Mark Duggan: Tottenham shooting that led to the riots

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

We all know what happens, if we play with fire all our lives...

Do we?

We get burned, Rick.

Let's face it, there's a very slim to none chance of any lovely folk in here being shot by the Met - either rightly, wrongly or by mistake.

Why is that?

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

We all know what happens, if we play with fire all our lives...

Do we?

We get burned, Rick.

Let's face it, there's a very slim to none chance of any lovely folk in here being shot by the Met - either rightly, wrongly or by mistake.

Why is that?

Because I'm white and live in Fulham? Pretty sure the Brazilian plumber wasn't playing with fire. And there's a difference between being burned and getting shot by police when you're driving down the road or sitting on the tube.

cjcp

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

We all know what happens, if we play with fire all our lives...

Do we?

We get burned, Rick.

Let's face it, there's a very slim to none chance of any lovely folk in here being shot by the Met - either rightly, wrongly or by mistake.

Why is that?

Because I'm white and live in Fulham? Pretty sure the Brazilian plumber wasn't playing with fire. And there's a difference between being burned and getting shot by police when you're driving down the road or sitting on the tube.

What was the context of the Brazilian guy? Running away from armed police on to the tube with a backpack in the wake of 7/7?

Paul E

Still yawning away here

alansd1980

Those two articles bring nothing new to the debate.

All the daily mail article really says is it was a mistake to say he shot at the police first and the WSW is totally biased. If a gun was found 10-14 feet away it could easily have been in his possesion when shot and the fact no DNA was found on the gun could be explained by the fact it was wrapped in a sock! Also, his fingerprints were found on the box the gun, which he has collected earlier according to the reports, was stored in.

I dont have any opinions on Mark Duggan or the police officers but the information you provided shed no new light on the subject.

daviesee

People who play with fire are taking risks.
People who deliberately do wrong (either side of the law) deserve to be appropriately punished.
People who cover up should be punished.

Other than that, life is not perfect. Humans are not perfect. Mistakes are made. That is life.
Things can always be improved but seeking perfect utopia on an internet forum is a complete waste of time.

Get your pitchforks ready

notsoblue

cjcp wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

We all know what happens, if we play with fire all our lives...

Do we?

We get burned, Rick.

Let's face it, there's a very slim to none chance of any lovely folk in here being shot by the Met - either rightly, wrongly or by mistake.

Why is that?

Because I'm white and live in Fulham? Pretty sure the Brazilian plumber wasn't playing with fire. And there's a difference between being burned and getting shot by police when you're driving down the road or sitting on the tube.

What was the context of the Brazilian guy? Running away from armed police on to the tube with a backpack in the wake of 7/7?

Didn't the enquiry conclude that all those reports of him running away, and vaulting ticket barriers was BS? He was just walking to work. Their intelligence was wrong.

bails87

Yep, the cosy relationship between tge Met and News International meant that in the immediate aftermath Menezes was smeared, just like the guys shot in tge Forest Gate raid. Menezes was wearing jeans and a tshirt, sitting in a seat on the tube. The police burst in, gave no warning and shot him several times in the head at point blank range.

I thought the fact all the other stuff was made up was well known...

veronese68

rjsterry wrote:

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.

Very valid point, but if I was told to stop by a policeman I would stop, wether they were armed or not. I've had a gun pulled on me at airport security as I had a screwdriver in my pocket I had forgotten about. I moved very slowly and carefully so as to be sure there could be no misunderstanding.
This is the problem. The individual involved may have committed a very minor crime that causes them to act strangely, the policeman doesn't know what is going through the suspect's head and acts on whatever information, or misinformation, he has.
Again, I'm so glad all police aren't armed in this country.

bails87

No. De Menezes did NOTHING wrong. It could have been anyone.

veronese68

bails87 wrote:

No. De Menezes did NOTHING wrong. It could have been anyone.

Apologies, replied to RJS and didn't read on. I have obviously blocked the aftermath from my memory as it helps me to feel safe in my own little world.

bails87

Veronese68 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

No. De Menezes did NOTHING wrong. It could have been anyone.

Apologies, replied to RJS and didn't read on. I have obviously blocked the aftermath from my memory as it helps me to feel safe in my own little world.

