• 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:
I honestly don't think there's a difference. Both are equally infringing my right to privacy on a guilty until proven innocent basis. It's not the inconvenience of being stopped, it's the assumption I'm in the wrong. For the same reason, I don't want anyone keeping my DNA. If anything, stop and search is the least problematic as I get to speak to an officer. For the same reason I hate speed cameras, but I don't mind being pulled over by traffic police when I'm speeding - once you give a good representation of yourself (wear a suit, listen to R4) you'll almost never get a ticket. I've lost count of the number of times I've been pulled over for speeding, but only had a ticket in person once.
Click to expand...

But they're not equally infringing your right to privacy - CCTV mostly only tracks what can be seen publicly, whereas stop and search involves having to show things that are currently private (i.e. in your pocket or bag). But more importantly, it's the potential humiliation of being physically patted down that is the difference.

Furthermore, stop and search is just a much stronger manifestation of 'guilty until proven innocent'. If you had a wife that was naturally jealous and possessive, and so suspected you of cheating on her despite no real evidence, would you not distinguish between a) her asking a couple of probing questions if you got home late one night, with b) her tapping your phone, hacking into your e-mails and following you after work one night? Because that's what your black and white approach to this issue seems to infer.

And is the second part of your post tongue and cheek? This is the very thing that people take issue with in terms of the the law - the fact that someone in a suit listening to radio 4 is more likely to get away with a crime than someone in a hoodie listening to hip hop. And in any case it's not a valid analogy because in the case of speeding the officer has actually witnessed a crime.
 
scaramanga said:
I'm pretty sure the entire operation was based on the fact that Duggan was picking up a gun. I also think that you're probably asking the wrong question - I think the least debatable point in the whole event was whether Duggan had a gun. You may want to ask at what point that gun left his possession, but that he had a gun never seems to have been in doubt.
Click to expand...

No doubt? Really?
I just want someone to explain to me why DNA and eyewitness evidence does not link a gun to Duggan at, or around, the crime scene? It's a very simple question. If we are to assume that facts are king, he was found not to have one. We all have our opinions, I just wonder at what point opinion/perspective trumps fact?
 
thfcsteff said:
No doubt? Really?
I just want someone to explain to me why DNA and eyewitness evidence does not link a gun to Duggan at, or around, the crime scene? It's a very simple question. If we are to assume that facts are king, he was found not to have one. We all have our opinions, I just wonder at what point opinion/perspective trumps fact?
Click to expand...

Why would eyewitnesses at the scene see him with the gun? Especially if it was in a sock, they wouldn't see it.

The police followed him from picking up the gun until they stopped him, how could he not have been in possession of a gun?
 
scaramanga said:
Why would eyewitnesses at the scene see him with the gun? Especially if it was in a sock, they wouldn't see it.

The police followed him from picking up the gun until they stopped him, how could he not have been in possession of a gun?
Click to expand...


Rather than this endless exchange, please read one of the many reports on the verdict. I do not have access to all the evidence, but the highlights are:

*acted on intelligence that he picked up a gun
*didn't witness exchange but persued on the intelligence/hunch
*Duggan did not have a gun when he got out of taxi
*A gun was found 20 ft from taxi on the other side of a fence

There are other reports (which I will happily find for you) which state that Duggan's DNA was not on the gun found.

When I referred to eye-witnesses not seeing the gun, I was referring to the supposed disposal of a gun by Duggan through the taxi window!


Again, looking at JUST these details, you would have to say there is a compelling case to answer with regards to whether he should've been shot or not.


http://www.channel4.com/news/mark-duggan-inquest-jury-lawfully-killed-riots-england
 
thfcsteff said:
Rather than this endless exchange, please read one of the many reports on the verdict. I do not have access to all the evidence, but the highlights are:

*acted on intelligence that he picked up a gun
*didn't witness exchange but persued on the intelligence/hunch
*Duggan did not have a gun when he got out of taxi
*A gun was found 20 ft from taxi on the other side of a fence

There are other reports (which I will happily find for you) which state that Duggan's DNA was not on the gun found.

When I referred to eye-witnesses not seeing the gun, I was referring to the supposed disposal of a gun by Duggan through the taxi window!


Again, looking at JUST these details, you would have to say there is a compelling case to answer with regards to whether he should've been shot or not.


http://www.channel4.com/news/mark-duggan-inquest-jury-lawfully-killed-riots-england
Click to expand...

I think you can find whatever conclusions you like from small chunks of the evidence. The fact is, the guy who sold him the gun is currently in prison for selling him the gun at the time and place the police say it happened. This conclusion was drawn (beyond all reasonable doubt) by an independent judge and jury.

The police then followed the suspect until he got out of the taxi - there's no way he could have got rid of the gun en route.
 
scaramanga said:
I think you can find whatever conclusions you like from small chunks of the evidence. The fact is, the guy who sold him the gun is currently in prison for selling him the gun at the time and place the police say it happened. This conclusion was drawn (beyond all reasonable doubt) by an independent judge and jury.

The police then followed the suspect until he got out of the taxi - there's no way he could have got rid of the gun en route.
Click to expand...

I appreciate what you're saying but I still cannot reconcile the fact that the guy did NOT have a gun when shot! That's the bit that is troubling…BTW, a 'hoodrat is in jail for selling the gun at the time the police says, etc…well again, i have to ask, where was the gun when Duggan was shot, and how come there was a gun 20ft away on the other side of a fence with none of Duggan's DNA? Look, I'm simply trying to make sense of the facts here, because right now, they tell me that he was unarmed when shot! We might be on the verge of not getting anywhere ;)
 
It's amazing how much the eyewitness accounts differ. It is hard to know if this is because people are lying, or people are rubbish witnesses.

It probably comes down to whether you like and trust the police, or if you dislike and mistrust the police.

For example one witness known only as Miss J, claimed that she had seen an officer go into the minicab and come out with a gun. "As I keep stating, I remember somebody coming out of the car. They had a handgun but I cannot remember. I saw a gun, I am not a mad woman," she told the inquest. Police said nobody went into the minicab.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nder-threat-all-the-key-evidence-9046789.html
 
LutonSpurs said:
Comments like these probably put you pretty high up in the zero value to the planet ranks. Very insensitive.
Click to expand...

Sorry I obviously should be crying over some low life who got what he deserved, live by the sword, you die by the sword...

Maybe we should light a candle for him on GG or something, nah good riddance
 
Colleague of mine who is an ex copper said he came up against an armed criminal twice. Once he only had a wooden baton and a fire extinguisher . The other he had what he described as a "bullet proof clipboard".

And obviously the criminals would have been adhering to strict fire only if necessary guidelines knowing they would be automatically suspended from work if they discharged their weapons.

Remember those two WPCs killed in Manchester? That's a real tragic killing
 
Bullet said:
It's amazing how much the eyewitness accounts differ. It is hard to know if this is because people are lying, or people are rubbish witnesses.

It probably comes down to whether you like and trust the police, or if you dislike and mistrust the police.

For example one witness known only as Miss J, claimed that she had seen an officer go into the minicab and come out with a gun. "As I keep stating, I remember somebody coming out of the car. They had a handgun but I cannot remember. I saw a gun, I am not a mad woman," she told the inquest. Police said nobody went into the minicab.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nder-threat-all-the-key-evidence-9046789.html
Click to expand...

People are terrible eyewitnesses. It's been shown again and again that personal bias plays a massive role in what people 'remember'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back