of the almost mawkish anger some people are showing. We hear lots of grandiose statements from the grieving family and friends. They talk in very mass, general terms about 'what we all know', 'the truth' etc and they wrongly appear to think they are speaking for a Nation. The riots were not perpetuated by a nation. They were perpetuated by a bunch of yobs, a tiny minority and many who are just part of the criminal or pseudo criminal underclass in the country. Those that given the opportunity would be straight out to loot. They didn't nip out to pinch tellies because they gave two ****s about Mark Duggan. They did it because of greed. Perhaps a very similar thought process that set Duggan on his path. I don't know anyone they speak for.

Family, close friends of Duggan at times can't make up their minds over whether he was just a scallywag, a normal guy, a gangmember or 'not an angel'. The simple fact is that no criminal is 'guilty' are they. Those ****ing animals that tried to behead Lee Rigby in plain sight were 'not guilty', that is what they pleaded. They had an agenda, it was to remain in the limelight with a soapbox for as long as was possible. No criminal is ever 'guilty', we see the same parade of family members there to tell us how innocent they are. Yet recently these same family friends have started contradicting one another within hours and days of each other. So by agendas I refer to those who want to see Duggan's killing ruled unlawful, those who then want to sue the Met for compensation. If you admit who Duggan was, what he got up to, then you really kill any chance of this. You are admitting his guilt and making those snap decisions that were taken on that day more reasonable.

The sad thing is someone can utter total bull**** about a case and just like that it is doing the rounds and before you know it fiction becomes fact. If it is plausible in some people's minds then it is fact until it is disproved otherwise and in many cases remains fact in their minds as they are decided. Last night we were treated to the racist Diane Abbott and a gentleman who mediates between gangs, a friend of the Duggans. He popped on Paxman to say that stop and search was still failing and he has just been unjustly stopped on the way to the studio. We gasped! Many must have. The apparent truth was he was stopped because the vehicle he arrived in was either uninsured or untaxed. Hell don't let the truth get in the way of a good story. He talked of Duggan's innocence, that stories about his notoriety were overblown. Today he was back this time on Radio 2 with Jeremy Vine and an ex Firearms Officer. Oddly today his story had changed, his stance appeared different as he gave us ideas about how one of Duggan's superiors may have set Duggan up to transport the gun and then shopped him in a criminal gang power struggle. Whoa there... I thought he was just a scallywag and innocent?? Eh? He went on to explain about socks covering guns to protect from gun residue and to avoid getting DNA on the weapon. He explained that Duggan would know to not handle the gun and as no DNA was on the weapon he would simply stash the gun down the back of the seat as it was a public vehicle. It was the done thing and Duggan would know this, so he would be unlikely to throw the weapon away. Whoa... I thought he didn't have a gun and that he was just 'not an angel'?? It was bizarre. Yet there are still people on here trying to argue he was just a bit of a naughty boy.

What would you expect the family and friends to say? They'd have to confess he was a dealer, gang member, a proper criminal but it was still unfair that he was shot. You see though, the character, previous, what the police allegedly knew, what people have testified all goes to make him a potentially very dangerous individual. It mitigates their actions in the eyes of the law. A jury have agreed he did have the gun, he was a danger but they have agreed that it was unlikely he had it on him when he was shot. The ex-firearms officer was very level headed and had done some proper research. He explained very simply about where the gun was found and how it was like to have ended up there. He was quick to object when the other chap tried to make out the gun was not real but 'just a replica'. A replica that had been reactivated to fire as many of the guns that hit the streets are. Yet had this man's opinion not been challenged here was a prime example of ignorant misinformation. To be fair it doesn't matter whether the gun was capable of firing or not. You have any gun on you in that situation and make one wrong move (if indeed this is what happened) and then you are getting shot.

Largely though we are just being fed bull**** about police brutality, about 'all these deaths' at the hands of the police, the trigger happy firearms officers and the real statistics just don't back any of it up at all.

The other thing which is deeply odd is this line of thought some have. Some say he was innocent, not guilty, no gun, just a bit of a naughty boy. Then in the next breath they concoct these peculiar stories where this innocent nobody had ****ed the higher echelons of the police off so badly that they risked all their careers by 'assassinating' him in broad daylight. I think the language they use says a bit more about where they come from and the lives they really live. They can't have it both ways.
 
Tottenham Journal reports there will be a 'peaceful vigil' this weekend, that's all we need with the game against Palace going on. Hopefully no disruption
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back