Mark Duggan: Tottenham shooting that led to the riots
DonDaddyD
Posts: 12,689
RIGHT YOU LOT.
Remember when this was kicking off and a number of you (Greg/s, Spen, W1) were spouting off about how it was one less drug dealer on the street, that if he had a gun then it was right that he was shot and when I dared to question the actions of the police, you shouted me down as though it was treason to even think that the police could ever be casted as the villains.
Well and truly buried:
Police watchdog admits it was a 'mistake' to say Mark Duggan had shot at officers first ahead of English riots
Mark Duggan unarmed when shot by UK police
So it's OK for the police to shoot unarmed people now?
To recap the old thread: viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12794536&p=17139235&hilit=London+Riots#p17139235
Remember when this was kicking off and a number of you (Greg/s, Spen, W1) were spouting off about how it was one less drug dealer on the street, that if he had a gun then it was right that he was shot and when I dared to question the actions of the police, you shouted me down as though it was treason to even think that the police could ever be casted as the villains.
Well and truly buried:
Police watchdog admits it was a 'mistake' to say Mark Duggan had shot at officers first ahead of English riots
Mark Duggan unarmed when shot by UK police
So it's OK for the police to shoot unarmed people now?
To recap the old thread: viewtopic.php?f=40012&t=12794536&p=17139235&hilit=London+Riots#p17139235
Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
0
Comments
-
The WSW stuff is inflammatory BS, but the fact remains that it was not a righteous shooting on the face of it.
I still say that the looting (it wasn't a riot) used it purely as an excuse.
The police have some heavy questions to answer.FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
Litespeed L3 for Strava bits
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.0 -
SimonAH wrote:The WSW stuff is inflammatory BS, but the fact remains that it was not a righteous shooting on the face of it.
I still say that the looting (it wasn't a riot) used it purely as an excuse.
The police have some heavy questions to answer.
What was BS, Duggan was found to be unarmed when he was shot and he did not shoot first.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Sorry, the tone and spin rather than the hard facts. 'Notorious' etc. I'm not disputing the content just hating the inflammatorynature of the article.FCN 5 belt driven fixie for city bits
CAADX 105 beastie for bumpy bits
Litespeed L3 for Strava bits
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.0 -
You're reading World Socialist Web Site? You are a mass of contradictions DDD.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I was away when this all happened. But having read those reports it does sound pretty poor. Instead of covering up the police should have admitted the truth at the time. If they'd said they believed he was armed and in the heat of the moment they got a bit carried away and shot him it would look a lot better for them now than it being revealed they were making up stuff.
I'm extremely grateful that all police aren't armed in this country. It's bad enough with a few specially trained ones, imagine if they all had guns.0 -
-
Who's saying that?So it's OK for the police to shoot unarmed people now?0 -
Yawn. So that makes it right for gangs to go looting and he was still known to the police, you don't become known to the police for being a good little boy.
I think you will find no one on here in their right mind would say it was right to shoot unarmed people0 -
I never once said that people were right for looting. What I was discussing was the events that led to the riots. I.e. Duggan's shooting. At the time I said that 'simply' carrying a gun wasn't a justifiable reason for the police to shoot him. Some on here thought otherwise. Turns out he was unarmed.Paul E wrote:Yawn. So that makes it right for gangs to go looting and he was still known to the police, you don't become known to the police for being a good little boy.
I think you will find no one on here in their right mind would say it was right to shoot unarmed people
Read
Edited to add: Actually it was YOU I was debating with in that thread!Paul E wrote:DonDaddyD 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.Holyzeus wrote:
+1 Carry a gun, you accept any and all consequenceswoodford2barbican wrote:Il Principe wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:BREAKING: The Independent Police Complaints Commission has just announced that there is no evidence that Mark Duggan opened fire at police officers before he was shot dead, according to ballistic test results, reports the Press Association.
From the Guardian.
Oh dear.
