# Mark Duggan shooting inquest in London finally starts...



## TopCat (Sep 16, 2013)

"The mother of Mark Duggan, who was shot by police in north London, has said she hopes "the truth will finally come out" at his inquest.

Pam Duggan said that since the 29-year-old was shot dead in Tottenham, the family had been told "nothing but lies, misinformation, and delay".

Mr Duggan's death in 2011 sparked widespread riots in London.

The inquest has opened at the Royal Courts of Justice and is expected to last about eight weeks."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24105858


----------



## TopCat (Sep 16, 2013)

Court reports:
Potential jurors in #Duggan inquest told firearms officers from scene of shooting will give evidence anonymously "for good reasons".
Duggan Jurors told Kevin Hutchinson-Foster who's alleged to have supplied Mark Duggan with a gun is a witness in case.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 19, 2013)

The _Guardian_'s constructive relationship with Met on show again today:



> *Mark Duggan inquest jury to hear gun may have been planted*
> Local resident known as Miss J will say she saw suspicious activity by police after shooting, counsel tells jurors



I imagine there will be a fair few parking tickets handed out and 'random' breathalyser spot-checks undertaken around Kings Place in coming weeks.


----------



## CNT36 (Sep 21, 2013)

http://www.daily fucking mail.co.uk/debate/article-2425855/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Pray-silence-court-dead-gangster.html
Some gems in there.


----------



## DexterTCN (Sep 21, 2013)

CNT36 said:


> http://www.daily fucking mail.co.uk/debate/article-2425855/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Pray-silence-court-dead-gangster.html
> Some gems in there.


Can littleknob call him a gangster during the inquest?  Hopefully that's contempt.


----------



## Fez909 (Sep 23, 2013)

One of the "48 most violent criminals in Europe".


----------



## Humberto (Sep 23, 2013)

So we still don't know what happened? Fuckinghell. Surely there where witnesses which is all you can go on. I don't know much about the lad but what was he killed FOR?


----------



## dylanredefined (Sep 24, 2013)

Humberto said:


> So we still don't know what happened? Fuckinghell. Surely there where witnesses which is all you can go on. I don't know much about the lad but what was he killed FOR?



 According to police he produced a gun whether he decided to go out in a blaze of glory or he was trying to throw it away and it was misinterpreted. Or the police are lying who knows?
   Eye witnesses are unreliable your mind will pray tricks on you under stressful situations. Got to do police judgement shoot training earlier this year. Situation happens you shoot or don't shoot and then justify your actions to the police. I saw blood stains where in reality it was a red scarf.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 14, 2013)

20m
*vikram dodd* @VikramDodd
Taxi driver says he did not see #duggan holding a weapon or raising his arm
13m
*vikram dodd* @VikramDodd
Taxi driver says armed officer threatened to shoot him if he kept looking at where #duggan had fallen


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 14, 2013)

*vikram dodd* @VikramDodd
Taxi driver said one armed officer, w42, was in a rage "like someone who had lost their senses"


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> *vikram dodd* @VikramDodd
> Taxi driver said one armed officer, w42, was in a rage "like someone who had lost their senses"



Interesting....report from court correspondent being given on R5 atm...mentioned all of that verbatim and added view of taxi driver that Duggan had been shot in the back.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 14, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Interesting....report from court correspondent being given on R5 atm...mentioned all of that verbatim and added view of taxi driver that Duggan had been shot in the back.


 
Indeed:

*Riot From Wrong* @RiotfromWrong  
"I clearly saw police shoot Mark #Duggan in the back, I saw the feathers fly out of his jacket" (TD)


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Indeed:
> 
> *Riot From Wrong* @RiotfromWrong
> "I clearly saw police shoot Mark #Duggan in the back, I saw the feathers fly out of his jacket" (TD)



Although, (i'm no expert at all) but mightn't the stuff fly out the back of his jacket if he had been hit from the front?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 14, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Although, (i'm no expert at all) but mightn't the stuff fly out the back of his jacket if he had been hit from the front?


 
I'm hoping not to find out! But yeah I guess so.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 14, 2013)

When if ever will we hear the truth?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 14, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Although, (i'm no expert at all) but mightn't the stuff fly out the back of his jacket if he had been hit from the front?



It's more likely that he was shot in the back if feathers from a quilted jacket were seen coming from his back.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> It's more likely that he was shot in the back if feathers from a quilted jacket were seen coming from his back.



Well the Taxi driver did say that Duggan was attempting to run away from the vehicle, so that fits.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> It's more likely that he was shot in the back if feathers from a quilted jacket were seen coming from his back.



What did the post-mortem say?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 14, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> What did the post-mortem say?



I can't remember.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 14, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> What did the post-mortem say?


"Post-mortem test showed Mr Duggan was shot in the chest and upper right arm."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21060194

Nothing on the direction of the shots.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2013)

TopCat said:


> "Post-mortem test showed Mr Duggan was shot in the chest and upper right arm."
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21060194
> 
> Nothing on the direction of the shots.





> The Old Bailey heard the fatal shot was to the chest, entering the front right hand side and exiting the back of Mr Duggan on the left hand side.



Would probably explain the feathers.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 14, 2013)

So the witness who said he clearly saw plod shoot MD in the back, in fact didn't see plod shoot MD in the back.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 14, 2013)

TopCat said:


> "Post-mortem test showed Mr Duggan was shot in the chest and upper right arm."
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21060194
> 
> Nothing on the direction of the shots.



Obviously, the post mortem would have included in its report, which were entry & exit wounds. Has this info been released d'ya know TC?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> So the witness who said he clearly saw plod shoot MD in the back, in fact didn't see plod shoot MD in the back.



Looks that way.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 14, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Obviously, the post mortem would have included in its report, which were entry & exit wounds. Has this info been released d'ya know TC?


I can't find the coroner's report. Not sure it has been released.


----------



## andysays (Oct 14, 2013)

> The Old Bailey heard *the fatal shot* was to the chest, entering the front right hand side and exiting the back of Mr Duggan on the left hand side.





Mr.Bishie said:


> So the witness who said he clearly saw plod shoot MD in the back, in fact didn't see plod shoot MD in the back.



The fatal shot is not necessarily the only shot. 

Do we know how many shots were fired/how made distinct wounds there were? Presumably the C's report will contain the latter.


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 14, 2013)

andysays said:


> The fatal shot is not necessarily the only shot.
> 
> Do we know how many shots were fired/how made distinct wounds there were? Presumably the C's report will contain the latter.



According to TC's link he was hit by 2 shots. One to the upper arm and one to the chest.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 14, 2013)

can't wait to hear the explanation for the miracle gun found in a sock 10 feet away behind a wall. Theres going to be some bare faced lies coming out then.


----------



## andysays (Oct 14, 2013)

Spymaster said:


> According to TC's link he was hit by 2 shots. One to the upper arm and one to the chest.



The report in that link is about a previous trial in Jan, of someone charged with supplying a gun to MD. 

I have to admit I can't quite get my head round the various conflicting descriptions there of angles of fire/entrance and exit wounds.

Presumably this will need to be gone through at some point during the current inquest - let's hope it's made a bit clearer.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 15, 2013)

*Joe Pike* @joepike
The word 'liar' shouted by member of #Duggan family/ loved ones as officer V53 says MD holding gun.

*matt prodger* @MattProdger
Coroner: The gun disappeared? V53: It did, sir. #duggan


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2013)

I fucking knew it. Those pesky vanishing guns


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 15, 2013)

Well we know Duggan was a wrong 'un. Presumably his evil powers also extended to witchcraft.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 15, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well we know Duggan was a wrong 'un. Presumably his evil powers also extended to witchcraft.



But not to protective forcefields, bullet deflection or teleportation.


----------



## MrSki (Oct 15, 2013)

You would have thought that armed officers would be fitted with video kit so they could justify shooting people in their line of duty. I expect if they did they would mysteriously malfunction a lot.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 15, 2013)

It should be interesting to hear how the cops shot one of their own and later claimed it was MD who fired the shot.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 15, 2013)

TopCat said:


> It should be interesting to hear how the cops shot one of their own and later claimed it was MD who fired the shot.



Especially as the cop who did it has given evidence that _at the time it happened_ he believed that he had shot his colleague:



> *matt prodger* ‏@*MattProdger*
> V53 I thought "oh damn one of my rounds has over penetrated and hit one of my colleagues." Says it was a moment he would never forget.
> 
> 11:45 AM - 15 Oct 13


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2013)

they never made that claim explicitly did they? they clammed up entirely right up till now.

The shooty duggan narrative came from a sun journo. Now we know this means the met planted whispers in the right ears but it does give the officers a deniability that they ever claimed that.

unless I misremember the sequence of events.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 15, 2013)

TopCat said:


> It should be interesting to hear how the cops shot one of their own and later claimed it was MD who fired the shot.


 
Tbf if there was shooting going on and I accidentally shot my mate it would be tempting to say the bad man did it.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 15, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> unless I misremember the sequence of events.



Perish the thought that you would ever do such a thing.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 15, 2013)

*matt prodger* @MattProdger
Underwood: How did it get over the railings? V53: I don't know sir. When I reassessed the gun wasn't there. #duggan
*Joe Pike* @joepike
Officer V53 shown 'trajectory rods' demonstrating how 2 shots moved at different angles through Mark #Duggan's body. 'I can't explain that'. 

*vikram dodd* @VikramDodd
v53 "i didn't start the riots"


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2013)

they were always burning since the world was turning presumably


----------



## 8ball (Oct 15, 2013)

I haven't got a clue what happened here.  Do people think the police had him assassinated on the grounds they were confident he had a gun on him, or maybe planned to catch him with the gun, panicked and shot too soon and tried to cover it all up (second one seems plausible)?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 15, 2013)

Despite all the evidence so far presented - including that reported on by the BBC's own journalist Prodger - the BBC New twitter feed is going with:



> *BBC News (UK)Verified account* ‏@*BBCNews*
> Police saw Mark #*Duggan* holding handgun & thought he would shoot, got "confirmation" he was armed - inquest hears http://bbc.in/GPg8ij
> 
> 12:54 PM - 15 Oct 13


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 15, 2013)

8ball said:


> I haven't got a clue what happened here.  Do people think the police had him assassinated on the grounds they were confident he had a gun on him, or maybe planned to catch him with the gun, panicked and shot too soon and tried to cover it all up (second one seems plausible)?


 
I generally try to avoid speculating about this sort of thing.

What is clear is that the police version of events does not stack up and is contradicted by the only independent witness we have heard from so far.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2013)

8ball said:


> I haven't got a clue what happened here.  Do people think the police had him assassinated on the grounds they were confident he had a gun on him, or maybe planned to catch him with the gun, panicked and shot too soon and tried to cover it all up (second one seems plausible)?



the claim is that he was on his way to avenge the death of a family member- I don't know if the police believed that aqnd then aqrranged things afterwards to fit that narrative.

the trial of the man alleged to have sold him the magic disappearing gun was twice a mistrial IIRC (david, be sure to mock me if I have this wrong). So it sort of looks like they asked a jury three times till they secured the correct verdict for them


sounds a bit tinfoil hat now I've typed it out but fuck it


----------



## 8ball (Oct 15, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I generally try to avoid speculating about this sort of thing.
> 
> What is clear is that the police version of events does not stack up and is contradicted by the only independent witness we have heard from so far.


 
Yeah, the police accounts are all over the place - was just wondering if people had an idea of what they thought happened.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 15, 2013)

8ball said:


> Yeah, the police accounts are all over the place - was just wondering if people had an idea of what they thought happened.


I would speculate that the police thought Duggan was armed, him having been set up by another, they then stopped him, shot him, planted the gun to cover their backs, and then let loose a series of lies and media briefings.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2013)

if that were correct it also means not only do we have an innocent dead man, we'd have an innocent man in jail on a gun selling charge, which iirc is 5 years as standard now.


plus of course all the concomitant damage to people in the riots this shady shit kicked off.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 15, 2013)

TopCat said:


> ...and then let loose a series of lies and media briefings.



What sort of scurrilous, evidence-free slur is that?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 15, 2013)

TopCat said:


> I would speculate that the police thought Duggan was armed, him having been set up by another, they then stopped him, shot him, planted the gun to cover their backs, and then let loose a series of lies and media briefings.


 
So a deliberate killing that went sketchy when the 'evidence' was found to be 'wrong', rather than a botched arrest/panic/accidental shooting that was then covered up?  Tbh neither would surprise me that much.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 15, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> What sort of scurrilous, evidence-free slur is that?




you could chuck in hillsborough their too.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 15, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> *<snip>
> vikram dodd* @VikramDodd
> v53 "i didn't start the riots"


"err wasn't me guv!, cough i mean your honour"


----------



## laptop (Oct 15, 2013)

MrSki said:


> You would have thought that armed officers would be fitted with video kit so they could justify shooting people in their line of duty.



That would be a gross violation of their privacy.


