Any London left?

DonDaddyD

It's amazing that some of you can be so fucking tollerant of racist comments but want to pounce on me for having a different and largely harmless perspective on this.

In that I'm saying that it's possible that he shouldn't have been shot.

Fuck me, Raul Moat actually shot a police officer and they tasered him. Didn't he shoot himself?

woodford2barbican

Mr DDD - I don't think there is any point in any of us arguing about the specifics of the Duggan case as none of us know them. And tbh not many of us probably expect to find out the truth of them from a single source, not the police, IPCC or Duggan's family & friends.

But, it does seem fair to say that if you are carrying an illegal firearm, or even something that looks like an illegal firearm and you handle it in a threatening manner towards an armed policeman then you can quite reasonably expect to be shot for doing so.

Please note that in the above paragraph at no point did I say that Duggan was doing that.

Do you agree that is reasonable?

As for your friend who had a gun left in his car bu another 'friend' of his. If he got stopped and searched and the gun was found - he should not be shot for that. But he should certainly have a lot of explaining to do and a lot of hoping that his 'friend' is a real one and did the right thing and took responsibility.

DonDaddyD

Gazzaputt wrote:

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 ;-)

The BBC initially said that there was a shoot out and that Duggan was killed. (If there was then fine, however there were conflicting eye witness reports).

It turns out that he didn't fire a gun. Having a gun in your possession isn't enough to be shot.

It has yet to be confirmed that the gun was Duggan's. It has yet to be confirmed why Duggan was shot.

Ben6899

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's amazing that some of you can be so ******* tollerant of racist comments but want to pounce on me for having a different and largely harmless perspective on this.

I don't recall anyone backing the racist comments, to be fair.

It is my opinion that, if you are in possession of a firearm illegally then you can have no complaints if one of Her Majesty's finest puts a cap in yo ass. One less gangster, one less domestic-abuser-public-risk-mentalist. All good.

daviesee

Re Duggan.

We do not know the reason why the Police opened fire - fact.

Until we do know there is no point in anyone discussing it - fact.

I'm outta here.............

DonDaddyD

woodford2barbican wrote:

But, it does seem fair to say that if you are carrying an illegal firearm, or even something that looks like an illegal firearm and you handle it in a threatening manner towards an armed policeman then you can quite reasonably expect to be shot for doing so.

It has yet to be reported that Duggan threatened the police with the gun. If he was then shoot his ass.

Please note that in the above paragraph at no point did I say that Duggan was doing that.

Do you agree that is reasonable?

Never said it wasn't and yes it is reasonable. (I read this after | wrote the above).

As for your friend who had a gun left in his car bu another 'friend' of his. If he got stopped and searched and the gun was found - he should not be shot for that. But he should certainly have a lot of explaining to do and a lot of hoping that his 'friend' is a real one and did the right thing and took responsibility.

He should have gone to prison as should anyone found carrying a knife.

MonkeyMonster

DonDaddyD wrote:

It turns out that he didn't fire a gun. Having a gun in your possession isn't enough to be shot.

and he waves/points/goes for it in a threatening manner, from a person who likely has a history of offences - given it was trident on his case?

What then DDD - why haven't you brought probable cause into your arguement?

Ben6899

He didn't fire the gun because he wasn't given the chance.

We can all imagine how this went down, but one or two refuse to accept the fact that Duggan just might have been a public threat and this was the final straw.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

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

Despite the all caps, this bit I agree with. A lot of people seem to be giving the police the benefit of the doubt here. They assume that the guy *must* have done something to warrant being shot. Because he was the type, right? He was a violent criminal who carried a gun around with him. And the police are a trusted authority that are here to protect us from people like him, right?

The Met have a track record of shooting people in cases where they've subsequently been found to have acted improperly. Its not unreasonable to suggest that they may have here. As for the guy having a gun with him, I've heard that he was brandishing it, that it was in a sock, that it was a replica etc etc I don't think anyone knows the truth at this stage. But while there is a good possibility that this chap was shot while not even holding the gun, you can't simply assume that the police shot out of self defence. We won't know this until after the enquiry.

DonDaddyD

MonkeyMonster wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

It turns out that he didn't fire a gun. Having a gun in your possession isn't enough to be shot.

and he waves/points/goes for it in a threatening manner, from a person who likely has a history of offences - given it was trident on his case?

What then DDD - why haven't you brought probable cause into your arguement?

I've already addressed this.