Channel 4 said as much last night. Not the best timing though.
so what. Man with gun dies by gunshot? nothing wrong in that. wtf was he doing with a gun in first place or is that allowed now?
I would rather live in a Countrywhere you are not shot for simply carrying a gun.
And the timing of this is terrible.
So you really think it was planted on him FFS yes this is all planned the police are all racist and looking for an excuse to gun people down.
They stopped the guy in a planned operation based on intelligence that he was carrying an illegal firearm, yes illegal not just carrying a gun, which you can do if you have a firearms licence, he didn't therefore had no right to or should have had any reason to carry one and therefore they stopped him.
People are not just shot for carrying a firearm, there are strict rules when the police can use their firearms, if they felt he was threatening either them or was a threat to the public they are authorised to use force.
No one on here was there so cannot comment, but if the police felt threatened they are within their rights to open fire, all incidents like this are investigated independently (as is happening now) so the police don't do that lightly as they are always investigated.
It doesn't matter if the gun was his or not, he was carrying it with a loaded magazine in the gun, if he wasn't going to use it at all he would have not had the gun loaded and had the magazine separate.
Any sane rational innocent person with nothing to hide would have in face of armed police not made any moves that were threatening and followed their instructions.
Yeah. Turns out he was unarmed and he was shot dead.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
I never once said that people were right for looting. What I was discussing was the events that led to the riots. I.e. Duggan's shooting. At the time I said that 'simply' carrying a gun wasn't a justifiable reason for the police to shoot him. Some on here thought otherwise. Turns out he was unarmed.Paul E wrote:Yawn. So that makes it right for gangs to go looting and he was still known to the police, you don't become known to the police for being a good little boy.
I think you will find no one on here in their right mind would say it was right to shoot unarmed people
That's an awfully long way from people saying it's OK for the police to shoot unarmed people!0 -
I'm not saying it was OK for the police to shoot unarmed people.MrChuck wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
I never once said that people were right for looting. What I was discussing was the events that led to the riots. I.e. Duggan's shooting. At the time I said that 'simply' carrying a gun wasn't a justifiable reason for the police to shoot him. Some on here thought otherwise. Turns out he was unarmed.Paul E wrote:Yawn. So that makes it right for gangs to go looting and he was still known to the police, you don't become known to the police for being a good little boy.
I think you will find no one on here in their right mind would say it was right to shoot unarmed people
That's an awfully long way from people saying it's OK for the police to shoot unarmed people!
Unless you're having a quote mishap.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
No quoting mishap, I know you're not saying that.
I quoted that bit because you seemed to be saying that it supports a claim that people did say that.
EDIT: that seems a bit convoluted :?0 -
I know people who knew him and apparently he was a bad egg. The shooting to death was wrong though.FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees
I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!0 -
I just got irked in the other thread (amongst many other things, some I'm not proud of) with the way people were trying to justify the shooting even though it wasn't clear that he had a gun and/or shot at the police officer.
Even when it became clear that he didn't shoot at the officer (and maybe didn't have a gun brandished in a threatening manner) there were those who were still saying that the police were right to shoot him dead. When I said that 'simply' carrying a gun isn't a justifiable reason for the police to shoot and kill I was shouted down further. with some going as far as to say that the police must have had a reason to shoot as though they never get it wrong.
Well, it turns out that he was unarmed when they killed him.
And the poor way the police handled the situation in, lets face it, what is a pressure cooker part of London in terms of police relations played a strong part in the riots that happened in Tottenham. (The rest of the London riots shouldn't be considered as connected to that reason though).Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Some people seem to think that the police never make mistakes. These people are wrong.FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees
I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!0 -
shooting an armed man (who is not acting in a threatening manner with the weapon) is a mistake.
shooting an entirely unarmed man is a catastrophy.0 -
There's more reason to be afraid of the oiks, scrots, thugs, pondlife, vermin, and brain-less, knuckle-dragging, swamp-donkeys that rioted, looted and attacked ambulance crews than the police.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
-
It's a fact that there was a gun in his car. Find it very hard to find any sympathy for him.