----------



## likesfish (Oct 15, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> if that were correct it also means not only do we have an innocent dead man, we'd have an innocent man in jail on a gun selling charge, which iirc is 5 years as standard now.
> 
> 
> plus of course all the concomitant damage to people in the riots this shady shit kicked off.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-death-that-sparked-london-riots-8511649.html

Hutchinson-Foster is already in custody serving a sentence for drugs offences and was on licence at the time of the offence.

He was also jailed today after admitting using the same gun to "pistol whip" a barber five days before.

He is seen on CCTV threatening Peter Osadebay then returning and beating him with the gun until he nearly lost consciousness.

Hutchinson-Foster was jailed for four years for possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence and nine months concurrently for assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
  Not exactly innocent if caught on cctv beating someone unconcious with an illegal firearm?


----------



## laptop (Oct 15, 2013)

likesfish said:


> today



TUESDAY 26 FEBRUARY 2013


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 15, 2013)

OMFG

*vikram dodd* @VikramDodd
v53 says the shooting has had "a detrimental effect on my homelife" and says his family as well as the #Duggan's have been effected


----------



## TopCat (Oct 15, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> OMFG
> 
> *vikram dodd* @VikramDodd
> v53 says the shooting has had "a detrimental effect on my homelife" and says his family as well as the #Duggan's have been effected


Not as much as Mark Duggan's.


----------



## ddraig (Oct 15, 2013)

like mark spit fucking stone
boohoo, sleepless nights etc
don't fucking take the fucking job


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 15, 2013)

I can see that shooting and killing an unarmed (or armed with a magic invisible gun) man would profoundly affect anyone. I doubt I'd ever recover from it.

But given the choice I'd rather be the shooter than be dead, as would my family I am sure.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 15, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I can see that shooting and killing an unarmed (or armed with a magic invisible gun) man would profoundly affect anyone. I doubt I'd ever recover from it.



No doubt there are groups for this sort of thing.

"Hi, my name's Kevin, and I shot a fella in a pub for owning a table leg."


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 15, 2013)

"Hi, my name's Terry. I shot a Brazilian bloke on the underground."


----------



## trabuquera (Oct 15, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> *vikram dodd* @VikramDodd
> v53 says the shooting has had "a detrimental effect on my homelife" and says his family as well as the #Duggan's have been effected


 
 well, if you think that shooting other people, or being shot yourself, might ruin your life, or your family life, that might be a good reason not to join a local gang / a police armed response unit, mightn't it??


----------



## A380 (Oct 15, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Indeed:
> 
> *Riot From Wrong* @RiotfromWrong
> "I clearly saw police shoot Mark #Duggan in the back, I saw the feathers fly out of his jacket" (TD)


And then under cross examination the taxi driver said that he didn't see the police shoot at all.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 16, 2013)

A380 said:


> And then under cross examination the taxi driver said that he didn't see the police shoot at all.


 
Is that from the transcript? All I can find is this:



> 18 Q. You were looking at him when he was shooting; is that
> 19 right?
> 20 A. Yes. When he fired the shot, I looked at him -- when he
> 21 fired the shot, and I heard the shot, then I looked at
> ...


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 16, 2013)

*vikram dodd* @VikramDodd
Miss j said she saw #duggan being dragged by police from car. Jury heard duggan exited car and shot on pavement

*Riot From Wrong* @RiotfromWrong
MJ adamant she saw offcr take gun out of car cover it with a blk cloth, run to show somebody with "an expression like hed found gold"#Duggan


----------



## brogdale (Oct 16, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> *vikram dodd* @VikramDodd
> Miss j said she saw #duggan being dragged by police from car. Jury heard duggan exited car and shot on pavement
> 
> *Riot From Wrong* @RiotfromWrong
> MJ adamant she saw offcr take gun out of car cover it with a blk cloth, run to show somebody with "an expression like hed found gold"#Duggan


 Oh dear, these witnesses just don't seem to have learnt the script, do they. They must be very _unreliable_.


----------



## TopCat (Oct 16, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Oh dear, these witnesses just don't seem to have learnt the script, do they. They must be very _unreliable_.


Cue predictable slander in the right wing press.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 16, 2013)

Ref the coroners report; is it just this case where it's not being made public under RIPA?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 16, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Ref the coroners report; is it just this case where it's not being made public under RIPA?


Is this it? That is has not been published and RIPA is somehow the reason?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 16, 2013)

Yep.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 16, 2013)

Wiki says IPCC claim RIPA prevents them disclosing any information, and the IPCC has all the evidence a coroner would need.

^^ from a mate on twitter convo we are having


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 16, 2013)

As far as I understand - from having tried to get a full transcript from the Sean Rigg inquest - coroner's courts are not 'public bodies' and so are exempted from the strictures of FoI.

Inquests are meant to be open to the public, subject to the normal provisions for excluding members of the public from some parts of the inquest in some circumstances.

"Interested parties" can obtain material and evidence, but it seems that there is no real standard method of provision.

http://www.coronerscourtssupportservice.org.uk/faq-s/#34

Different inquests are conducted in different ways - for example, the Ian Tomlinson inquest was open to the public, required no pre-registration, no ID - straight-forward walk-in-off-the-street stuff. 

It was properly recorded both by a stenographer & digital recording equipment throughout, with full transcripts of each day's proceedings  published on the inquest's website (along with written evidence, audio and visual material).

An overflow room was provided with full video/audio link to the main room.

It was also one of the first if not the first court proceedings in the UK in which tweeting etc were expressly permitted from within the court room.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 16, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Ref the coroners report; is it just this case where it's not being made public under RIPA?


It's a big day for RIPA - over at the Court of Appeal lawyers for the police have been arguing that under the Act spy cops are expressly empowered to fuck their surveillance targets in the line of duty, whilst pretending to be someone else, despite any issues of lack of informed consent; and that at the same time that it would be unfair to both the cops' and their police forces if these matters were dealt with in a proper court room rather than a secretive Investigatory Powers Tribunal.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 16, 2013)

A380 said:


> And then under cross examination the taxi driver said that he didn't see the police shoot at all.



From reading back through the transcript, he said quite clearly that he _did_ see the police shoot Duggan, and that was what he said under examination by Mr Stern, representing the firearms officers:



> p62
> 
> 18  Q.  You were looking at him [the police officer who shot Mark Duggan] when he was shooting; is that
> 
> ...



http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/1183.htm


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 16, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> It's a big day for RIPA - over at the Court of Appeal lawyers for the police have been arguing that under the Act spy cops are expressly empowered to fuck their surveillance targets in the line of duty, whilst pretending to be someone else, despite any issues of lack of informed consent; and that at the same time that it would be unfair to both the cops' and their police forces if these matters were dealt with in a proper court room rather than a secretive Investigatory Powers Tribunal.


sorry, do you mean the courts of justice on the strand or the appeals court?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 16, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> sorry, do you mean the courts of justice on the strand or the appeals court?


The Court of Appeal at the RCJ on The Strand.

Per this:



> *Appeal against secret court – 15 & 16 October 2013*
> By admin | Published: October 8, 2013
> *Press Release - 8 October 2013*
> 
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 17, 2013)

Yesterday's transcript now up, including Miss J's testimony:

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/1225.htm



> 3  [Michael Mansfield] Now, first of all, do you have a recollection now of
> 4  all this or was that your best recollection in
> 
> 5  November 2011?
> ...


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 17, 2013)

Miss J's evidence summarised in _The Voice_:

http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/witness-police-took-gun-duggans-cab-after-shooting


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 22, 2013)

*Riot From Wrong* ‏@*RiotfromWrong* 
Court shown flip charts used by police to confer on their statements, these include colour of taxi, timing, rd names chronology etc #*Duggan*

3:23 PM - 22 Oct 13


----------



## brogdale (Oct 22, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> *Riot From Wrong* ‏@*RiotfromWrong*
> Court shown flip charts used by police to confer on their statements, these include colour of taxi, timing, rd names chronology etc #*Duggan*
> 
> 3:23 PM - 22 Oct 13


 Haven't we heard about this particular policing technique in some other cases of alleged conspiracy currently under investigation?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 23, 2013)

> ‏@RiotfromWrong
> LT "your there, w an unobstructed view, ur looking at the gun, What happened to the Gun!?!" W70 "I don't know" #Duggan


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 23, 2013)

> ‏@RiotfromWrong
> LT "you don't see him throw a gun, and yet you go and grab him!?! that's insanity isn't it?" W70 "no because I could see his hands" #Duggan



Too fucking right it's insane.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 23, 2013)

Last week:

MAGIC GUN

This week:

MAGIC HANDS


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2013)

Maybe we will find the truth eventually, 10 feet away, in a sock behind some railings


----------



## trabuquera (Oct 23, 2013)

curiouser and curiouser. I am baffled. Aren't fitups generally supposed to go a bit more smoothly than this? Most of the scenarios I'd dreamed up of how this event happened (some of which blame the cops, some Duggan) are now being contradicted by one witness or another. Can't figure out WTH happened.

Or perhaps the gun levitated itself over a fence by sheer force of will.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 23, 2013)

trabuquera said:


> curiouser and curiouser. I am baffled. Aren't fitups generally supposed to go a bit more smoothly than this? Most of the scenarios I'd dreamed up of how this event happened (some of which blame the cops, some Duggan) are now being contradicted by one witness or another. Can't figure out WTH happened.
> 
> Or perhaps the gun levitated itself over a fence by sheer force of will.



I think with most fit ups you don't have the additional panic of having managed to heroically shoot one of your mates during the whack job.

in the radio, thats a lucky lucky copper


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 23, 2013)

trabuquera said:


> curiouser and curiouser. I am baffled. Aren't fitups generally supposed to go a bit more smoothly than this?



This, really - seeing as they had flash cards and flip charts to go through all the minute details of everything before (and after) the operation, only for loads of the details to be wrong, and then for them to en masse recite the learned-but-wrong details in their statements (_and_ at the inquest for some of the less-able-to-freestyle ones).

And then all the wildly contradictory evidence: not just contradicting _each other_ - but contradicting _themselves_, sometimes one sentence after another.

And then _admitting_ that statements weren't correctly recorded.

And, and, and...

A bunch of incompetent, homicidal morons.

Bizarre.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 23, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> I think with most fit ups you don't have the additional panic of having managed to heroically shoot one of your mates during the whack job.
> 
> in the radio, thats a lucky lucky copper



W42 (lucky cop) giving evidence now. Should be interesting.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 23, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> A bunch of incompetent, homicidal morons.



Disarm the bastards.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 23, 2013)

> @MattProdger
> W42 was armed with 3 guns on the day



Yee haa!


----------



## likesfish (Oct 23, 2013)

trabuquera said:


> well, if you think that shooting other people, or being shot yourself, might ruin your life, or your family life, that might be a good reason not to join a local gang / a police armed response unit, mightn't it??




Although possibly you dont actually want to employ somebody who will shoot somebody and not be bothered


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 23, 2013)

Have to agree that what happened here is all the more confusing. Miss J said she saw a man pulled out of the back left door of the car. This presumably was Duggan. He was then, according to her, given CPR by the police. Does this mean he was shot whilst in the car? Is she confusing Duggan and the taxi driver? She also says a policeman went into the back of the car and brought out a gun. How many do we now have? The one he fired, the one found over the fence and the one in the back of the car? 

Someone with some knowledge help me here!


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Although possibly you dont actually want to employ somebody who will shoot somebody and not be bothered


not to be a cop anyway


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 23, 2013)

trabuquera said:


> curiouser and curiouser. I am baffled. Aren't fitups generally supposed to go a bit more smoothly than this? Most of the scenarios I'd dreamed up of how this event happened (some of which blame the cops, some Duggan) are now being contradicted by one witness or another. Can't figure out WTH happened.
> 
> Or perhaps the gun levitated itself over a fence by sheer force of will.


you weren't at the levitation of parliament in 1994, were you?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 24, 2013)

*vikram dodd @VikramDodd *
Firearms officer w42 giving evidence at #duggan inquest. He was the one "shot" by a colleague

*vikram dodd* @VikramDodd
W42 omitted from initial account his claim #duggan reaching for gun.he says "not a relevant fact" for his initial account


----------



## TopCat (Nov 8, 2013)

What's with the lack of progress? Has the enquiry been adjourned?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 8, 2013)

TopCat said:


> What's with the lack of progress? Has the enquiry been adjourned?


 
It's ongoing, TC the #duggan feed on twitter is the best way to find out what is happening.

Looks like they are on to discussing the IPCC investigators.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 8, 2013)

Also the documentary "Riot From Wrong" is now out on DVD:
http://www.fullyfocusedproductions.com/content/29396/riot_from_wrong/riot_from_wrong


----------



## TopCat (Nov 8, 2013)

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/1409.htm


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 12, 2013)

So, after today's inquest: 





> Mark Duggan’s DNA and fingerprints were not found on a gun which police claim he was holding when he was killed, a jury heard today.