To clarify.

DonDaddyD wrote:

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 justify 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.

DonDaddyD

Ben6899 wrote:

He didn't fire the gun because he wasn't given the chance.

We can all imagine how this went down, but one or two refuse to accept the fact that Duggan just might have been a public threat and this was the final straw.

I don't refuse to accept that. We can all imagine how it went down. What we need to know is how it went down.

sketchley

DonDaddyD wrote:

It's amazing that some of you can be so ******* tollerant of racist comments but want to pounce on me for having a different and largely harmless perspective on this.

In that I'm saying that it's possible that he shouldn't have been shot.

fark me, Raul Moat actually shot a police officer and they tasered him. Didn't he shoot himself?

There are many possibilities as to what may of happened. We know he was shot by the police, we know (i think) that he did not shoot his gun, we don't know anything about the exchange beforehand, or the statement of the taxi driver. We know that from your media links that it was reported early on that the independent police watchdog said that the early indications where that he shot first. It should be noted that this was not the officers involved, or even the police team involved, or even the police force involved that was reported to of said this but independent police watchdog. They may simply of said this as due to the bullet in the radio and someone (maybe even the media news feeds) put 2 and 2 together and came out with 6, something that we have all been doing since.

However I'm digressing.

Your suggestion is the police may of acted inappropriately and shot a man simply for carry a gun who was posing no immediate threat so was therefore shot illegally. You maybe right.

The other common suggestion is that police would not shoot a man in these circumstance unless there was also an immediate threat to life as to shot otherwise is against the firearms guidelines. This maybe right.

Both of these suggestion are valid for the moment and their are others, I feel more comfortable believing the latter is the case as to me it seems more likely. I also believe that if the office(s) who shot him did not follow guidelines that the IPCC will find this out and the policemen will face the consequences.

garnett

DonDaddyD wrote:

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 problem 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.

Aside from the personal invective, and the poor internal logic ("I'm not going to dignify you with a response ...blah, blah blah, demograhpic distribution of people in and outside London, specifically in poor areas"), you've exercised considerable prejudice ("Garnett", so therefore it must be "Alf Garnett", rather than say, "Garnett Fleischaker") in a post where you appear to be accusing me of it, and you've completely missed the point of the post you've quoted - if it is all down to demographics, why were the groups looting, and then tidying up the same area so utterly different?

To say “these riots have nothing to do with race” is a bizarre thing to say. You yourself go straight on to talk about demographics so you seem to accept that most of the looters in London were young black men (be that for whatever reason, as I said earlier), a point accepted by most people, albeit most very keen to avoid the elephant in the room.

I appreciate you’re on the defensive and lashing out at anything you think could score you points given your position in the debate has fallen so low, but personally, I would say that by trying to stereotype my post as a standard “Efnics ouht” post, you’ve undermined what little credibility you’ve got left. I’ll say again:

Garnett wrote:

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.

Perhaps I need to more clear. It could well be that the reasons for the above are purely the bad parenting, and lack of ambition or moral values that come with poverty. (As an aside, the looters I saw from my flat were turning up in new cars (ford focus and BMW parked on our street) and were well dressed, and not interested in stealing food, or other essentials, but lifestyle items of clothing and electrical goods).

Regardless of the causes, to purposefully ignore a common trait of essentially all the looters because it is unsavoury, could very easily blinker you to solutions that might otherwise be more obvious.

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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

Despite the all caps, this bit I agree with. A lot of people seem to be giving the police the benefit of the doubt here. They assume that the guy *must* have done something to warrant being shot. Because he was the type, right? He was a violent criminal who carried a gun around with him. And the police are a trusted authority that are here to protect us from people like him, right?

Not always no. We've been through this, the police can be subject to mistakes, wrongful actions, corruption and racism. They can also demonstrate levels of heroism that I can only dream of.

Initial reports said that there was a shoot out. There wasn't that wasn't the reason he was shot for. We don't know why he was shot. Until confirmation there is the possibility of police wrong doing. It's possible that they did the right thing.

I don't know, but when police just kill folk I don't immediately think they did the right thing, without acknowledged justification.

Because he was the type, right?

So we are typecasting and applying stereotypes now. Who's idiotic again?

Anyone in a hood is a criminal I guess. I'm prone to wearing a hoodie to go to the shops - having taken my brogues and suit off - I guess I'm up to no good.