No worries. It was such a widespread 'truth' that he was wearing a big jacket and jumped the ticket barrier that it's not surprising people still think that's what happened. That version of events was shouted on front pages, the unfortunate reality was whispered somewhere on page 38.... :roll:

HebdenBiker

DDD, you are of course right, but you will never win the argument because there are people who will defend the police no matter what, even when they are found to be lying, corrupt, incompetent bastards with no regard for human life. Which they are, frequently.

Ben6899

HebdenBiker wrote:

DDD, you are of course right, but you will never win the argument because there are people who will defend the police no matter what, even when they are found to be lying, corrupt, incompetent bastards with no regard for human life. Which they are, frequently.

This ain't about defending the police.

jimmypippa

bails87 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

No. De Menezes did NOTHING wrong. It could have been anyone.

Apologies, replied to RJS and didn't read on. I have obviously blocked the aftermath from my memory as it helps me to feel safe in my own little world.

No worries. It was such a widespread 'truth' that he was wearing a big jacket and jumped the ticket barrier that it's not surprising people still think that's what happened. That version of events was shouted on front pages, the unfortunate reality was whispered somewhere on page 38.... :roll:

bails87 wrote:

Yep, the cosy relationship between tge Met and News International meant that in the immediate aftermath Menezes was smeared, just like the guys shot in tge Forest Gate raid. Menezes was wearing jeans and a tshirt, sitting in a seat on the tube. The police burst in, gave no warning and shot him several times in the head at point blank range.

I thought the fact all the other stuff was made up was well known...

And this is where it gets intertwined with the News International and police corruption issues. NI seems to have had a culture of being seen to be on side with the police and smoothing some of their potential PR disasters.

Ian Tomlinson being another, where the police issued claimed a version of events that later turned out to be untrue.
completely untrue. The statements have been definitive (and untrue).

All in all, were I non-white, I'd not have much trust in the police.

Nor in the deputy Mayor given his "persil email" "joke", which coming after his "Irish builder" comment, suggests a xenophobe. In his defence, I suppose he doesn't restrict his bigoted comments to non-whites. :roll:

Wallace1492

Just a couple of observations.

Firstly, the police do not set out to shoot unarmed people, they have to have a VERY strong suspicion that they are either armed or a threat to the public. In the two cases quoted, they had this strong suspicion.

In the Duggan case, he was not averse to weapon use and the Police had intelligence that he was "probably" carrying.
In the Brazlian guy's case the Police screwed up the operation, but the guys that tackled him were told he was one of the bombers, it was not the guys that killed him that screwed up but the surveillence officers earlier.

What is a lot more concerning is that in both cases there was an attempted cover up, with untruths and dowmright lies being told by the police. This is what is really wrong.

If we have terrorists, armed robbers/gangs we will require armed police, and occasionally, just occasionally they will get it wrong. But lets have the whole truth coming out from the start, learn and move on.

It is not OK to shoot unarmed innocent people, but it is not as clear cut as that in these cases.

rick_chasey

Wallace1492 wrote:

Just a couple of observations.

Firstly, the police do not set out to shoot unarmed people, they have to have a VERY strong suspicion that they are either armed or a threat to the public. In the two cases quoted, they had this strong suspicion.

In the Duggan case, he was not averse to weapon use and the Police had intelligence that he was "probably" carrying.
In the Brazlian guy's case the Police screwed up the operation, but the guys that tackled him were told he was one of the bombers, it was not the guys that killed him that screwed up but the surveillence officers earlier.

What is a lot more concerning is that in both cases there was an attempted cover up, with untruths and dowmright lies being told by the police. This is what is really wrong.

If we have terrorists, armed robbers/gangs we will require armed police, and occasionally, just occasionally they will get it wrong. But lets have the whole truth coming out from the start, learn and move on.

It is not OK to shoot unarmed innocent people, but it is not as clear cut as that in these cases.

When critcism is due, the police should get it.

Criticism is particularly important when considering police actions that result in death.

In this instance, the police made a big big mistake in an area where there is a history of systemic mistakes (f you want to call it that..) , and served as a flashpoint for civil unrest.

We can also criticise the police for the way they dealt with the unrest afterwards - i.e. letting it happen to the extent where news reports became adverts for people to loot without consequences.

Ultimately the question is - had the police not made the mistake of shooting an unarmed Duggan (which, when people on the initial march to the police station were correct about), would the initial disturbance in Tottenham have occurred, and had that not occurred, would the rest of the disturbances in London have occurred?