Lying, murdering bastards, the MET.

http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/10803307.Duggan_s_fingerprints_and_DNA_not_found_on_gun/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 12, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> So, after today's inquest:
> 
> Lying, murdering bastards, the MET.
> 
> http://www.haringeyindependent.co.uk/news/10803307.Duggan_s_fingerprints_and_DNA_not_found_on_gun/



So basically the magic gun is even more magical than we first thought.  Not only can it move under its' own steam from a sock to over a wall, but it can teleport momentarily into someone's hand with a force field around it, too!


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 14, 2013)

*matt prodger* @MattProdger
Pathologist tells Mark #Duggan inquest he can't see how he could have thrown handgun to position 7.34m away after he was shot.

*Stafford Scott* @StaffordScott_
Prof Pounder; with the arm injury it is impossible for Duggan to have behaved in the manner described by V53 #duggan


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2013)

pathologist states the bleedin obvious


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 14, 2013)

v53 is the weakest link, isn't he?

This from October 15th:

*matt prodger* @MattProdger
Coroner: The gun disappeared? V53: It did, sir. #duggan


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 14, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Coroner: The gun disappeared? V53: It did, sir. #duggan



Probably a mysterious Hungarian gun with a limp.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 14, 2013)

Sounds like the Met's 'sheriffs' were keen to loose off some of those dum-dum bullets....



> The bullet that killed Mark Duggan had only recently been authorised for police use before the fatal shooting in 2011, the inquest into his death has heard.
> 
> Michael Mansfield QC, for the Duggan family, told the jury on Thursday that the 9mm parabellum ammunition used by a police marksman was "not even in use by all army units" in the UK.
> 
> The jury heard that the hollow-point bullet is designed to cause "instantaneous incapacitation" and "mushrooms" on contact with the body. The bullet travelled 30cm down through Duggan's body after hitting him 2cm above his right nipple, jurors were told.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> v53 is the weakest link, isn't he?
> 
> This from October 15th:
> 
> ...


he's the fucking missing link


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 14, 2013)

Just catching up with this today - what's this about the trajectory of the round to the chest, the fatal shot, that's says he could not have been standing at the time? An execution whilst laying on the ground writhing in pain from the first round?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 14, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Just catching up with this today - what's this about the trajectory of the round to the chest, the fatal shot, that's says he could not have been standing at the time? An execution whilst laying on the ground writhing in pain from the first round?



Yep.

It seems like the Met's justication for using ammo that even the army declines is on the basis that it 'incapacitates' the victim. Strange then that they'd decide to incapacitate twice over, the second round entering Duggan whilst he was leaning forward from the arm shot.


----------



## laptop (Nov 14, 2013)

And at an angle of "about 46 degrees" _relative to what_?

(Sorry, forgotten where I saw that.)

And with hollow-tipped bullets?


----------



## brogdale (Nov 14, 2013)

laptop said:


> And at an angle of "about 46 degrees" _relative to what_?
> 
> (Sorry, forgotten where I saw that.)
> 
> And with hollow-tipped bullets?



I think that means 46 degrees from what would be upright for Duggan....ie. he was leaning forward towards the 'marksman'.



> He told jurors the bullet travelled at an approximately 46-degree angle down through Duggan's chest before exiting his body, before it was eventually found in the minicab.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 14, 2013)

laptop said:


> And at an angle of "about 46 degrees" _relative to what_?
> 
> (Sorry, forgotten where I saw that.)
> 
> And with hollow-tipped bullets?



I believe the justification for police using hollowpoint rounds has to do with them being less likely to go straight through the target and hit someone else behind them. IIRC hollowpoints are banned for use in warfare under international law, but apparently this doesn't apply to police forces. By the same logic it would be OK to use landmines so long as you only used them on your own citizens.

IMO the only way to stop plods shooting the wrong people is to not give them guns.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 14, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yep.
> 
> It seems like the Met's justication for using ammo that even the army declines is on the basis that it 'incapacitates' the victim.



Many's the time I've been shot with a normal bullet and carried on about my business pretty much unhindered.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 14, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Many's the time I've been shot with a normal bullet and carried on about my business pretty much unhindered.



Exactly! After they'd pretty much blown Duggan's arm off, he was still likely to fire back with the shoe box, wasn't he?


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2013)

wow, hollow points, previously the preserve of gangsters.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 14, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> wow, hollow points, previously the preserve of gangsters.



Coppers are just gangsters who aren't as good at aiming.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Coppers are just gangsters who aren't as good at aiming.


i think it was bob black who said cops are terrorists with the right credentials


----------



## dylanredefined (Nov 14, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Sounds like the Met's 'sheriffs' were keen to loose off some of those dum-dum bullets....




  Hollow point bullets are banned by the hague convention for armed forces on the grounds they might cause more injury than a full metal jacketed round. Police use them as they shouldn't go through the person your shooting and you don't have to shoot him so many times.
  As their supposed to fire one round and then re asses the target before firing again.
		  While the Army would shoot him lots of times and then a few more times just to be sure. Then if allowed get something bigger to shoot him with and then throw a few grenades and finally crawl up and bayonet him. So hollow points are really not needed.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Nov 14, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Coppers are just gangsters who aren't as good at aiming.



Such a shame a plod slug ended up in that radio & not his face tbh.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 14, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> I believe the justification for police using hollowpoint rounds has to do with them being less likely to go straight through the target and hit someone else behind them



Erm


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 14, 2013)

dylanredefined said:


> Hollow point bullets are banned by the hague convention for armed forces on the grounds they might cause more injury than a full metal jacketed round. Police use them as they shouldn't go through the person your shooting and you don't have to shoot him so many times.
> As their supposed to fire one round and then re asses the target before firing again.
> While the Army would shoot him lots of times and then a few more times just to be sure. Then if allowed get something bigger to shoot him with and then throw a few grenades and finally crawl up and bayonet him. So hollow points are really not needed.



I have no love for soldiers (well, I fucking despise soldiers) but at least they display some professionalism in their use and handling of lethal firearms. Not least because they are at least occasionally brought to book for fucking up and blowing the wrong person's head off.

Coppers on the other hand I often see strolling around with their finger on the trigger of their weapon. Which is one of the first things any sort of firearms intruction would teach you not to do.


----------



## laptop (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i think it was bob black who said cops are terrorists with the right credentials



Crime goes down when you recruit more cops. _Of course_.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

laptop said:


> Crime goes down when you recruit more cops. _Of course_.


are you sure? given the cops effectively refuse to investigate many muggings, cycle thefts, and apparently burglaries, it's hard to know whether the claims about declining crime were correct. now that they're reducing the number of cops those former officers will have no reason to refrain from going into 'business' on their own account.


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2013)

a vast sea of PCSO's  and hobby bobbies is the way forward. That will deffo cut down on slipshod hit jobs, extorting sex and money from street workers and dubious 'protection' rackets


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 14, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> a vast sea of PCSO's  and hobby bobbies is the way forward. That will deffo cut down on slipshod hit jobs, extorting sex and money from street workers and dubious 'protection' rackets


Avon & Somerset Chief Constable Nick Gargan wants to set up a force of volunteer part-time PCSOs!


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2013)

Gargantuan bellend by the sounds of it. 

He can't be much worse than our eggheaded PCC who was elected on 8 percent turnout and immediately set up two teirs below him and started eyeing up fire and ambulance budgets. And saying that there should be a bring back of Police Boxes. We're being run by crooks morons and liars and they haven't even the decency to do a clean job of mugging us off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Avon & Somerset Chief Constable Nick Gargan wants to set up a force of volunteer part-time PCSOs!


perhaps the 'a' specials.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 14, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> Gargantuan bellend by the sounds of it.
> 
> He can't be much worse than our eggheaded PCC who was elected on 8 percent turnout and immediately set up two teirs below him and started eyeing up fire and ambulance budgets. And saying that there should be a bring back of Police Boxes. We're being run by crooks morons and liars and they haven't even the decency to do a clean job of mugging us off.


can't get the crooks these days


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2013)

DaveCinzano said:


> Avon & Somerset Chief Constable Nick Gargan wants to set up a force of volunteer part-time PCSOs!




This would basically be Neighborhood Watch people given a shred of legitimacy wouldn't it


----------



## laptop (Nov 14, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> are you sure? given the cops effectively refuse to investigate many muggings, cycle thefts, and apparently burglaries, it's hard to know whether the claims about declining crime were correct.



I was thinking mainly of the effect on traffic offences: give the boy racers a job and make their activities _compulsory_, with blue lights, and road crime falls 



> now that they're reducing the number of cops those former officers will have no reason to refrain from going into 'business' on their own account.



A worry indeed, and the necessary corollary confirming my argument


----------



## DaveCinzano (Nov 14, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> This would basically be Neighborhood Watch people given a



BADGE AND A GUN


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 14, 2013)

derail aside, JUST LOOK AT THIS MAN







we shall all sleep safer in our beds knowing this twat has hived off a significant proportion of the policing budget for Northamptonshire


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Just catching up with this today - what's this about the trajectory of the round to the chest, the fatal shot, that's says he could not have been standing at the time? An execution whilst laying on the ground writhing in pain from the first round?



Or shot as he exited the taxi (i.e. still bent over, and with his hands occupied).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yep.
> 
> It seems like the Met's justication for using ammo that even the army declines is on the basis that it 'incapacitates' the victim. Strange then that they'd decide to incapacitate twice over, the second round entering Duggan whilst he was leaning forward from the arm shot.



International conventions ban the use by armed forces of any round that is not fully jacketed.
This was at least partly brought into force (some 80+ years ago) because unjacketed rounds fragment inside the body, causing much more work to repair bullet damage, and because semi-jacketed rounds cause much greater tissue loss and trauma through expansion of the bullet after impact.  Great if your're hunting deer, not so great if you're shooting at people.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> I believe the justification for police using hollowpoint rounds has to do with them being less likely to go straight through the target and hit someone else behind them. IIRC hollowpoints are banned for use in warfare under international law, but apparently this doesn't apply to police forces. By the same logic it would be OK to use landmines so long as you only used them on your own citizens.
> 
> IMO the only way to stop plods shooting the wrong people is to not give them guns.



If that's their argument, it's a bad one.  Penetration isn't just about whether a bullet is jacketed, semi-jacketed or non-jacketed, it's also about how much powder is behind the bullet, in the shell case.  Put enough powder (even within the safety limit for a standard brass case) behind a plain lead bullet and it'll have enough kinetic energy to hit one person, fragment while going through them, and then penetrate another body.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> Many's the time I've been shot with a normal bullet and carried on about my business pretty much unhindered.



TBF, that *can* happen...


...if you've been shot with a .22 pistol, which unless you've stoked up the round pretty heavily, doesn't have enough penetrating power to kill with a shot to centre mass (unless the shooter is very lucky, or the shootee is very unlucky).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 15, 2013)

SpookyFrank said:


> I have no love for soldiers (well, I fucking despise soldiers) but at least they display some professionalism in their use and handling of lethal firearms. Not least because they are at least occasionally brought to book for fucking up and blowing the wrong person's head off.
> 
> Coppers on the other hand I often see strolling around with their finger on the trigger of their weapon. Which is one of the first things any sort of firearms intruction would teach you not to do.



It's something you used to be kicked off of a police firearms course for.  You should *always* have your finger resting on the trigger-guard, not the trigger.  It's no slower to deploy your weapon, and so much safer for any innocent bystanders.
I had a bit of _schadenfruede_ with a City of London cop after the Baltic Exchange bomb, when they were thicker on the ground than flies on shit - 

Me: "excuse me officer, can I speak freely?"
Him: "what"
Me: "do you mind putting your fucking safety on, like you're supposed to?"  (his safety was set to red, which is single shot on semi -auto carbines, and burst (3 rounds) fire on auto carbines)
"oh shit..." 

Needless to say, I have very little faith in police-trained "marksmen".  Being able to hit a barndoor with a short-barrelled weapon from a range of 5-15 metres isn't exactly marksmanship.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 26, 2013)

An officer ran from the scene of Mark Duggan's police shooting holding an object that appeared to be wrapped in cloth, an inquest has heard.

A witness, who was 16 at the time, said an officer had gathered something close to the minicab Mr Duggan was in before running towards Tottenham Hale.

Giving evidence via videolink, she said she thought "that looked dodgy".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25089860

This is looking as murky as glastonbury mud.


----------



## equationgirl (Nov 26, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's something you used to be kicked off of a police firearms course for.  You should *always* have your finger resting on the trigger-guard, not the trigger.  It's no slower to deploy your weapon, and so much safer for any innocent bystanders.
> I had a bit of _schadenfruede_ with a City of London cop after the Baltic Exchange bomb, when they were thicker on the ground than flies on shit -
> 
> Me: "excuse me officer, can I speak freely?"
> ...



Fucks sake even I can do that, and I am certainly no ubersniper.


