Any London left?

DonDaddyD

There was nothing wrong with what I said.

IF he had a gun then he should have been arrested. Having a gun isn't enough to warrant being shot.

Wrath Rob wrote:

Baseball. Two pitches, two strikes with no hits. Third strike and you're out.

DDD, got to say you're starting to spout more crap these days. My prediction is that you;ll come back with a long post justifying your single point of view, that it is somehow OK to carry a hand gun and not expect the full wrath of the law. However, as Sketchley said,l the facts are not yet known so jumping to conclusions is exactly why we find ourselves in situations such as this.

I'll repeat:

Being in possession of a gun isn't and shouldn't be reason enough for the police to shoot. If that is the basis that he was shot then that is wrong.

We don't know the full facts nothing in my post was worded with absolutes.

There is nothing wrong with this assertion:

DDD wrote:

If he didn't fire the gun there is all the chance that the gun wasn't his, planeted on him or he was forced to carry it for someone else.

ALL OF YOU. Note the word IF because this could still be the case. I will reiterate that having a gun on your persons is illegal it isn't a reason to be shot.

I would rather live in a Country where you are not shot for simply carrying a gun.

I stand by this. If you are found carrying an illegal weapon you should be arrested and subject to legal punnishment, not shot and killed.

What we know is that he didn't fire the gun. What we now need to know is why the police opened fire - especially consdiering that they orignally said shots he fired shots.

I think this is reasonable to. We also need confirmation that the gun was his.

Jzed wrote:

- I haven't actually seen any statement where the police said he did fire shots at them, I may just have missed them. Can you point me to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Mark_Duggan
The independent police watchdog said it appeared a police officer was shot first before police returned fire, however it was later confirmed that it was the police officer who fired; Duggan is not known to have fired.[2][3]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... ttenham.do
A gun was found at the scene and a spokesman for the independent police watchdog said it appeared the officer was shot first before police returned fire.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ficer.html

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/871499-poli ... enham-hale

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14423942

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... olice.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... otout.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVkXcI07cow

All early reports suggested that Mark Duggan was involved in a "shoot out".

At this stage we don't even know that Mark Duggan was an actual "Gunman" or the original reason the police attempted to arrest him. I am not saying he shouldn't have been arrested for what ever crime it may have been. I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been shot. But on the basis of what we currently know, it isn't enough to justify shooting him.

Wrath Rob

I'm glad to see my prediction was fulfilled :P

Greg T

DonDaddyD wrote:

There was nothing wrong with what I said.

IF he had a gun then he should have been arrested. Having a gun isn't enough to warrant being shot.

So you think he surrendered his weapon and was summarily executed?

Idiot

3 for 3

You are out.

I like you, I've had pints with you - shared a curry even - but your instruments are set to nut job.

daviesee

DDD

You simply have to accept that if you carry a gun there may be consequences.
Those consequences may be fatal.
Best not to carry a gun.

Point in question. Why was he carrying a gun?

rjsterry

Surely the point is that at present, we know about 5% of what happened, so we can formulate all sorts of hypothetical scenarios where it was or was not acceptable for the police to shoot. All slightly beside the point when the incident was only a trigger, rather than the cause, of the initial Tottenham riot and nothing to do with any of the other disturbances.

Anyway, no trouble getting home. Only a couple of slightly moody looking characters in Balham/Clapham South, one of whom was giving out a bit of attitude to some cyclists who had the temerity to swerve round him when he wandered out in front of them. Eerily quiet south of Tooting though.

roger_merriman

to carry a gun your suposed to take care, now what was he doing with a illegal Hand Gun? he wasn't sorting out the fox problem now was he?

Doesn't take much imagination to see that the very presence or suspected presences of a gun can be seen as public safety at which point, the police will have to take out that risk. waiting to be shot is not a option.

to clarify that doesn't mean I think this guy would have shot the police but at best having a gun on ones person unless it's properly secure is foolish at best. Thing about tools is they will get used which count for both police and public.