Wallace1492

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Just a couple of observations.

Firstly, the police do not set out to shoot unarmed people, they have to have a VERY strong suspicion that they are either armed or a threat to the public. In the two cases quoted, they had this strong suspicion.

In the Duggan case, he was not averse to weapon use and the Police had intelligence that he was "probably" carrying.
In the Brazlian guy's case the Police screwed up the operation, but the guys that tackled him were told he was one of the bombers, it was not the guys that killed him that screwed up but the surveillence officers earlier.

What is a lot more concerning is that in both cases there was an attempted cover up, with untruths and dowmright lies being told by the police. This is what is really wrong.

If we have terrorists, armed robbers/gangs we will require armed police, and occasionally, just occasionally they will get it wrong. But lets have the whole truth coming out from the start, learn and move on.

It is not OK to shoot unarmed innocent people, but it is not as clear cut as that in these cases.

When critcism is due, the police should get it.

Criticism is particularly important when considering police actions that result in death.

In this instance, the police made a big big mistake in an area where there is a history of systemic mistakes (f you want to call it that..) , and served as a flashpoint for civil unrest.

We can also criticise the police for the way they dealt with the unrest afterwards - i.e. letting it happen to the extent where news reports became adverts for people to loot without consequences.

Ultimately the question is - had the police not made the mistake of shooting an unarmed Duggan (which, when people on the initial march to the police station were correct about), would the initial disturbance in Tottenham have occurred, and had that not occurred, would the rest of the disturbances in London have occurred?

Absolutely, critcism where it is due, the Police did not cover themselves in glory in either operation. However what is good is that we are in a country where the truth does come out, and what the Police should know by now is to be truthful from the start, and not *try* and cover thing up/make up untruths. Mistakes do happen, but lets face it, they are very few and far between, though does not make it easy for the victims.

notsoblue

Wallace1492 wrote:

Absolutely, critcism where it is due, the Police did not cover themselves in glory in either operation. However what is good is that we are in a country where the truth does come out, and what the Police should know by now is to be truthful from the start, and not *try* and cover thing up/make up untruths. Mistakes do happen, but lets face it, they are very few and far between, though does not make it easy for the victims.

Thats not really the case though is it? They're only as truthful as we force them to be. If they can get away with covering stuff up, they will. Because it makes their job easier. I don't really have anything against the police at all, I'm glad they're there. But I don't think they deserve implicit trust. Terrible things happen when they're given it. They're public servants after all, not enforcers for a higher authority.

Wallace1492

notsoblue wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Absolutely, critcism where it is due, the Police did not cover themselves in glory in either operation. However what is good is that we are in a country where the truth does come out, and what the Police should know by now is to be truthful from the start, and not *try* and cover thing up/make up untruths. Mistakes do happen, but lets face it, they are very few and far between, though does not make it easy for the victims.

Thats not really the case though is it? They're only as truthful as we force them to be. If they can get away with covering stuff up, they will. Because it makes their job easier. I don't really have anything against the police at all, I'm glad they're there. But I don't think they deserve implicit trust. Terrible things happen when they're given it. They're public servants after all, not enforcers for a higher authority.

Correct. My point is that they should know by now that the truth comes out and they get shown up for lying. They then lose respect for this. They should be trusted but have proved unreliable in the past. However from on high they should be led by example and I do not see this happening. However, far better than in many countries around the world.

notsoblue

Wallace1492 wrote:

Correct. My point is that they should know by now that the truth comes out and they get shown up for lying. They then lose respect for this. They should be trusted but have proved unreliable in the past. However from on high they should be led by example and I do not see this happening. However, far better than in many countries around the world.

True. Its a bit much to expect them to lead by example. They're only human.

bompington

notsoblue wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Absolutely, critcism where it is due, the Police did not cover themselves in glory in either operation. However what is good is that we are in a country where the truth does come out, and what the Police should know by now is to be truthful from the start, and not *try* and cover thing up/make up untruths. Mistakes do happen, but lets face it, they are very few and far between, though does not make it easy for the victims.

Thats not really the case though is it? They're only as truthful as we force them to be. If they can get away with covering stuff up, they will. Because it makes their job easier. I don't really have anything against the police at all, I'm glad they're there. But I don't think they deserve implicit trust. Terrible things happen when they're given it. They're public servants after all, not enforcers for a higher authority.