----------



## Tankus (Nov 26, 2013)

Worth a punt down the bookies that they find  Harvey Oswald's prints on the gun? 

It all seems a bit magic


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 26, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Giving evidence via videolink, she said she thought "that looked dodgy".
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25089860



From that link:



> Jurors have been told a gun was found about 20ft (6m) from where Mr Duggan, who police thought was armed, was shot.



If it had been anyone else but coppers involved this quote would read 'Mr Duggan, whose killers _claim _they thought he was armed...' 

It can scarcely be a matter of public record what was going through someone's head at a particular moment in time, so why report someone's thoughts as fact? This is not a trivial distinction, in fact it might well mean the difference between self-defence and cold blooded murder. And yet with a single sloppy line the BBC has effectively settled the matter. This inquiry will doubtless result in yet another whitewash, and once again the BBC is gladly assisting with that process.


----------



## TopCat (Nov 26, 2013)

scumbagwash


----------



## everything2go (Nov 27, 2013)

I'm predicting a whitewash. I wonder how all those nicked for (quite justifiably) rioting feel about the dodgy picture that's being painted by this inquest?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 27, 2013)

Mark duggan was a crim when his family come out with "he was no angel" Usually means a professional crim and he probably did have a gun.

But they still fucked this up maybe they did fuck the stop up it happens, guns stress and Mark Duggan probably didnt  know what thr fuck was happening or what he was suppoused to do, they have done  research and time and time again shouting arrgesive orders towards people doesnt get them to obey orders.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 27, 2013)

everything2go said:


> I'm predicting a whitewash. I wonder how all those nicked for (quite justifiably) rioting feel about the dodgy picture that's being painted by this inquest?


 
Quite justifiably nicked or quite justifiably rioting?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 27, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Mark duggan was a crim when his family come out with "he was no angel" Usually means a professional crim and he probably did have a gun.


 
He didn't have a criminal record.


----------



## everything2go (Nov 27, 2013)

8ball said:


> Quite justifiably nicked or quite justifiably rioting?


Ha ha, that is a tad ambiguous, nearly came over all daily mail there. Justifiably rioting


----------



## 8ball (Nov 27, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> He didn't have a criminal record.


 
And yet according to the Indie: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/*mark-duggan-among-europes-most-feared-and-violent-criminals*-before-his-death-sparked-the-2011-riots-8835363.html

Not just London, or the UK - one of _Europe's_ most feared wrong 'uns. 

This would appear to show a quite amazing record for not being caught/convicted.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 27, 2013)

The counsel to the inquest, Ashley Underwood, pointed out that Mr Duggan’s criminal record was relatively light considering he was a serious gang member.

Mr Duggan’s criminal record showed he had only been convicted of minor offences such handling stolen goods and possession of cannabis.

The detective inspector said the Mr Duggan had also been arrested for a number of other offences which do not appear on his record because he was not successfully convicted.
http://www.haringeyindependent.co.u...n__among_most_violent_men_in_Europe_/?ref=rss

So completely innocent law abding member of the public who the police put under survillence just becasue?
 Or criminal they hadn't manage to put behind bars because everybody just loves to come forward to act as wittnesses in gangster cases?
 Even if it was a good shoot the police screwed the resulting investigation up.


----------



## everything2go (Nov 27, 2013)

8ball said:


> And yet according to the Indie: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/*mark-duggan-among-europes-most-feared-and-violent-criminals*-before-his-death-sparked-the-2011-riots-8835363.html
> 
> Not just London, or the UK - one of _Europe's_ most feared wrong 'uns.
> 
> This would appear to show a quite amazing record for not being caught/convicted.


The article said he had a minor criminal record, but made the assumption that he was one of Europe's most feared and violent by his alleged association with the Tottenham Mandem gang.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 27, 2013)

everything2go said:


> The article said he had a minor criminal record, but made the assumption that he was one of Europe's most feared and violent by his alleged association with the Tottenham Mandem gang.


 
"Core member" is a bit stronger than an 'alleged association'.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 27, 2013)

I will concede that he had some minor convictions, having re-read some stuff.

Does that make him "a criminal"? I guess it does, along with thousands of people who have been nicked for a bit of dope, or speeding, or getting into a fight at the wrong time when they were young.

Is that the most important thing here? No, although it is clear as day that the cops and the media have collaborated as usual (Harry Stanley, Smiley Culture, Charles DeMenezes) to make it the most important thing.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 27, 2013)

This wasnt oh look a black person lets shoot him he was under survillence the met dont have the budget to start operations on the off chance a black mans a bit dodgy that what stop and search is for

So gangster gangestering gets shot by the police its one of risks of the job.
 Yes the police have screwed up their intial response and this inquest  but Mark Duggan was a player and its a dangerpus game.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 27, 2013)

likesfish said:


> Mark duggan was a crim when his family come out with "he was no angel" Usually means a professional crim and he probably did have a gun.



Your "probably" is based on...?


----------



## likesfish (Nov 27, 2013)

They jailed the bloke he brought the gun off and a gun was found at the scene
 Said gun was used to pistol whip someone.
  Either the met set up an elaborate conspriacy rather difficult to have the exact gun used to pistol whip some one then plant said weapon on someome you shoot.

If it was a "throw down" you have something much more generic and prefably eastern bloc as harder to trace .  Met isnt the brazillian police they are not routinely operating a shoot to kill policy.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 27, 2013)

We don't have the death sentence in this country. And nobody is seriously proposing that it be introduced for receiving stolen goods and possession of weed, which are the only things Duggan has been convicted of.

Conceivably he could have been convicted of other things. But as with Smiley Culture, we will never know this. Because he is dead.


----------



## likesfish (Nov 27, 2013)

Unfortunatly hard stops can go wrong not only do the police have to get it right.
 The victim has to cooperate which is kind of hard to do when several angry people are pointing guns at you.
 Mark appeared to at least one copper to do the wrong thing 
  Nobody has developed a succesful stun weapon that works so lethal force is employed.

Having been in a situation where I was trying to get an armed man to obey my orders its not easy ( lost drunk cypriot hunter) dusk by secret british radar base during the first gulf war .
   That was equal parts stupid and terrifying


----------



## DotCommunist (Nov 27, 2013)

much like yourself


----------



## peterkro (Nov 27, 2013)

likesfish said:


> The counsel to the inquest, Ashley Underwood, pointed out that Mr Duggan’s criminal record was relatively light considering he was a serious gang member.
> 
> Mr Duggan’s criminal record showed he had only been convicted of minor offences such handling stolen goods and possession of cannabis.
> 
> ...


Yes I wouldn't believe one word of the police,guilt by association,don't think so.By the way I was friends of one of the Richardsons,nice bloke wouldn't hurt a fly but harassed because he was "one of them".


----------



## TopCat (Dec 3, 2013)

An independent witness says Mr Duggan was holding a phone in his had when shot. he also says he filmed the incident and has given the footage to the BBC. How come this has never been shown?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25197847


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 3, 2013)

TopCat said:


> An independent witness says Mr Duggan was holding a phone in his had when shot. he also says he filmed the incident and has given the footage to the BBC. How come this has never been shown?
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25197847



The BBC, hand over hard evidence to the police that MD was executed by the MET?

They're both as fucked up as each other.


----------



## teqniq (Dec 3, 2013)

I hope he kept a copy


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

TopCat said:


> An independent witness says Mr Duggan was holding a phone in his had when shot. he also says he filmed the incident and has given the footage to the BBC. How come this has never been shown?
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25197847


There has been a long running legal battle over this. I mentioned it a few months ago on the other thread, people other than the filmer have been threatened with arrests as well if i remember right


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 3, 2013)

In what respect? Film footage being/not being allowed in this case? Or something entirely different?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> In what respect? Film footage being/not being allowed in this case? Or something entirely different?


They were legally compelled to grass him up (a named person) - something like that. Give us a sec i'll find it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

Gah! No search function.

Story was BBC were handed a production order by the police, they refused, won the case. Then, the week before the inquest started someone was named and ordered to name the person with the footage.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 3, 2013)

Going off tweets, this film footage has been shown in court. Assuming this is the footage we're on about.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

they are just going to bury this aren't they? Causual factor in the largest riots since toxteth, and they are going to sweep it under the carpet


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> they are just going to bury this aren't they? Causual factor in the largest riots since toxteth, and they are going to sweep it under the carpet



I don't see how they can. It's coming to light now that this was a pre planned execution & fit up.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Going off tweets, this film footage has been shown in court. Assuming this is the footage we're on about.


I can't see that it's been shown at all. There's him talking about the footage in the inquest but that's it. It's existence is real though. BBC police and him all attest to that. The BBC appear not to have grassed him up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I don't see how they can. It's coming to light now that this was a pre planned execution & fit up.




same way they did peaches, tomlinson, menezes and hillsborough and orgreaves. Lies and obfuscations.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 3, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I don't see how they can. It's coming to light now that this was a pre planned execution & fit up.


 
You don't reckon a fuck-up and cover-up?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I can't see that it's been shown at all. There's him talking about the footage in the inquest but that's it. It's existence is real though. BBC police and him all attest to that. The BBC appear not to have grassed him up.



Sorry, has now been shown to jury.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 3, 2013)

8ball said:


> You don't reckon a fuck-up and cover-up?



Unless it's a plod tactic to carry firearms in socks in the event of a fuck up. Which is pretty pointless when there's no prints/dna on said weapon.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

The _definite phone_ is how they're going to get off btw. Seconds to respond, phone looked like an immediate threat etc


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Dec 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> The _definite phone_ is how they're going to get off btw. Seconds to respond, phone looked like an immediate threat etc


 
That is how they'll get off killing him, how does that account for the gun being found miles away though?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> That is how they'll get off killing him, how does that account for the gun being found miles away though?


He was there to pick it up. Or something.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 3, 2013)

> "It was a phone. Like I've always said since day one, it was a phone." - Witness B. Says #Duggan had his hands up, palms out to police.





> Q: to clarify, did #Duggan have anything the size of (replica gun) in his hand?
> 
> A: No



If witnesses could tell the difference between a phone & a hand gun, & who were probably further away than armed plod were, what does this tell us?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

Bloke says in his view he was shot whilst surrendering.

Police lawyer is now going to try and monster him. _You say that you don't trust the police_ etc


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 3, 2013)

> Q: so V53 saw #Duggan stop and raise his hands? he was surrendering?
> 
> A: yes he was surrendering


----------



## ddraig (Dec 3, 2013)

to bishie post 178 
yeah but they are brave officers in the line of fire doing their duty blah blah
butchers is right


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 3, 2013)

> Q: I want you to answer this frankly...why did u take footage to BBC and not to police?
> 
> A: I'm going to be honest, I don't really trust police


----------



## likesfish (Dec 3, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25197847
Mark Duggan was "definitely" holding a phone in his hand when he was shot by police in Tottenham, north London, an inquest into his death has heard.

A man, identified as Witness B, said he saw this from a flat on the 9th floor of a building near the scene in Ferry Lane in August 2011

not sure I'd be able to tell it was definitely anything from that far away


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

likesfish said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25197847
> Mark Duggan was "definitely" holding a phone in his hand when he was shot by police in Tottenham, north London, an inquest into his death has heard.
> 
> A man, identified as Witness B, said he saw this from a flat on the 9th floor of a building near the scene in Ferry Lane in August 2011
> ...


So, as per your training, you'd shoot him and then get off.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

Here we go, _so you say you don''t trust the police yet you accepted payment for your footage - are you on an earner by giving this testimony_ etc rats.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 3, 2013)

Witness A was also in the same flat as witness B - doesn't bode well does it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

And that's your lot - escape route:

*matt prodger*@MattProdger
BBC notes of meeting with witness B: "initially thought gun but then read n/papers then thought it was Blackberry."


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

Well, they done on a job on witness b - why aren't they focusing on what he filmed rather than what he witnessed. Police story of unsure of what Duggan had now firmed up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 3, 2013)

magic gun to be forgotten


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2013)

likesfish said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25197847
> Mark Duggan was "definitely" holding a phone in his hand when he was shot by police in Tottenham, north London, an inquest into his death has heard.
> 
> A man, identified as Witness B, said he saw this from a flat on the 9th floor of a building near the scene in Ferry Lane in August 2011
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2013)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Unless it's a plod tactic to carry firearms in socks in the event of a fuck up. Which is pretty pointless when there's no prints/dna on said weapon.


they're not the sharpest tools in the box though.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> magic gun to be forgotten



Not quite. They're trying to say he threw it. And now asking Q's on the "notes" penned by beeb journo


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 3, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> We don't have the death sentence in this country.


yes, we do.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

We now have bbc notes saying that he thought it was a gun and himself saying that he never said that - or, let's be fair, that he _did not have any memory of saying that._


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> There has been a long running legal battle over this. I mentioned it a few months ago on the other thread, people other than the filmer have been threatened with arrests as well if i remember right


This is the post i was talking about. I think witness A is the other person.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 3, 2013)

> WB IN INTERVIEW W BBC JOURNALIST-- "it was an execution"


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 3, 2013)

Blackberry though? Definitely a wrong 'un.