DonDaddyD

Greg T wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

There was nothing wrong with what I said.

IF he had a gun then he should have been arrested. Having a gun isn't enough to warrant being shot.

So you think he surrendered his weapon and was summarily executed?

I don't know Greg, do you? What I do know is that there is a lot of "could be's" and what we do know as confirmed isn't enough to judtify killing him.

That's all I'm saying.

If he threatened the police with the gun, kill him. If he took the cab driver hostage, kill him. There are other scenarios leading to that outcome. However, there are other scenarios that could lead to him being wrongfully killed.

That said, of what we do know - I'll say it again - I don't think it was enough for him to have been shot.

More evidence will be revealed in due course.

jzed

DDD - I'm not seeing it - it seems to be just all media representation - where is it in quotes. I've gone to the IPCC press releases - I can't find it. Here look:

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is appealing for witnesses to a fatal shooting by police in Tottenham yesterday evening.
At around 6.15 pm officers from Trident, accompanied by officers from the Specialist Firearms Command (CO19), stopped a minicab in Ferry Lane, Tottenham to carry out an arrest. Shots were fired and a 29-year-old man, who was a passenger in the cab, died at the scene.
The IPCC is asking for anyone who witnessed the incident in Ferry Lane to contact them in confidence on 0800-096-9079 or email ferrylaneshooting@ipcc.gov.uk.
The attempted arrest was part of a pre-planned operation under Trident. It is believed that two shots were fired by a firearms officer, equipped with a Heckler & Koch MP5 carbine. A non-police issue handgun was recovered at the scene. An officer’s radio which appears to have a bullet lodged in it has also been recovered. Both the radio and the handgun are being sent for expedited forensic tests. The exact sequence of events is subject to the IPCC investigation. A CO19 officer was taken to hospital as a precautionary measure but has since been discharged.
The MPS referred the incident to the IPCC yesterday evening and our investigators were swiftly deployed to the scene to begin an independent investigation. Photographic and forensic examination of the scene began yesterday evening and is continuing today. A search and trawl for any relevant CCTV footage of the incident is ongoing. The IPCC is in the process of contacting the man’s family to explain its role in the investigation now underway. The deceased is local to the area. The IPCC's Commissioner is also in close contact with local MP David Lammy.
A post mortem is due to be carried out as soon as possible. It is normal procedure for the IPCC to conduct an independent investigation into the circumstances of any police fatal shooting.
IPCC Commissioner, Rachel Cerfontyne, said: "Fatal shootings by the police are extremely rare and understandably raise significant community concerns. The IPCC investigates all fatal shootings - I know that independence is also vital for community confidence. I will make certain that this investigation is thorough and answers the many questions that everyone has when such an incident occurs. I fully recognise how distressing and disturbing this must be for the family and the local community. Obviously our investigation is at a very early stage, but I will publish further information and any findings as soon as possible. We were able to send our own investigators to the scene very quickly yesterday, which meant that the IPCC took control of the investigation promptly. Any witnesses to what happened will make a vital contribution to our evidence gathering, so I would urge anyone who saw the incident to contact us as a matter of urgency.”

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

DDD

You simply have to accept that if you carry a gun there may be consequences.
Those consequences may be fatal.
Best not to carry a gun.

Point in question. Why was he carrying a gun?

Has it been confirmed that he was carrying the gun?

EKE_38BPM

The facts, as far as I am aware.

1) Trident, (the black on black gun crime taskforce) had intelligence that Mark Duggan had an illegal firearm, which is why the cab he was in was stopped.

2) When the car was stopped, the police (legally or illegally) shot and killed him. A bullet (fired from a police weapon) was lodged in the radio of one of the police officers.

3) A firearm was found at the scene. This firearm could not actually fire live rounds.

Now, we don't know why the police opened fire. As has been said maybe Duggan threatened the cab driver? Maybe he threatened the police? Maybe he told the armed officers that he would get out of the cab when Mrs Armed Police Officer has finished sucking his stiffy and the copper just lost it.