Mmm, what are we going to do then, have citizens' committees following them round all the time? We certainly need to trust them to some level.
Rick is on the right track about "history of systemic mistakes": it's about making systems / culture that make things work better.

I'm no police basher, I have never come across anything but polite, reasonable and professional behaviour. It probably helps that I don't go around breaking the law, and that I treat them with respect. At work we see a lot of them, and I'm always impressed by their patience and skill when dealing with teenagers who are (by definition when they get involved) violent, aggressive and giving them the foulest abuse.

What does seem important to me in all this is how we (the public as a whole I mean, not just internet opinionistas ;-)) respond to this. I can understand how ignorant policing can lead to "anti-police" sentiment among the ignorant, or at least the disenfranchised: but for anyone approaching it rationally, if you're anti the police, what exactly are you for?
Crime? Anarchy?
The police should be held to account for their actions, without a doubt. It still concerns me a bit that there are people who will attack the police no matter what, even when the vast majority of them are found not to be lying, corrupt, incompetent bastards with no regard for human life. Which they aren't, frequently.

suzyb

notsoblue wrote:

True. Its a bit much to expect them to lead by example. They're only human.

Like the traffic officer on Saturday who drove the entire length of a dual carrigeway in the overtaking lane even though he wasn't overtaking anyone :roll:

Wallace1492

bompington wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Absolutely, critcism where it is due, the Police did not cover themselves in glory in either operation. However what is good is that we are in a country where the truth does come out, and what the Police should know by now is to be truthful from the start, and not *try* and cover thing up/make up untruths. Mistakes do happen, but lets face it, they are very few and far between, though does not make it easy for the victims.

Thats not really the case though is it? They're only as truthful as we force them to be. If they can get away with covering stuff up, they will. Because it makes their job easier. I don't really have anything against the police at all, I'm glad they're there. But I don't think they deserve implicit trust. Terrible things happen when they're given it. They're public servants after all, not enforcers for a higher authority.

Mmm, what are we going to do then, have citizens' committees following them round all the time? We certainly need to trust them to some level.
Rick is on the right track about "history of systemic mistakes": it's about making systems / culture that make things work better.

I'm no police basher, I have never come across anything but polite, reasonable and professional behaviour. It probably helps that I don't go around breaking the law, and that I treat them with respect. At work we see a lot of them, and I'm always impressed by their patience and skill when dealing with teenagers who are (by definition when they get involved) violent, aggressive and giving them the foulest abuse.

What does seem important to me in all this is how we (the public as a whole I mean, not just internet opinionistas ;-)) respond to this. I can understand how ignorant policing can lead to "anti-police" sentiment among the ignorant, or at least the disenfranchised: but for anyone approaching it rationally, if you're anti the police, what exactly are you for?
Crime? Anarchy?
The police should be held to account for their actions, without a doubt. It still concerns me a bit that there are people who will attack the police no matter what, even when the vast majority of them are found not to be lying, corrupt, incompetent bastards with no regard for human life. Which they aren't, frequently.

Absolutely. They have to be accountable for their actions, and they are to a court of law, independent enquiry, which is why some of their failings have been laid bare. They do a very hard job in difficuly circumstances, an in general do it very well. However, I would like to see complete truth from the start, rather than the attempted cover ups, as they do get found out.

I trust the police as there is protection there for me also. But they must also be truthful in all circumstances in order to earn and keep the respect of the public. Tough job.

notsoblue

Wallace1492 wrote:

bompington wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Absolutely, critcism where it is due, the Police did not cover themselves in glory in either operation. However what is good is that we are in a country where the truth does come out, and what the Police should know by now is to be truthful from the start, and not *try* and cover thing up/make up untruths. Mistakes do happen, but lets face it, they are very few and far between, though does not make it easy for the victims.

Thats not really the case though is it? They're only as truthful as we force them to be. If they can get away with covering stuff up, they will. Because it makes their job easier. I don't really have anything against the police at all, I'm glad they're there. But I don't think they deserve implicit trust. Terrible things happen when they're given it. They're public servants after all, not enforcers for a higher authority.

Mmm, what are we going to do then, have citizens' committees following them round all the time? We certainly need to trust them to some level.
Rick is on the right track about "history of systemic mistakes": it's about making systems / culture that make things work better.