----------



## MrSki (Dec 3, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Well, they done on a job on witness b - why aren't they focusing on what he filmed rather than what he witnessed. Police story of unsure of what Duggan had now firmed up.


His film was of the aftermath rather than the actual shooting.


----------



## shygirl (Dec 9, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, we do.


 
And the Gibraltar 3, tho' I know that their execution was carried out by the army and not police.

Plus the two bank robbers shot dead in Hampshire a few years ago.  Felt like an execution too.


----------



## shygirl (Dec 9, 2013)

Met one of the Duggan support campaign outside Royal Court a bit earlier, they're hoping for a verdict of unlawful killing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 9, 2013)

shygirl said:


> Met one of the Duggan support campaign outside Royal Court a bit earlier, they're hoping for a verdict of unlawful killing.




we got one of those for Tomlinson, so we had someone killed unlawfully and yet nobody held to account for it.


----------



## shygirl (Dec 9, 2013)

D'you reckon it'll be the same in this case?  I haven't followed it that closely.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 9, 2013)

shygirl said:


> D'you reckon it'll be the same in this case?  I haven't followed it that closely.




I really think so, yes. Harwood lost his job over Tomlinson but thats it, I suspect the same will happen with the two shooty officers- would love it to go otherwise but coppers never answer for their murders


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 9, 2013)

Pickman's model said:
			
		

> yes, we do.



No Harry Stanley?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 11, 2013)

When does the inquest reopen? Are the jury still deliberating?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 11, 2013)

The jury are out until they reach a verdict.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 11, 2013)

Be a good idea to wear lots of warm clothes tomorrow given the verdicts could come in and the vigil in Tottenham will commence shortly after.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 11, 2013)

...or just find a nice fire to warm yourself up near.  There could be a few if it goes the 'wrong' way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2013)

TopCat said:


> Be a good idea to wear lots of warm clothes tomorrow given the verdicts could come in and the vigil in Tottenham will commence shortly after.


make sure they're not your favourite clothes tho


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> No Harry Stanley?


nor john shorthouse, killed aged 5. just an indicative sample


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 11, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> ...or just find a nice fire to warm yourself up near.  There could be a few if it goes the 'wrong' way.


we're surely not burning tottenham *again*?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 17, 2013)

Vigil cancelled as jury to deliberate tomorrow at 1030hrs.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 17, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> Bloke says in his view he was shot whilst surrendering.
> 
> Police lawyer is now going to try and monster him. _You say that you don't trust the police_ etc



I'm not sure I'd trust the police if I'd just watched them shoot down an unarmed man in cold blood.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 18, 2013)

The vigil has been cancelled as the family don't want a fucking great riot to distract from the scabby verdict. Maybe I will be wrong and the jury will deliver an unlawful killing verdict. Maybe.


----------



## shygirl (Dec 18, 2013)

I hope so, too, Topcat.  The time taken so far gives me hope that there's at least some thorough examination of the evidence.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 18, 2013)

Coroner's told the jury they can offer a majority verdict.


----------



## sim667 (Dec 18, 2013)

When is the verdict due?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2013)

sim667 said:


> When is the verdict due?


They have today and tmw - if not finished by then, back on jan 2nd.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 18, 2013)

The judge has directed that he will now accept a majority verdict.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 18, 2013)

> The judge presiding over Mark Duggan’s inquest today told jurors they must resolve a “stark problem” of contradictory evidence about how the gun he was supposedly clutching when he was shot came to be found under bushes 20ft away.



http://www.tottenhamjournal.co.uk/n...em_of_contradictory_police_evidence_1_3103080


----------



## TopCat (Dec 19, 2013)

On the balance of probabilities, the police involved in this case are lying evil cunts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2013)

TopCat said:


> On the balance of probabilities, the police involved in this case are lying evil cunts.


i thought everyone took that as read.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2013)

I bet they're hoping the verdict comes today where they can attempt to bury it under Rigby/Watkins.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> I bet they're hoping the verdict comes today where they can attempt to bury it under Rigby/Watkins.


Too late, they've been sent home for Xmas.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2013)

After the riots I think it would be optimistic for them to think this would quietly go away.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2013)

8ball said:


> After the riots I think it would be optimistic for them to think this would quietly go away.


let's start the new year with a bang.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2013)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Too late, they've been sent home for Xmas.



Unlucky if they were banking on that then.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 19, 2013)

Don't the police have cameras for these sorts of operation?  You'd have thought it'd be pretty fucking crucial if there's any risk of contention. A GoPro has got to be cheaper than the cost of pissing about trying to piece together what happened.  Stick one on every police rifle for fuck's sake.  It's almost as if the cunts don't want to be answerable for their conduct.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2013)

Dogsauce said:


> Don't the police have cameras for these sorts of operation?  You'd have thought it'd be pretty fucking crucial if there's any risk of contention. A GoPro has got to be cheaper than the cost of pissing about trying to piece together what happened.  Stick one on every police rifle for fuck's sake.  It's almost as if the cunts don't want to be answerable for their conduct.


corrected for you


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2013)

They have cameras in vehicles don't they? Presumably, as you say, when firing live rounds they need wiggle room.


----------



## IC3D (Dec 19, 2013)

The cameras are for collecting evidence on us not the other way round. All those man hours learning to lie in court would be wasted otherwise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2013)

TopCat said:


> The vigil has been cancelled as the family don't want a fucking great riot to distract from the scabby verdict. Maybe I will be wrong and the jury will deliver an unlawful killing verdict. Maybe.


tbh i wouldn't be surprised if there was riot whatever verdict's brought in


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh i wouldn't be surprised if there was riot whatever verdict's brought in




depends on the verdict surely


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 19, 2013)

Apparently the jury want to see photos of the blackberry phone MD had at the scene.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> depends on the verdict surely


i don't think so. people are pretty fucking angry about it anyway and whether it's a whitewash or not i think something will kick off


----------



## MrSki (Dec 19, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> They have cameras in vehicles don't they? Presumably, as you say, when firing live rounds they need wiggle room.


There is also CCTV where this happened. It is a major traffic spot but I expect that the images were deleted so that whatever could be claimed.

How much could have been saved in the inquest if the firearms officers had cameras attached? 

I don't think it is unreasonable in 2013 if a camera is pointed when a gun is.


----------



## Limerick Red (Dec 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think so. people are pretty fucking angry about it anyway and whether it's a whitewash or not i think something will kick off


Aye, its either the cops are scum, we knew they'd get away...scum
or
They fuckin did it!, the fucking scum


----------



## MrSki (Dec 19, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think so. people are pretty fucking angry about it anyway and whether it's a whitewash or not i think something will kick off


But Tottenham is a dump.

There are very few shops that sell anything of worth & are mainly independent.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2013)

IC3D said:
			
		

> The cameras are for collecting evidence on us not the other way round. All those man hours learning to lie in court would be wasted otherwise.



In theory. But that's not how it panned out for Sgt Alexander Blackman. So perhaps that's why SO19 aren't equipped with them?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:
			
		

> depends on the verdict surely



Really? Being found guilty of unlawful killing/murder is any better than getting away with it?


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2013)

MrSki said:
			
		

> There is also CCTV where this happened. It is a major traffic spot but I expect that the images were deleted so that whatever could be claimed.
> 
> How much could have been saved in the inquest if the firearms officers had cameras attached?
> 
> I don't think it is unreasonable in 2013 if a camera is pointed when a gun is.



I agree. CCTV always seems to conveniently go missing. Surely such episodes should be audited to ascertain why?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 19, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> Really? Being found guilty of unlawful killing/murder is any better than getting away with it?




true, I'd been thinking people might go 'well justice has been done' rather than 'WE KNEW IT! RIOT!'


----------



## MrSki (Dec 19, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> I agree. CCTV always seems to conveniently go missing. Surely such episodes should be audited to ascertain why?


It is a fucking joke that in London that supposedly has the most CCTV in the world that so much seems to vanish when it comes to question those in authority.


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 19, 2013)

DotCommunist said:
			
		

> true, I'd been thinking people might go 'well justice has been done' rather than 'WE KNEW IT! RIOT!'



 although that may happen


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 19, 2013)

Citizen66 said:


> I agree. CCTV always seems to conveniently go missing. Surely such episodes should be audited to ascertain why?



Happened to Dubversion, didn't it? The CCTV that would have shown that he didn't try to push a BTP rozzer under a tube went "walkies".


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Dec 19, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Happened to Dubversion, didn't it? The CCTV that would have shown that he didn't try to push a BTP rozzer under a tube went "walkies".



It apparently disappeared two or three times then reappeared again. Then at the trial (when they finally got around to having it at the third or fourth attempt) they had a copper there with the tape, then ultimately decided not to present it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> It apparently disappeared two or three times then reappeared again. Then at the trial (when they finally got around to having it at the third or fourth attempt) they had a copper there with the tape, then ultimately decided not to present it.



<_Telegraph_ reader>
I'm deeply reassured by the OB's ability to find and lose evidence at the drop of a hat!
</_Telegraph_ reader>


----------



## CNT36 (Dec 20, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Happened to Dubversion, didn't it? The CCTV that would have shown that he didn't try to push a BTP rozzer under a tube went "walkies".


 Is that why he's not around anymore?


----------



## ddraig (Dec 20, 2013)

no


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2013)

CNT36 said:


> Is that why he's not around anymore?



Nah, I think he just got a bit tired of having the same arguments with the same eejits.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 7, 2014)

Jury deliberations have resumed today.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 7, 2014)

Fingers crossed.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 7, 2014)

incenses me that the shooters get to hide behind anonymity. These aren't delicate flowers, they are men who chose to be part of the police armed response. You don't get to be part of that role unless you are pretty resilient in the face of everyone else thinking 'cunt' of you.


----------



## Corax (Jan 7, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I agree. CCTV always seems to conveniently go missing. Surely such episodes should be audited to ascertain why?


There were proposals a while back for all coppers to be fitted with cameras.

I'd be all for that, with conditions:

The cameras should have no manual controls whatsoever
The cameras should automatically upload all footage to secure cloud based storage whenever they have a wifi or 3g signal
Said cloud storage facility should be run and controlled by an independent non-profit body, out of the reach of the police/CPS/politicians
Obscuring a camera should be a sackable offence, and monitored by said independent body


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2014)

Cameras should also be fitted to all police weaponry, police interview rooms and police staircases in that case.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> Cameras should also be fitted to all police weaponry, police interview rooms and police staircases in that case.



If you want to keep tabe on coppers, better to simply install cameras in all of the nation's kebab shops.


----------



## JTG (Jan 7, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> Is that why he's not around anymore?


No, case was laughed out of court


----------



## Corax (Jan 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> Cameras should also be fitted to all police weaponry, police interview rooms and police staircases in that case.


Seems perfectly reasonable.

They can have no valid objection.  It would protect them from malicious falsehoods.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 7, 2014)

Corax said:


> Seems perfectly reasonable.
> 
> They can have no valid objection.  It would protect them from malicious falsehoods.


 
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.


----------



## Corax (Jan 7, 2014)

8ball said:


> Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.


Lol.

In this case, yes.

In the case of 'ordinary citizens', no.

Balance of power innit.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jan 7, 2014)

JTG said:


> No, case was laughed out of court



About 10 years ago!


----------



## JTG (Jan 7, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> About 10 years ago!


Yeah must have been - we hadn't really met at the time so must have been pre-2005


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2014)

Verdict expected at 15:30pm today. Police leave cancelled.


----------



## Teaboy (Jan 8, 2014)

Odds on for an open verdict?


----------



## xes (Jan 8, 2014)

JTG said:


> Yeah must have been - we hadn't really met at the time so must have been pre-2005


2003  Bloody hell. My mint vodka may have been partially to blame for it all


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

imo it's go for unlawful killing


----------



## xes (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> imo it's go for unlawful killing


what, you think a copper will get done for it? lol.

This is most unlike you, so I'm  going to presume I've missread your post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

xes said:


> what, you think a copper will get done for it? lol.
> 
> This is most unlike you, so I'm  going to presume I've missread your post.


no i don't think a copper will get done for it as none got done for de menezes or for harry stanley. why is it unlike me?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2014)

It will be an open verdict me thinks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

TopCat said:


> It will be an open verdict me thinks.


we'll know in fifteen minutes anyway


----------



## xes (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no i don't think a copper will get done for it as none got done for de menezes or for harry stanley. why is it unlike me?