DDD is right when he says that being in possession of an illegal firearm should not immediately mean that the police have the right to shoot and kill you, but the police intelligence seems to be correct that Duggan had a firearm and if you carry a gun, you can't expect the police to slap you on the wrist and ask you to please stop being a naughty boy.

Saying "simply" carrying a gun is a stupid thing to say. If you carry a gun, expect lethal force to be used against you.

jzed

Here are the facts as reported by the police:

At this stage, it has been established that at approximately 6.15pm on Thursday 4 August 2011, officers from the Metropolitan Police Service’s Operation Trident and SCD 11 accompanied by officers from the Met’s Specialist Firearms Command (CO19), stopped a silver Toyota Estima people carrier minicab in Ferry Lane, close to Tottenham Hale tube station in Tottenham to carry out an arrest.

Mark Duggan was a passenger in the minicab. What happened next is subject to the independent investigation.

Two shots were fired by one CO19 firearms officer.

Paramedics from London Ambulance Service (LAS) attended along with medics from the Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) but Mr Duggan was pronounced dead at scene at 6.41pm.

A non-police issue handgun was recovered from the scene.

A post mortem examination concluded that Mr Duggan was killed by a single gun shot wound to the chest. He also received a second gunshot wound to his right bicep.

The IPCC commissioned tests by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) who have so far confirmed that:

• The bullet lodged in the MPS radio is a “jacketed round”. This is a police issue bullet and, whilst it is still subject to DNA analysis, it is consistent with having been fired from an MPS Heckler and Koch MP5.

• The firearm found at the scene was a converted BBM ‘Bruni’ self loading pistol. This is not a replica; the scientist considers it to be a firearm for the purposes of the Firearms Act and a prohibited weapon and is therefore illegal.

• The handgun was found to have a “bulleted cartridge” in the magazine, which is being subject to further tests.

At this stage there is no evidence that the handgun found at the scene was fired during the incident. The FSS has told the IPCC that it may not be possible to say for certain whether the handgun was fired, however further tests are being carried out in an attempt to establish this.

The officer whose radio was hit was taken to Homerton Hospital where he was examined and discharged later that night.

The minicab driver was not physically injured, but was badly shaken by what he saw. His account along with that of the officers is being examined along with the emerging forensic evidence.

[/quote]

DonDaddyD

I didn't realise that "simply" would be so inflamatory.

roger_merriman

DonDaddyD wrote:

I didn't realise that "simply" would be so inflammatory.

Simply = normal

Paul E

EKE_38BPM wrote:

The facts, as far as I am aware.

3) A firearm was found at the scene. This firearm could not actually fire live rounds.

It is in the IPCC report that the hand gun found is being classed as a firearm and therefore could have fired live ammunition and it was loaded with live ammunition.

Requote from the report

"The firearm found at the scene was a converted BBM ˜Bruni™ self loading pistol. This is not a replica; the scientist considers it to be a firearm for the purposes of the Firearms Act and a prohibited weapon and is therefore illegal.

The handgun was found to have a "bulleted cartridge" in the magazine, which is being subject to further tests."

So it wasn't a replica and was loaded not with a blank but with a cartridge (the part with the charge) with a bullet in the magazine, ready to fire then.

If you play with fire you will get burnt.

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg T wrote:

So you think he surrendered his weapon and was summarily executed?

I don't know Greg, do you?

You can't just come out with tripe like that then continue with your post as if nothing happened.

Implying that there's even the slightest chance that he surrendered (and presumably in the process made it abundantly clear that he was no longer a threat) and was then shot is preposterous.

The rest of the post is fairly inoffensive but that particular bit is mind numbingly idiotic.

SimonAH

Personally (from what has been released and reading between the lines) I'd say that the balance of probability is that the original police shooting was at the very least shaky. Based on that I can empathise with the anger of the ORIGINAL demonstration and anger (whether or not it turns out to be justified in legal fact) HOWEVER the subsequent acts seem to me to have no relationship to the original issue and are based on twats taking advantage for their own atavistic pleasure and gain at the expense of everyone else.