Greg T

notsoblue wrote:

A lot of people seem to be giving the police the benefit of the doubt here. They assume that the guy *must* have done something to warrant being shot. Because he was the type, right? He was a violent criminal who carried a gun around with him. And the police are a trusted authority that are here to protect us from people like him, right?.

Yep - pretty much yes. That seems entirely reasonable and on the balance of probabilities a professional and trained firearms plod will not start blatting away unless they've got good reason. They know that any shooting, deadly or not, will lead to a whole world of drama.

So yeah - I do give plod the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise

The Met have a track record of shooting people in cases where they've subsequently been found to have acted improperly. .

Do you mean Menezes? I can see why " a professional and trained firearms plod " would shoot him - I can understand why that mistake was made. Doesn't mean I think the met off people for fun.

Or do you have other examples?

Ben6899

DonDaddyD wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

He didn't fire the gun because he wasn't given the chance.

We can all imagine how this went down, but one or two refuse to accept the fact that Duggan just might have been a public threat and this was the final straw.

I don't refuse to accept that. We can all imagine how it went down. What we need to know is how it went down.

I reckon all our imaginations aren't that far off. These people don't act in particularly varied ways now, do they? It's all in-yer-face, "you looking at me!?", "I'll cut you proper, bruv" etc etc

There is no way on this earth, Duggan was giving it the "Yes, Mr Officer, I'm sorry Mr Officer"

roger_merriman

It is correct we may find that Duggan was illegally shot.

unless the hand gun was planted or the taxi drivers?

It's presence does hint that this was not some one simply going about their business.

This is Britain and London wandering around with a handgun is illegal and dumb.

now we don't know everything we will not until the dust has settled but what we have cleaned is so far, seems to show a man who on had a gun who gave the police sufficient cause of concern that they shot him.

fact may change we shall see.

MonkeyMonster

DonDaddyD wrote:

I don't know, but when police just kill folk I don't immediately think they did the right thing, without acknowledged justification.

I go with the fact they did. Innocent till proven guilty? ie innocent of wrong doing till proven they shot/killed him illegally.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

So we are typecasting and applying stereotypes now. Who's idiotic again?

Er, you need to read my post again. I was agreeing with you.

DonDaddyD

Editted.

sketchley

Garnett wrote:

To say “these riots have nothing to do with race” is a bizarre thing to say. You yourself go straight on to talk about demographics so you seem to accept that most of the looters in London were young black men (be that for whatever reason, as I said earlier), a point accepted by most people, albeit most very keen to avoid the elephant in the room.

.

Disagree. Show me the evidence. Common theme seems to be young kids mostly male. I've seen no evidence to suggest that most of them were black. In fact every single commentary I've seen from eye witnesses have said it was mixed race group, white, black, asian etc.

This had nothing to do with race. Everything to do with being young and aspirational with no readily available means of fulfilling that aspiration. i.e I want those trainers/iphone/ipad/clothers etc, I can't afford them so I'll take them.

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

Garnett wrote:

To say “these riots have nothing to do with race” is a bizarre thing to say. You yourself go straight on to talk about demographics so you seem to accept that most of the looters in London were young black men (be that for whatever reason, as I said earlier), a point accepted by most people, albeit most very keen to avoid the elephant in the room.

.

Disagree. Show me the evidence. Common theme seems to be young kids mostly male. I've seen no evidence to suggest that most of them were black. In fact every single commentary I've seen from eye witnesses have said it was mixed race group, white, black, asian etc.

This had nothing to do with race. Everything to do with being young and aspirational with no readily available means of fulfilling that aspiration. i.e I want those trainers/iphone/ipad/clothers etc, I can't afford them so I'll take them.

+1.

notsoblue

Greg T wrote:

Or do you have other examples?

Forest gate?

Look, I'm not saying the police screwed up here, I was just explaining why I think people are giving the police the benefit of the doubt. Its understandable. I think people are giving DDD a hard time because he's *not* giving the police the benefit of the doubt. I think thats pretty unreasonable considering we don't know what happened. People are simply assuming this was a bad man who got what was coming to him.

Cafewanda

Sketchley wrote:

Garnett wrote:

To say “these riots have nothing to do with race” is a bizarre thing to say. You yourself go straight on to talk about demographics so you seem to accept that most of the looters in London were young black men (be that for whatever reason, as I said earlier), a point accepted by most people, albeit most very keen to avoid the elephant in the room.

.