I thought you were suggesting that a policeman was going to be held accountable for their actions. And knowing past results, I thought that would be unlike you, because you've seen what way this usually turns out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

xes said:


> I thought you were suggesting that a policeman was going to be held accountable for their actions. And knowing past results, I thought that would be unlike you, because you've seen what way this usually turns out.


an unlawful killing verdict sadly does not indicate anyone will be held to account


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 8, 2014)

*Alexandra Topping* @LexyTopping
Clasford Sterling, Broadwater Farm community leader: "We've already had our trial here, and Mark Duggan was killed unlawfully." #Duggan


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

> Inquest purpose 1540: Ben Geoghegan BBC Political correspondent
> An inquest is not the same as a trial. Its aim is to try to establish the facts of what happened,_* allay public fears*_ and point to culpable conduct.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

*Another Angry Woman* ‏@*stavvers*  8m
"The biggest gang in London" have murdered so many people with impunity. #*acab* #*Duggan*


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 8, 2014)

Shame this was not given on a Friday in the summer rather than a miserable Wednesday in January.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Shame this was not given on a Friday in the summer rather than a miserable Wednesday in January.


yes because riots never happen in october, november, december or january


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes because riots never happen in october, november, december or january



Well the result was due at 1530, then moved until 1540, now 1550; rain's forecast for 1600, will help put the flames out I guess.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Well the result was due at 1530, then moved until 1540, now 1550; rain's forecast for 1600, will help put the flames out I guess.


yeh cos it has to kick off NOW and not tomorrow


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

jury coming in etc


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes because riots never happen in october, november, december or january



The best riots happen in summer.

Fair weather rioteers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> The best riots happen in summer.
> 
> Fair weather rioteers.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


>



Indian summer


----------



## peterkro (Jan 8, 2014)

Looks positive.(or not as it happens bastards)


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

does it bollix


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

My guess is they'll say open verdict.

I'm usually wrong, though.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

there we are 
9 to 1 he threw it


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

ddraig said:


> there we are
> 9 to 1 he threw it


 
Unlawful killing's out the window, then...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

lawful killing it seems


----------



## peterkro (Jan 8, 2014)

8-2.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> lawful killing it seems


 
Looking that way...


----------



## spliff (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> lawful killing it seems


Yup.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> Unlawful killing's out the window, then...


what they said was he threw the gun before he was shot > so i thought it more likely to lead to an unlawful killing because he was unarmed. but apparently not.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

wouldn't be surprised it if kicks off tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

That'll go down well.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 8, 2014)

Shooting an unarmed man is lawful


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2014)

Lawfully killed. What a fucking white wash.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

Bet the Met are happy this isn't happening in July.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

just doing their jobs init


----------



## agricola (Jan 8, 2014)

Certainly the way the BBC presented it, that didnt make much sense.  Hopefully there will be considerably more detail released soon.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> what they said was he threw the gun before he was shot > so i thought it more likely to lead to an unlawful killing because he was unarmed. but apparently not.


 
They'd need unanimity on the jurors believing the copper was not mistaken about the gun but shot knowing he was unarmed.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 8, 2014)

So he was unarmed but because they believed he was armed this is OK,Jesus.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

peterkro said:


> So he was unarmed but because they believed he was armed this is OK,Jesus.


 
In a nutshell.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> Shooting an unarmed man is lawful


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

agricola said:


> Certainly the way the BBC presented it, that didnt make much sense.  Hopefully there will be considerably more detail released soon.


Are you suggesting there is other stuff to back up the action that's not been mentioned in situ reports?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2014)

BBC News 
Lawyers are trying to calm the court as people scream "Murderers".








IN COURT1607: Danny Shaw Home affairs correspondent, BBC News 
There is shouting in court as the public abuse jurors.


----------



## agricola (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you suggesting there is other stuff to back up the action that's not been mentioned in situ reports?



One would hope so, the way that was reported sounded as if it was one hack passing info to another hack over a headset, with all the possiblity for error that might entail.  The written summary of what the jury actually found in each case should explain things further.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

cunts, this was a plain and simple whack job and they've got away with it again


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

agricola said:


> Certainly the way the BBC presented it, that didnt make much sense.  Hopefully there will be considerably more detail released soon.


 
It wasn't the Beeb's fault that it didn't make sense.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> Bet the Met are happy this isn't happening in July.


better weather for masking up mind.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 8, 2014)

Millions of pounds spent on this, when twelve quid buys...







Skum


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> cunts, this was a plain and simple whack job and they've got away with it again



...and all the more likely in future...



> Legal aid cuts 'affect investigations' 1550:
> Cuts to legal aid could mean deaths like the police shooting of Mark Duggan are not properly investigated, a charity has claimed.
> 
> Deborah Coles, from Inquest which focuses on deaths in custody or at the hands of police, said the money-saving measures would leave bereaved families unrepresented, while the police and other institutions benefit from taxpayer-funded legal teams.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

street lighting in tottenham tonight?


----------



## plurker (Jan 8, 2014)

jmharingey 4:08pm via web
Family screaming: "what are you running away from." "You are all police, you f**kheads"

jmharingey 4:07pm via web
#Duggan jury have left the court for safety reasons.

jmharingey4:06pm via web
Marlon #Duggan is screaming that police are murderers


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

The Graun has it up now: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-lawfully-killed-inquest


----------



## IC3D (Jan 8, 2014)

Scum.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

oooh people getting angry in court., no shit, people shouting, really?  and presenter bordering on an imitation of black person complaining a 'black life ain't worth nutting' FOR FUCK SAKE


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

News of the verdict knocked this story off the top of the Guardian site.



> *Met police want water cannon ready to use in Britain by summer*


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

*Elizabeth Pears* ‏@*BizPears*  3m
Our reporter @*MaryIsokariari* is in court. The screams she played to me sent chills down my spine. Duggan's mum Pamela has collapsed.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Jan 8, 2014)

Shocker.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 8, 2014)

The spineless cover up begins led by the fucking BBC reporters,cunts.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

Must be quite a bit of overtime booked in for the Met tonight.


----------



## Corax (Jan 8, 2014)

peterkro said:


> So he was unarmed but because they believed he was armed this is OK,Jesus.


Yep, which is at the root of the well known phrase:


> Talk softly and carry a big stick. But make sure to put a large label on the stick reading "stick" and shout "THIS IS A STICK, NOT A GUN!" every 30 seconds.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

*Logan 40K Sama* ‏@*djlogansama*  1m
If they don't want riots again, they better explain why this jury was able to judge lawful killing even though Mark was unarmed at the time

*Elizabeth Pears* ‏@*BizPears*  34s
What we've witnessed here is a trial of Duggan's character not an examination of what happened. That man was shot twice. His gun 20ft away.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

this is what happens right. Nick a bottle of water during a riot and expect courts to be literally running overtime (they did). Murder an unarmed man and get away with it, so long as your gang colours are correct


----------



## Corax (Jan 8, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> The Graun has it up now: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-lawfully-killed-inquest


Fucking bullshit.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

R5 reports attempt to kick in door to coroner's office.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 8, 2014)

*CourtNewsUK* ‏@CourtNewsUK10m
Duggan 'supporters' smoking a joint in precincts of Royal Courts of Justice

fucked up, confused verdict.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

peterkro said:


> So he was unarmed but because they believed he was armed this is OK,Jesus.


There literally is no defence against 'we believed' - you can do anything - within mad limits. But it's an open invitation on the personal level to do stuff like this and on the collective level to do even worse. This is law out of control, out of societies control . Even from the small fingerhold we had on it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2014)




----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

Louise Mensch is coming out with some right blather on Twitter right now


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

@RoryMacKinnon
Regardless of #Duggan verdict, know that of 1476 deaths since 1990 following contact with UK cops, just 13 cases were found unlawful killing


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

the press/bbc are salivating and want someone to kick off, savages obv

let's all sing along to the tv now


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

Panicked phone calls to Blackberry...


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 8, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Louise Mensch is coming out with some right blather on Twitter right now



Ignore her.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 8, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Louise Mensch is blather



edited for you, as it's all she does.

i think as she is now on to her third internet venture (previous 2 failed) she is desperate for attention still.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

For the record, I'd usually ignore Louise Mensch full stop, but this set me off:

 *MellySingsDoom* ‏@*MellySingsDoom*  3m
@*LouiseMensch* @*PennyRed* @*HackneyAbbott* What are you talking about? He had the gun nowhere near him! For crying out loud.


----------



## Corax (Jan 8, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Louise Mensch is coming out with some right blather on Twitter right now


Well there's a surprise.

She pissed off a large section of the feminist population on twitter recently, she's clearly after a new target.


----------



## Corax (Jan 8, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> For the record, I'd usually ignore Louise Mensch full stop, but this set me off:
> 
> *MellySingsDoom* ‏@*MellySingsDoom*  3m
> @*LouiseMensch* @*PennyRed* @*HackneyAbbott* What are you talking about? He had the gun nowhere near him! For crying out loud.


Think you missed out a tweet or two in your post Melly?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 8, 2014)

Didn't realise this was happening today. Wondered why there was a couple of old bill at Walthamstow tube...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

extra filth on duty in tottenham tonight. presumably looking for another harry stanley, mark duggan or liddle towers: or jason swift.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

Corax said:


> Think you missed out a tweet or two in your post Melly?


from here
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/420953340218863616


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

Corax said:


> Think you missed out a tweet or two in your post Melly?



You mean I should have posted the original from Mensch?  Hold on a sec...OK, here we go:
https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch

*Louise Mensch* ‏@*LouiseMensch*  17m
Don't carry a gun. Don't carry a knife. Don't risk your life as well as others'. Labour MPs like @*HackneyAbbott* totally out of touch #*Duggan*

*Laurie Penny* ‏@*PennyRed*  15m
@*LouiseMensch* @*HackneyAbbott* Louise, you're blaming #*duggan* for the fact the police shot him. You're way out of order. Reprehensible.

*Louise Mensch* ‏@*LouiseMensch*  13m
.@*PennyRed* @*HackneyAbbott* yes, I am, #*Duggan* is wholly to blame for fact the police shot him, as he was carrying a gun. Not police's fault.

*MellySingsDoom* ‏@*MellySingsDoom*  9m
@*LouiseMensch* @*PennyRed* @*HackneyAbbott* What are you talking about? He had the gun nowhere near him! For crying out loud.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

we're just shit to them. Nobodies. No justice. Fuck the lot of them


----------



## Mation (Jan 8, 2014)

Dan U said:


> edited for you, as it's all she does.
> 
> i think as she is now on to her third internet venture (previous 2 failed) she is desperate for attention still.


Quite literally. She has ADHD.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)




----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 8, 2014)

*Riot From Wrong* @RiotfromWrong
"My family are being punished for the Riots" - Carole #Duggan


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 8, 2014)

*CourtNewsUK* @CourtNewsUK
A crowd of protestors has gathered outside the court chanting - no justice, no peace, fuck the police. #duggan


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

R5 just pulled Family's press conference outside court.

Said they would record it.

FFS


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

One quite perceptive response to the idiot Mensch:

*Adrian Short* ‏@*adrianshort* 15m @*LouiseMensch* @*PennyRed* @*HackneyAbbott* What happens if armed criminals get the idea that police will shoot them even if they surrender?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

Two things to deal with here: 1) he was killed offering no threat - police murdering, 2) a dick with a gun as part of wider anti-social crime stuff. We're going to have to deal with both if we're serious.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> R5 just pulled Family's press conference outside court.
> 
> Said they would record it.
> 
> FFS



Now having to tell listeners this is not censorship, "it's for legal reasons".


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

*Laurie Penny* ‏@*PennyRed*  36s
I'm seeing people say 'he was in a gang' 'he fathered many children' 'he had a criminal record' - as if ANY OF THAT justifies murder #*duggan*


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 8, 2014)

Mation said:


> Quite literally. She has ADHD.



I bet she doesn't.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

Without coming across as a hippie, my thoughts are with the Duggan family right now - I can't even begin to comprehend what they must be feeling at this "verdict".


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

'angry scenes' no shit


brogdale said:


> Now having to tell listeners this is not censorship, "it's for legal reasons".


it's because the uppity people in the background were doing the ditty "no justice no peace, fuck the police"


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Now having to tell listeners this is not censorship, "it's for legal reasons".




yeah right, they've been told to not broadcast it in case of riots


----------



## Tankus (Jan 8, 2014)

Unarmed man lawfully killed ?....….is this what the met call a Brazilian defense .........?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2014)

ddraig said:


> 'angry scenes' no shit
> 
> it's because the uppity people in the background were doing the ditty "no justice no peace, fuck the police"


That's the real reason.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Two things to deal with here: 1) he was killed offering no threat - police murdering, 2) a dick with a gun as part of wider anti-social crime stuff. We're going to have to deal with both if we're serious.


tbh it's a) a class thing - harry stanley, mark duggan, working class men in east london - no attempt to resolve either situation peacefully. b) it's police murder - THEY set up a position in which the copper who killed MD was going to shoot, was frankly conditioned to expect to see a gun, sealing MD's fate. c) if this was to do with crime then they'd have set up a better op e.g. the traditional knock on the door in the morning.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 8, 2014)

8-2? Lawful killing?