Why the indignation so long after all these facts were established?0 -
More to the point, can someone remind me why they didn't use water canons and why Smithers wasn't given the order to release the hounds?FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
It's a job I would never do . But put yourself in the place of the armed policeman for a moment. You are undoubtedly nervous, adrenalin would be flowing in quite considerable volumes. It's understandable that mistakes happen. The trying to hide it is terrible. They know there's going to be an investigation, why lie badly? I'm sure armed police are used without firing a shot far more than they kill unarmed men, but we only hear about the screw ups.
On a different shooting incident, imagine if Charles de Menendes (not sure of exact name) had been carrying a bomb and the police had a chance but didn't take it. Many more could have died, somebody had to make a snap decision. I know it was the wrong one and other errors were made regarding information given. But I believe the guy that pulled the trigger believed he was averting a more serious incident. I don't for one minute think he knew he was shooting an innocent man. The failings lay elsewhere in that case.0 -
Because there weren't any water cannons on mainland UK? And because the hounds were all out of bees?cjcp wrote:More to the point, can someone remind me why they didn't use water canons and why Smithers wasn't given the order to release the hounds?
+1, The police are only human. Similar proportions of heros and arseholes to the rest of the population.EKE_38BPM wrote:Some people seem to think that the police never make mistakes. These people are wrong.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:RIGHT YOU LOT.
Remember when this was kicking off and a number of you (Greg/s, Spen, W1) were spouting off about how it was one less drug dealer on the street, that if he had a gun then it was right that he was shot and when I dared to question the actions of the police, you shouted me down as though it was treason to even think that the police could ever be casted as the villains.
Well and truly buried:.....
You might have a point if I had said such a thing, However as I did not say what you are inventing you are left looking foolish
I am no fan of the police per se, and they are no fans of mine. There is at least one police force with a rather large intelligence file about me and the same force have made several attempts to "get me".
I do call things the way I see them, not just whatever the popular mood is.Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
cjcp wrote:More to the point, can someone remind me why they didn't use water canons and why Smithers wasn't given the order to release the hounds?
I'm not sure met police had water cannons available, nor am I sure they had authority to use them at that timeWant to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
spen666 wrote:cjcp wrote:More to the point, can someone remind me why they didn't use water canons and why Smithers wasn't given the order to release the hounds?
I'm not sure met police had water cannons available, nor am I sure they had authority to use them at that time
Re the authority point, something about Parliamentary authority rings a bell of some sort. Might be wrong though.
@NSB - I think they were the dogs that spat bees, which is what Bart was talking about. I think. If so, different dogs. Will have to look that up.FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
Veronese68 wrote:On a different shooting incident, imagine if Charles de Menendes (not sure of exact name) had been carrying a bomb and the police had a chance but didn't take it. Many more could have died, somebody had to make a snap decision. I know it was the wrong one and other errors were made regarding information given. But I believe the guy that pulled the trigger believed he was averting a more serious incident. I don't for one minute think he knew he was shooting an innocent man. The failings lay elsewhere in that case.
It was Jean-Charles de Menesez. I think you are probably right, but what's chilling is if you rephrase that as "imagine if the officer thought that you had been carrying a bomb...". The failings may lie elsewhere, in the chain of command, but I'm not sure that is much consolation.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
spen666 wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:RIGHT YOU LOT.
Remember when this was kicking off and a number of you (Greg/s, Spen, W1) were spouting off about how it was one less drug dealer on the street, that if he had a gun then it was right that he was shot and when I dared to question the actions of the police, you shouted me down as though it was treason to even think that the police could ever be casted as the villains.
Well and truly buried:.....
You might have a point if I had said such a thing, However as I did not say what you are inventing you are left looking foolish
Fair point, i apologise for getting wrong.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
We all know what happens, if we play with fire all our lives...Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
-
as risible a character Duggan may have been one fact remains: he was shot by the police whilst unarmed.0