Splat 'em and use them for fertilizer.

tailwindhome

*sticks fork in thread.

Yep, it's done.

dilemna

Agree with everyone except DDD who is living in cloud cuckoo land. Apparently Duggan died from a bullet to the chest. He was also shot in the bicep, so shot twice so he must have given the cop who fired on him sufficent grounds for thinking he was a serious threat to himself, colleagues or any one else.

If you live by the sword expect to die by the sword. There is one less gangster on the streets. This should at least be cause for celebration. I can't understand why the police haven't continued shooting them for they have enough reason and there are enough of them.

dilemna

Ken Clarke is very quiet at the moment. Is he on holiday too? I wonder what he would do to stop these rioters and subsequent punishment, if indeed they need punishing?

Ben6899

Well these threads always do one thing and that's teach you a lot about fellow posters.

Crikey. I'm bang on the same wavelength as some and polar opposite to others.

garnett

Garnett wrote:

Really confused by C4 news.

They were very eager to tell us the rioters were "white, middle aged, all sorts", then they interviewed a "random" rioter, who just happened to be white, in front of a backdrop of 10s of rioters, 2 of whom were white.

Then they started talking like other have here, about how the rioters are not responsible for their actions, that it's all the fault of the wider society. We've let down these communities. To talk about that they had a black spokesperson talking specifically about "black communities".

What should we take away from all this? Presumably that it's only the white rioters who we should castigate.

At least that reduces the number of police targets by a factor of 10...

Racism, even if it is "positive" doesn't help at all.

Just as an addendum, now the BBC are reporting on the groups tidying up the mess. They interviewed a random attendee, who just happened to be black... against a backdrop of 10s of other tidiers, all of whom were white.

Don't get me wrong. A lot of black Londoners have been outstanding in their response, and I genuinely believe a lot will now work hard to address the problems.

I'm just concerned that if all the facts of the problem aren't recognised it won't be solved properly.

Living in the community, I would say that for whatever reason, the combination of disengagement from society, the sense of entitlement, and the absolutely brazenness with which antisocial and immoral behaviour is carried out is disproportionately accentuated in the young black men here.

If that prroblem is going to addressed it has to first be acknowledged.

FoldingJoe

dhope wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg T wrote:

So you think he surrendered his weapon and was summarily executed?

I don't know Greg, do you?

You can't just come out with tripe like that then continue with your post as if nothing happened.

Implying that there's even the slightest chance that he surrendered (and presumably in the process made it abundantly clear that he was no longer a threat) and was then shot is preposterous.

The rest of the post is fairly inoffensive but that particular bit is mind numbingly idiotic.

To be fair, I don't think that is what DDD is saying.

There is a lot of conjecture flying around, and I think DDD was merely asking Greg, in a roundabout way, if he knew the exact details of the killing.

What we know now is more than we knew 48 hours ago, in terms of if shots were actually fired by Michael Duggan etc... The full facts should become apparent in the near future, and at that time we can debate this with all the pertinent details to hand.

Although I am pretty sure at that point we will all probably see the situation in the same light; but maybe with slightly different tints!?!!

Gazzaputt

Eltham still standing after around 400 Millwall and Charlton fans made a stand in the High Street.

richVSrich

KEEP CALM AND....

http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/

rick_chasey

Anyone else looking forward to reading and discussing more trivial stuff, like Cavendish in the Surrey Classic or the value of deep set rims?

All this doom talk (of which I take part...) gets me down after a while.

Work's no fun either with the markets the way they are.

DonDaddyD

roger merriman wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I didn't realise that "simply" would be so inflammatory.