I'm no police basher, I have never come across anything but polite, reasonable and professional behaviour. It probably helps that I don't go around breaking the law, and that I treat them with respect. At work we see a lot of them, and I'm always impressed by their patience and skill when dealing with teenagers who are (by definition when they get involved) violent, aggressive and giving them the foulest abuse.

What does seem important to me in all this is how we (the public as a whole I mean, not just internet opinionistas ;-)) respond to this. I can understand how ignorant policing can lead to "anti-police" sentiment among the ignorant, or at least the disenfranchised: but for anyone approaching it rationally, if you're anti the police, what exactly are you for?
Crime? Anarchy?
The police should be held to account for their actions, without a doubt. It still concerns me a bit that there are people who will attack the police no matter what, even when the vast majority of them are found not to be lying, corrupt, incompetent bastards with no regard for human life. Which they aren't, frequently.

Absolutely. They have to be accountable for their actions, and they are to a court of law, independent enquiry, which is why some of their failings have been laid bare. They do a very hard job in difficuly circumstances, an in general do it very well. However, I would like to see complete truth from the start, rather than the attempted cover ups, as they do get found out.

I trust the police as there is protection there for me also. But they must also be truthful in all circumstances in order to earn and keep the respect of the public. Tough job.

Yeah, I agree with the above. I suppose what I said was in opposition to the attitude many people have that the police are untouchable paragons of humanity who deserve the benefit of the doubt when something like the Duggan incident happens. Many people show natural deference to authority figures, and thats usually why they do wrong. Because they think they can get away with it.

Having a position of authority in a free society is pretty hard. But then it couldn't be any other way, could it?

DonDaddyD

There are several points to be made in this discussion.

1). The original thread:
Many of you, I felt, led with your prejudices and sided with the actions of the police, claiming that they must have had plausible reason to shoot him (end debate). I asserted that:

- Being in possession of a gun is not enough of a plausible reason for the police to shoot someone. - It wasn't a forgone conclusion that the police were right for shooting Duggan (even if he was found in possession of a gun).

It turns out he was unarmed. It could still turn out that they were within their right to shoot him. The POINT is that we shouldn't automatically side with the actions the police take without first questioning (and investigating) the validity of their actions.

I also pointed out that early news reports suggested that Duggan shot at the police. He didn't. This misinforamtion and the way the police handled public outrage in Tottenham resulted in the riots in Tottenham. These actions contributed and became one of the catalysts for copycat riots/looting.

2). There is a problem with news like this being buried.

3). I told you so.

daviesee

1.1 That depends on the person, the gun and the situation.
1.2 It wasn't a forgone conclusion that they were in the wrong either. Turns out they were but on the night of the riot it was still unclear.
2. Very definitely.
3. My hero. The Oracle

Wallace1492

1.1 But it was enough of a reason for the Cops to be armed and if they had intelligence that he had a gun, he might use it.
1.2 As Daviesee, we dont know the exact movements that led to the shooting. Did he twitch, try and escape.
2. I think the problem is the misinformation that is given out in the immediate aftermath. The truth usually comes out, as it has in the case and in the Stockwell case.
3. The guy show was still a dealer and of interest to the Police and was known to be involved with firearms. Does not mean he should be shot, but..... you can see why they took no chances.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Did I? Quote please.

Having looked through the thread, the closest I can see is that I said this, which was clearly qualified (and which I stand by):

"Generally I think you're right on this one. Except that I don't agree that there's "all chance" that the gun found at the scene was planted/nothing to do with the chap. There is "a" chance, but a small one based on what we do in fact know."

Be very careful who you accuse of saying what.

What I actually recall from that thread was you having a massive tantrum whilst failing to comprehend what people were actually saying, rather than what you wanted them to be saying so that you could take offence.

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Did I? Quote please.

Having looked through the thread, the closest I can see is that I said this, which was clearly qualified (and which I stand by):

"Generally I think you're right on this one. Except that I don't agree that there's "all chance" that the gun found at the scene was planted/nothing to do with the chap. There is "a" chance, but a small one based on what we do in fact know."

Be very careful who you accuse of saying what.

What I actually recall from that thread was you having a massive tantrum whilst failing to comprehend what people were actually saying, rather than what you wanted them to be saying so that you could take offence.

No, no. Like Spen I owe you an apology.