Jesus christ on a fucking bike!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> *Laurie Penny* ‏@*PennyRed*  36s
> I'm seeing people say 'he was in a gang' 'he fathered many children' 'he had a criminal record' - as if ANY OF THAT justifies murder #*duggan*


laurie penny's father should be reflecting on the horror he helped bring into the world


----------



## peterkro (Jan 8, 2014)

Helicopter hovering over the court buildings now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Unarmed man lawfully killed ?....….is this what the met call a Brazilian defense .........?


He got an open verdict. Lucky boy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

Another case of 'we believed'


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> laurie penny's father should be reflecting on the horror he helped bring into the world



It's a very rare day when I think the fabulous Laurie says anything even remotely sensible, but for once (just once) she's come out with something that's not a total facepalm.

As for the father thing - ain't gonna disagree w/you there, my man.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 8, 2014)

Is there any record of anyone seeing him throw the gun over the wall? Anywhere?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Another case of 'we believed'


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> Is there any record of anyone seeing him throw the gun over the wall? Anywhere?


No.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 8, 2014)

Compulsory gunsight and helmet cams for all armed police now , surely ?


----------



## Thaw (Jan 8, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> It's a very rare day when I think the fabulous Laurie says anything even remotely sensible, but for once (just once) she's come out with something that's not a total facepalm.
> 
> As for the father thing - ain't gonna disagree w/you there, my man.


 
I'm pretty sure her dad died a couple of months ago.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

DrunkPushkin said:


> I'm pretty sure her dad died a couple of months ago.



Did he?  Ah, didn't know that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

diane abbott says 'we all want good community relations'. as i understand it there's no great difficulty among the community in tottenham, but quite a bit of difficulty between the community and the police.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 8, 2014)

DrunkPushkin said:


> I'm pretty sure her dad died a couple of months ago.


Yeah fucking hell this is a bit harsh. She actually tweeted well today.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh it's a) a class thing - harry stanley, mark duggan, working class men in east london - no attempt to resolve either situation peacefully. b) it's police murder - THEY set up a position in which the copper who killed MD was going to shoot, was frankly conditioned to expect to see a gun, sealing MD's fate. c) if this was to do with crime then they'd have set up a better op e.g. the traditional knock on the door in the morning.


I agree that this was pre-planned and that they were going through with the OP no matter what.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 8, 2014)

Harry Roberts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

so lets have this right. Duggan leaves the taxi unarmed, gets shot (one of which shots is a through and through which lodges in a colleagues radio). The weapon he was supposed to have had is found in a sock 30 feet away behind some steel railings. The bloke accused of selling him it is no saint but it took three trials to convict.

none of the shooters can be named.

The family had to hear from bystanders before the OB told them they'd shot his kid. When there was a gathering outside his local nick OB beat up on a teenage girl, sparking the largest riots since toxteth

Ever get the feeling we aren't really in a democracy?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 8, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Compulsory gunsight and helmet cams for all armed police now , surely ?



Disarm the fucking cunts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I agree that this was pre-planned and that they were going through with the OP no matter what.


on reflection it's more like the murder of diarmuid o'neill, gunned down as he tried to surrender to police.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Yeah fucking hell this is a bit harsh. She actually tweeted well today.



On reflection, I think you're right.  Sorry, Laurie (and your late dad).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He got an open verdict. Lucky boy.



Isn't that because the judge wouldn't let the jury return a verdict of unlawful killing?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

i hope she will tweet well tomorrow.


----------



## stethoscope (Jan 8, 2014)

Only just caught the verdict... ffs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> extra filth on duty in tottenham tonight. presumably looking for another harry stanley, mark duggan or liddle towers: or jason swift.


 jason hill. jason swift brutally killed on the kingsmead by paedophiles.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> Is there any record of anyone seeing him throw the gun over the wall? Anywhere?



No, but it's simple deduction. The logic runs as follows:

-Gun was found several yards from Duggan
-Police say they didn't plant it there
-Policemen don't lie, ever
-Duggan must have tossed the gun

Q.E.D.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 8, 2014)

The cops that killed an unarmed man and got away with it, once again, must be feeling very pleased with themselves, and rightfully vindicated.

Murdering cunts. Fuck them


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-confusion-after-duggan-shooting-9046727.html

firearms cops to wear cameras. assuming they're not fiddled, then this would i expect make riots more, not less, likely.


----------



## The Pale King (Jan 8, 2014)

Obscene. Utterly obscene.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Compulsory gunsight and helmet cams for all armed police now , surely ?



What part of this verdict makes you think that the state is interested in preventing coppers from killing people, or bringing to justice those coppers who do so?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I agree that this was pre-planned and that they were going through with the OP no matter what.



Which raises the question of why they chose to have an armed confrontation on a busy London Street .


----------



## Crispy (Jan 8, 2014)

Ugh.


----------



## Serotonin (Jan 8, 2014)

Despicable


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> Which raises the question of why they chose to have an armed confrontation on a busy London Street .


an armed confrontation generally requires two armed sides.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

*Just intersectional* ‏@*justinthelibsoc*  7m
I am not worried about more "riots", I am worried that Police officers are emboldened to shoot more black men with tenuous reasons #*Duggan*


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> Which raises the question of why they chose to have an armed confrontation on a busy London Street .



They'd been watching too much Life on Mars?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

R5 seem happy to broadcast Met spokesman live; funny dat, eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> Which raises the question of why they chose to have an armed confrontation on a busy London Street .


Because the team is focused on their targets. Nothing else. They didn't want all this.
edit: or to set up


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 8, 2014)

This man is often seen wielding a real actual gun in public:



Why hasn't he been shot yet?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-confusion-after-duggan-shooting-9046727.html
> 
> firearms cops to wear cameras. assuming they're not fiddled, then this would i expect make riots more, not less, likely.


 
They'll be fiddled alright.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jan 8, 2014)

*BBC News (UK)* ‏@BBCNews48m
Violent gangster, "clothing retailer", "beautiful" son - who was Mark #Duggan? Our profile: http://bbc.in/1lPDuSv

Fucking disgusting tweet.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

BBC N24 on street in Tottenham with filth in the background. They really want this.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> *BBC News (UK)* ‏@BBCNews48m
> Violent gangster, "clothing retailer", "beautiful" son - who was Mark #Duggan? Our profile: http://bbc.in/1lPDuSv
> 
> Fucking disgusting tweet.



Interesting that they put 'violent gangster' first. Whatever he was, executing him was still wrong.


----------



## MrSki (Jan 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> They'll be fiddled alright.


Did the lack of CCTV ever get mentioned? 
I am sure that on Ferry Lane where this happened being close to a railway that it is well CCTV'd up.


----------



## JTG (Jan 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> They'll be fiddled alright.


footage is so easily lost


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> BBC N24 on street in Tottenham with filth in the background. They really want this.



News also today about Boris Johnson asking Theresa May if she'll please buy him a water cannon. I'm sure that's unrelated though


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> BBC N24 on street in Tottenham with filth in the background. They really want this.


 
Police funding up for review.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

this whole affair stunk from day 1. First the whispers to the Sun painting the Duggan shot first narrative, then the clamming up of everybody involved, then the vague rumours about how Duggan was part of a wider gang thing. Thats before the magic gun story. The drilled starter pistol that he was apparently armed with that appeared 30 feet away behind some railing. Bull fucking shit. They fucked up and shot a man who was just going about his business


----------



## MrSki (Jan 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> BBC N24 on street in Tottenham with filth in the background. They really want this.


I PC & a CSO just left Marcus Garvey Library! There was a helicopter earlier but it did not seem to be circling.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 8, 2014)

The cops murdered him. The only question for me is  was it a preplanned execution or a trigger happy plod? They certainly didn't seem to make any attempt to allow duggan to surrender - no warnings given etc. 

The other note worthy factors are how - yet again - the cops deliberatly fed misleading information to the press immediately after the shooting in order to put themselves in the clear. They clearly have a well practiced established system of bullshit and denial that is  put into operation everytime they murder someone - de menzies, tomlinson, duggan etc etc. 
Also the IPCC are shown up - again - as complicit iwth the cops, incompetent and that the cops can freely flout IPCC guidelines wrt to investigations of police shootings (in this case the firearms squad were allowed to get together and compare their accounts and then refused to be interviewed by the IPCC)


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jan 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Interesting that they put 'violent gangster' first. Whatever he was, executing him was still wrong.



It's the only thing they didn't put in quotation marks.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Did the lack of CCTV ever get mentioned?
> I am sure that on Ferry Lane where this happened being close to a railway that it is well CCTV'd up.



The reason there's never any footage of policemen doing bad things is because policemen don't do bad things.

I would have thought that was obvious.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> this whole affair stunk from day 1. First the whispers to the Sun painting the Duggan shot first narrative, then the clamming up of everybody involved, then the vague rumours about how Duggan was part of a wider gang thing. Thats before the magic gun story. The drilled starter pistol that he was apparently armed with that appeared 30 feet away behind some railing. Bull fucking shit. They fucked up and shot a man who was just going about his business


He wasn't - you don't help by suggesting that that he was.


----------



## Grace Johnson (Jan 8, 2014)

Its becoming increasingly clear who the real terrorists are int it. There are 100s more deaths in police custody. The police are a far greater threat to all of us than any other group of people. And if they do kill you, they'll walk. This is getting fuckin scary now to be honest.


----------



## JTG (Jan 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Interesting that they put 'violent gangster' first. Whatever he was, executing him was still wrong.


It's the quotation marks and their selective use which is the bigger issue


----------



## treelover (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> street lighting in tottenham tonight?


wetting yourself again , people died in those riots,


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> It's the only thing they didn't put in quotation marks.



Yes I noticed that. Looked like they were suggesting that it was beyond doubt he was a violent gangster, but the fact that his mum loved him remains open to speculation.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

*likeyou* ‏@*willcommon*  4m
Patronising white reporter on @*BBCBreaking* says family don't 'understand' verdict. No they understand it perfectly mate #*duggan*


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He wasn't - you don't help by suggesting that that he was.




the vengeance thing? I didn't see it as credible.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the vengeance thing? I didn't see it as credible.


He wasn't just going around doing a normal job of work. What benefit us to pretend he was?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> *likeyou* ‏@*willcommon*  4m
> Patronising white reporter on @*BBCBreaking* says family don't 'understand' verdict. No they understand it perfectly mate #*duggan*



I don't understand the verdict either. That is, I don't understand the legal basis for declaring such a death lawful. The implication I understand perfectly; police killing young black men is perfectly acceptable.


----------



## ffsear (Jan 8, 2014)

lot of people getting caught up with the hysteria of the moment, unfortunately the public don't know what is fact or fiction,  myself included


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He wasn't just going around doing a normal job of work. What benefit us to pretend he was?




none-if he was going to take some revenge for his murdered cousin then woop do. He wasn't armed. Thats 'his business' btw. The fact that they decided he was armed and acted accordingly is the issue


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

ffsear said:


> lot of people getting caught up with the hysteria of the moment, unfortunately the public don't know what is fact or fiction,  myself included



Disagree.  The facts are clear enough.  This was an execution of an unarmed man, pure and simple.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

ffsear said:


> lot of people getting caught up with the hysteria of the moment, unfortunately the public don't know what is fact or fiction,  myself included




others have been following the case from day 1 and saw this whitewash coming


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> wetting yourself again , people died in those riots,


what's your point, caller?


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> He wasn't just going around doing a normal job of work. What benefit us to pretend he was?


Exactly. I doubt very much Duggan was a saint, but that doesn't give the police the right to kill him.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

ffsear said:


> lot of people getting caught up with the hysteria of the moment, unfortunately the public don't know what is fact or fiction,  myself included


 What? You mean Duggan's family & freinds? Yeah, what right have they to show some emotion? FS


----------



## Corax (Jan 8, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> You mean I should have posted the original from Mensch?  Hold on a sec...OK, here we go:
> 
> *Louise Mensch* ‏@*LouiseMensch*  17m
> Don't carry a gun. Don't carry a knife. Don't risk your life as well as others'. Labour MPs like @*HackneyAbbott* totally out of touch #*Duggan*
> ...




Not at you, obvs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> others have been following the case from day 1 and saw this whitewash coming


you see it coming and always hope you're wrong.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

I think what Mensch meant to say was, 'don't be black, it's just asking for trouble'.


----------



## ffsear (Jan 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> What? You mean Duggan's family & freinds? Yeah, what right have they to show some emotion? FS



I said the public didn't i ??


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> none-if he was going to take some revenge for his murdered cousin then woop do. He wasn't armed. Thats 'his business' btw. The fact that they decided he was armed and acted accordingly is the issue


That's you looking at only one side - i can see why you might right now, why you might ignore/cover up but if you want to get beyond this shit? There are real things here - let's look at then honestly - that's the only way we can judge how they effect us.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

This number sums up how I feel at the moment:


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

ffsear said:


> I said the public didn't i ??