Simply = normal

sim·ply (smpl)
adv.
1.
a. In a plain and unadorned way: dresses simply.
b. In an unambiguous way; clearly: explained the concept simply.
2. Not wisely or sensibly; foolishly.
3. Merely; only: It is simply a matter of time.
4. Absolutely; altogether: simply delicious.
5. Frankly; candidly: You are, quite simply, the best candidate for the job.

simply [ˈsɪmplɪ]
adv
1. in a simple manner
2. merely; only
3. absolutely; altogether; really a simply wonderful holiday
sentence modifier
frankly; candidly]/quote]

I could have used the word merely. By using the word simply I'm also not implying that it is not wrong or illegal either.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyone else looking forward to reading and discussing more trivial stuff, like Cavendish in the Surrey Classic.

Will that race still happen?

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Anyone else looking forward to reading and discussing more trivial stuff, like Cavendish in the Surrey Classic.

Will that race still happen?

Apparently so.

All test events will go ahead.

DonDaddyD

dhope wrote:

You can't just come out with tripe like that then continue with your post as if nothing happened.

Implying that there's even the slightest chance that he surrendered (and presumably in the process made it abundantly clear that he was no longer a threat) and was then shot is preposterous.

The rest of the post is fairly inoffensive but that particular bit is mind numbingly idiotic.

Oh! So you know the full set of details to say that the police acted impeccably? You know of all the possible outcomes the one that actually happened do you?

No. Your single minded view that you know what happened despite a lack of clarity, evidence and confirmation is mind numbingly idiotic.

I’m not saying that the guy shouldn’t have been shot. I’m not disputing that he was a criminal. NOTHING I SAID SPOKE IN ABSOLUTES!!!

What I’m pointing out is that despite what we know we still don’t know whether he still should have been shot or killed. We don’t know the circumstances of why the police shot him. It may be the case that they did so wrongfully, they may well have been right to do so.

What we do know is that he didn't fire his gun. So if that was the reason for his shooting, which is what the papers were reporting - which in part played a major part in the initial protest/riot - then police acted incorrectly. It may well turn out that they still had ground to shoot him. We just don't know that yet.

FACT US WE DON’T KNOW YET AND THERE COULD BE A NUMBER OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO COME TO LIGHT.

dilemma wrote:

Agree with everyone except DDD who is living in cloud cuckoo land. Apparently Duggan died from a bullet to the chest. He was also shot in the bicep, so shot twice so he must have given the cop who fired on him sufficent grounds for thinking he was a serious threat to himself, colleagues or any one else.

We don’t know that yet. What you’re saying is cloud cuckoo land speculation.

Dilemma wrote:

If you live by the sword expect to die by the sword.

A few people have said this. That isn’t the law of the land. Murderers who are found guilty are not, in turned, punished with the death penalty.

So blindingly dumb is that assertion.

Dilemma wrote:

There is one less gangster on the streets. This should at least be cause for celebration. I can't understand why the police haven't continued shooting them for they have enough reason and there are enough of them.

Moronic generalization.

Garnett wrote:

Just as an addendum, now the BBC are reporting on the groups tidying up the mess. They interviewed a random attendee, who just happened to be black... against a backdrop of 10s of other tidiers, all of whom were white.

Don't get me wrong. A lot of black Londoners have been outstanding in their response, and I genuinely believe a lot will now work hard to address the problems.

I'm just concerned that if all the facts of the problem aren't recognised it won't be solved properly.

Living in the community, I would say that for whatever reason, the combination of disengagement from society, the sense of entitlement, and the absolutely brazenness with which antisocial and immoral behaviour is carried out is disproportionately accentuated in the young black men here.

If that prroblem is going to addressed it has to first be acknowledged.

What are you trying to say Alf Garnett?

Considering that these riots have nothing to do with race and if you watched footage of the riots outside London you'd realise there was higher proportion of white people rioting/looting.

I'm not going to dignify you with a response about demograhpic distribution of people in and outside London, specifically in poor areas.

Prick.

Gazzaputt

DDD the shots that entered Duggan's body have been verified it is not speculation. One to the chest one to the bicep. IPCC have conformed this.

IPCC confirm the presence of a loaded gun being carried in the car but this was not fired.

All facts. You need to watch the BBC some more ;-)