Disagree. Show me the evidence. Common theme seems to be young kids mostly male. I've seen no evidence to suggest that most of them were black. In fact every single commentary I've seen from eye witnesses have said it was mixed race group, white, black, asian etc.

This had nothing to do with race. Everything to do with being young and aspirational with no readily available means of fulfilling that aspiration. i.e I want those trainers/iphone/ipad/clothers etc, I can't afford them so I'll take them.

+1

DonDaddyD

So to clarify.

Antfly is a racist prick. Alf Garnett is a blinkered moron.

And I am not wrong that the police could have wrongfully shot the fella. They could have been well within their right. What we do know is that he didn't shoot his gun and having a gun on you person (until it's confirmed that he threatened to use it in some way) isn't enough to justify being shot.

It may well turn out that he needed six more bullets in him.. just because.

tailwindhome

Sketchley wrote:

Garnett wrote:

To say “these riots have nothing to do with race” is a bizarre thing to say. You yourself go straight on to talk about demographics so you seem to accept that most of the looters in London were young black men (be that for whatever reason, as I said earlier), a point accepted by most people, albeit most very keen to avoid the elephant in the room.

.

Disagree. Show me the evidence. Common theme seems to be young kids mostly male. I've seen no evidence to suggest that most of them were black. In fact every single commentary I've seen from eye witnesses have said it was mixed race group, white, black, asian etc.

This had nothing to do with race. Everything to do with being young and aspirational with no readily available means of fulfilling that aspiration. i.e I want those trainers/iphone/ipad/clothers etc, I can't afford them so I'll take them.

It has nothing to do with wether or not they can afford the stuff, they're stealing it because they can.

Ben6899

DonDaddyD wrote:

So to clarify.

Antfly is a racist prick.

Alf Garnett is a blinkered moron.

And I am not wrong that the police could have wrongfully shot the fella. They could have been well within their right. What we do know is that he didn't shoot his gun and having a gun on you person (until it's confirmed that he threatened to use it in some way) isn't enough to justify being shot.

It may well turn out that he needed six more bullets in him.. just because.

His posts certainly point in that direction.

This may be harsh - I won't try to put Garnett's point forward for him, but I think you're misunderstanding what he's saying. Adding "Alf" doesn't make you look any wiser either.

They were more than likely in their right. He wasn't given chance to shoot it - luckily.

It comes down to innocent until proven guilty. I can't judge both the police and Duggan as innocent, so if I have to choose then I go for the non-gangsters i.e. the police. It's very difficult for me to sway any other way - these people are the scourge of society.

Greg T

notsoblue wrote:

Greg T wrote:

Or do you have other examples?

Forest gate?

In her report into the incident, IPCC Commissioner Deborah Glass said: "I am satisfied there is no evidence of intent or recklessness on the part of the firearms officer and that no offence was committed in the firing of the weapon.

blah blah

"There is no evidence to support the speculative reporting that the weapon was fired by one of the brothers, or that it was a deliberate act by the police officer."

She concluded the gun, which had its safety catch off as the officer entered the house, had been fired by accident.

So no form then

if this is just a chat about if you give plod the benefit of the doubt then fine.

I give them the benefit of the doubt.

They have no form for offing people without cause
He was carrying a handgun
He was known to Police

he ended up shot

My barometer isn't getting tweaked towards extra judicial killing.

rick_chasey

The arrest figures since trouble erupted on Saturday are continuing to shoot up and have now hit 1,335.

Here's where they stand now:

Metropolitan: 768 (167 charged)
Greater Manchester: 300
West Midlands: 109
Nottinghamshire: 84
Merseyside: 50
Avon & Somerset: 24
TOTAL: 1,335

notsoblue

Greg T wrote:

So no form then

The form is people getting shot who didn't deserve to, and for these people to have their character intentionally brought into question from the time of the incident to the subsequent investigation. Anyway, the point is, I was just explaining why someone might not necessarily give the police the benefit of the doubt.

Greg T wrote:

if this is just a chat about if you give plod the benefit of the doubt then fine.

I give them the benefit of the doubt.

They have no form for offing people without cause
He was carrying a handgun
He was known to Police

he ended up shot

My barometer isn't getting tweaked towards extra judicial killing.

The have form of shooting people who didn't deserve to get shot... But we can agree to disagree. As for your other points, I totally understand that, but you shouldn't attack others for having a different opinion about something none of us know all the facts about. Even if they do type in all caps.