You did indeed.
You think the public are being hysterical?


----------



## MrSki (Jan 8, 2014)

Anyone interested in the jury's findings.

http://t.co/OIEn5foqva


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> an armed confrontation generally requires two armed sides.



I agree, I was just musing as to why the police risked a shoot out on a London Street if they believe what they claimed.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 8, 2014)

http://www.channel4.com/news/mark-duggan-police-statement-mark-rowly-video

Fucking hell.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

Balbi said:


> http://www.channel4.com/news/mark-duggan-police-statement-mark-rowly-video
> 
> Fucking hell.



Note that the a lot of the latter part of the "speech" was beeped out by C4....


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

where were his mates?


----------



## Limerick Red (Jan 8, 2014)

is there a demo planned or happening this evening???


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> is there a demo planned or happening this evening???


Follow the copter.


----------



## MrSki (Jan 8, 2014)

It would have more impact outside the RCJ than down the High Road.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

> Tottenham is a vibrant, impoverished area of inner north London where those who mistrust the police point to a history of deaths at the hands of the state, and police violence and arrogance. On the police side, officers feel held to ransom by political agitators and the witting or unwitting helpers of local gangsters.



These political agitators holding the police to ransom are?


----------



## Kidda (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> 2) a dick with a gun as part of wider anti-social crime stuff. We're going to have to deal with both if we're serious.



This is the part that doesn't sit well with me right now. What the police did was wrong, it was no way lawful and they murdered him. However there doesn't seem to be much dialogue on the wider context and the fact that he was part of a gang that instead of building their community was out and about fucking it up. The same community that is now standing shoulder to shoulder with his family.  

No one seems to be asking how Mark Duggan came to be sitting in a taxi with a gun at his feet in the first place. Nobody seems to want to have a conversation about why our young people end up joining gangs and become involved in violent crime. 

It feels awfully convenient that the story starts with him picking up the gun and not years before with him growing up in poverty in a racist society. 

In 2011 hundreds of youth workers worked really hard to keep the kids in our communities away from the trouble, with mixed results  (one of my young people was 13 at the time and is still on a community order)  the Con-dems have decimated the Youth Service and that person-power is no longer there. If it kicks off again there will be no play schemes keeping the kids inside, no detached workers to go out talk to them and very few mentors to listen to them. 

The right wing press are going to find it so easy to push the argument ''He was a gangster'' and there by implying he deserved what he got, but how many more Mark Duggan's have we got to come? and now the police will know they can get away with shooting them.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 8, 2014)

Guardian readers being blagged as per.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 8, 2014)

Balbi said:


> http://www.channel4.com/news/mark-duggan-police-statement-mark-rowly-video
> 
> Fucking hell.


£185,000 per year he gets paid for selling shit - whether its cuts to his own troops or retroactively approved execution warrants to the great unwashed.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 8, 2014)

This case is only really in the spotlight because of the riots. elsewise, it might be of interest here but to MSM it's just another dead black guy and some dubious plod to gloss over

And the riots weren't sparked because of suspicion about the events per se, but because the police did shit family liason.

The known facts of the case seem grey and quite possibly clouded by possible criminality of the victim and the police (who, as a body, are known to lie / cover up in such cases)

What I'm getting at is that some people may want to think the absolute worst of plod to make a point, that it may well not be the case. It could, for example, have been cock-up followed by cover up.

Blaming the jury is tricky because they can only consider evidence, much will have come from plod and be cross co-oberating. They have a record of lying, but on the other hand it may not be reasonable to assume that all of them are lying in concert about just about everything.

I haven't followed the case enough to know the likely roots / basis of the verdict or to guesstimate the truth of those roots, but it's good to see that people aren't being hatefully abused here just for theorising about some sort of plod conspiracy.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 8, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Note that the a lot of the latter part of the "speech" was beeped out by C4....



Is this anger going to translate to action by youth on the streets?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Is this anger going to translate to action by youth on the streets?


 
I think the sentences handed out last time might have an effect in quelling things.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 8, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Is this anger going to translate to action by youth on the streets?



A good question - it depends how the community as a whole in Tottenham deals with this verdict, I think.  You're spot on about the anger thing...I think the next 24 hours are going to be the one to watch.


----------



## MrSki (Jan 8, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Is this anger going to translate to action by youth on the streets?


I hope not in Tottenham.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think the sentences handed out last time might have an effect in quelling things.



Or encourage better masking up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think the sentences handed out last time might have an effect in quelling things.




stern sentences mean fuck all to rioters. Once the riot is on, its on.


----------



## trashpony (Jan 8, 2014)

Kidda - like all the media accounts, there's no room for shades of grey and nuance. It's like Peter Connelly. If he'd grown up, he would have most likely ended up involved in all sorts of dodgy shit. But there's no room for that kind of reality in mass media


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> stern sentences mean fuck all to rioters. Once the riot is on, its on.


 
We'll see.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> stern sentences mean fuck all to rioters. Once the riot is on, its on.








Once the riot is on, its on.​


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 8, 2014)

> *Ian Puddick* ‏@*ianpuddick*
> Breaking #*MetPolice* #*TSG* #*Territorial* Support Group #*Riot* Cops on-route to #*Tottenham* #*Police* Station from Paddington & ChadwellHeath NOW!
> 
> 5:56 PM - 8 Jan 14



Caveat: Puddick is a bit fruity.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> I hope not in Tottenham.



The only sensibly place to start, unfortunately


----------



## MrSki (Jan 8, 2014)

Tottenham Police station is surrounded by independent shops. There is not even a phone shop down the High Road.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 8, 2014)

Once the riot is on, its on.​


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 8, 2014)

Worlds of professional football and middling indie rock come together in incredulity over lawful killing conclusion:



> *Joseph Barton* ‏@*Joey7Barton*  2h
> Struggling to see how a man shot without a gun is a lawful killing. #*dugganverdict*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MrSki (Jan 8, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> The only sensibly place to start, unfortunately


It might be sensible to you but the place is mainly independent shops & has only just recovered from the last one. It is a case of shitting on your own doorstep. Better to be demonstrate outside New Scotland Yard where those in authority will pay a lot more attention if in the posh part of town. After all I don't think the firearms squad was based out of Tottenham nick


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 8, 2014)




----------



## shygirl (Jan 8, 2014)

Like everyone else, I'm in total shock as to how they could have reached that verdict.  Murderous scum get away with it again.   Lee Jasper excellent in sky interview with him and an ex cop.  Ex cop nasty, stupid and seemingly deaf.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> It might be sensible to you but the place is mainly independent shops & has only just recovered from the last one. It is a case of shitting on your own doorstep. Better to be demonstrate outside New Scotland Yard where those in authority will pay a lot more attention if in the posh part of town. After all I don't think the firearms squad was based out of Tottenham nick



It would imo have to start in Tottenham then spread to other boroughs. Haveing a central london demo will play in their hands. Keep it local. Let the plod invade. Be seen as the invaders. Taking liberties.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Tottenham Police station is surrounded by independent shops.


small businesses tonight laid siege to a north london police station.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> It might be sensible to you but the place is mainly independent shops & has only just recovered from the last one. It is a case of shitting on your own doorstep. Better to be demonstrate outside New Scotland Yard where those in authority will pay a lot more attention if in the posh part of town. After all I don't think the firearms squad was based out of Tottenham nick


yeh go to their turf where it's cctv'd to fuck and there's scant chance of an effective demonstration.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jan 8, 2014)

Just took this photo of a police van parked outside Brixton Police station.


----------



## MrSki (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh go to their turf where it's cctv'd to fuck and there's scant chance of an effective demonstration.


Do you think that there has not been preparation made for this outcome?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Do you think that there has not been preparation made for this outcome?


what do you mean?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Just took this photo of a police van parked outside Brixton Police station.
> 
> View attachment 46240


nice of you to share your handiwork with us


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

shygirl said:


> Like everyone else, I'm in total shock as to how they could have reached that verdict.  Murderous scum get away with it again.   Lee Jasper excellent in sky interview with him and an ex cop.  Ex cop nasty, stupid and seemingly deaf.


was it detective boy?


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> nice of you to share your handiwork with us



I only write in green ink


----------



## MrSki (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you mean?


The original demo kicked off because the the station commander was on leave & did nothing to answer the demands of the demonstrators for answers into what actually happened. Tonight I expect they will be prepared for it to kick off. I have seen the portable CCTV vans driving around at 4 o'clock & Tottenham is pretty well CCTV'd already.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> I only write in green ink.


sadly closed down a long time ago


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> The original demo kicked off because the the station commander was on leave & did nothing to answer the demands of the demonstrators for answers into what actually happened. Tonight I expect they will be prepared for it to kick off. I have seen the portable CCTV vans driving around at 4 o'clock & Tottenham is pretty well CCTV'd already.


yes. but you'd have people travel all the way to nsy, have a demonstration and travel back again. and what would that achieve that they couldn't achieve in n17? and frankly it has nothing to do with what i feel, but everything to do with what people in n15 and 17 feel. whose streets? their streets.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 8, 2014)




----------



## MrSki (Jan 8, 2014)

Well I have to go now cos the library is about to shut but latest reports are that it is just  TV crews & reporters who are gathering outside the OB station.
 If it is just a demo then fair enough but is that what you are expecting?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

bbc spotlight on the murder of diarmuid o'neill


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

Other tests showed the fatal shot to the chest was at a steep downwards angle


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> Other tests showed the fatal shot to the chest was at a steep downwards angle



So an execution.


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 8, 2014)

> The officer who shot Duggan twice, known as V53, testified he had seen a gun in Duggan's right hand, and believed the suspect was preparing to use it. V53 said he had acted in self-defence, fearing that his own life or the lives of his colleagues were in danger from Duggan.


 A gun was found six metres away wrapped in a sock, so regardless of the jury's finding (and they did find that there was no gun in his hand), V53 was lying. Yet they continued to accept that he _thought_ Duggan had a gun and was about to shoot. A very bizarre decision.


----------



## Dr. Furface (Jan 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Do you think that there has not been preparation made for this outcome?


They prepared for it very well by giving the verdict in the middle of winter. There may be a bit of trouble but they know very well that riots only happen in summertime.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> A gun was found six metres away wrapped in a sock, so regardless of the jury's finding, V53 was lying. Yet they continued to accept that he _thought_ Duggan had a gun and was about to shoot. A very bizarre decision.


No, this is key. He thought that he saw a gun. You cannot get around that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

Dr. Furface said:


> They prepared for it very well by giving the verdict in the middle of winter. There may be a bit of trouble but they know very well that riots only happen in summertime.


yes like hyde park in '94 and the israeli embassy in '08/'09 and tottenham in '85 and the student ones the other year. yes they only happen in the summer


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, this is key. He thought that he saw a gun. You cannot get around that.


That's what he said, but as it was wrapped in a sock anyway, it might as well have been a Big Mac.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> That's what he said, but as it was wrapped in a sock anyway, it might as well have been a Big Mac.


more like a whopper.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> That's what he said, but as it was wrapped in a sock anyway, it might as well have been a Big Mac.


I doesn't matter. He said he thought he saw a gun. That's it. Game over. Where is the lie that can be proven?


----------



## fogbat (Jan 8, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> It would imo have to start in Tottenham then spread to other boroughs. Haveing a central london demo will play in their hands. Keep it local. Let the plod invade. Be seen as the invaders. Taking liberties.



Nah. Organise a series of shuttle buses to Kensington & Chelsea.


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I doesn't matter. He said he thought he saw a gun. That's it. Game over. Where is the lie that can be proven?


That sounds like a very liberal interpretation. I know people get shot carrying pool cues and table legs and so on, but there should be something a little more substantial than I thought that bunch of flowers was an Uzi.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

it is a literal and factual interpretation
there is nothing more substantial, copper thought he saw it and this has been proved to be 'ok' by the verdict


----------



## leanderman (Jan 8, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> That sounds like a very liberal interpretation. I know people get shot carrying pool cues and table legs and so on, but there should be something a little more substantial than I thought that bunch of flowers was an Uzi.



It's not as egregious as the Harry Stanley case.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> I doesn't matter. He said he thought he saw a gun. That's it. Game over. Where is the lie that can be proven?



None. The verdict is that 'belief' is enough to enact extrajudicial executions.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> That sounds like a very liberal interpretation. I know people get shot carrying pool cues and table legs and so on, but there should be something a little more substantial than I thought that bunch of flowers was an Uzi.





> A gun was found six metres away wrapped in a sock, so regardless of the jury's finding, V53 was lying. Yet they continued to accept that he thought Duggan had a gun and was about to shoot. A very bizarre decision.



How is this proof that V53 was lying?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> That sounds like a very liberal interpretation. I know people get shot carrying pool cues and table legs and so on, but there should be something a little more substantial than I thought that bunch of flowers was an Uzi.


Well, welcome to england,


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> How is this proof that V53 was lying?


It wasn't in his hand and it didn't look like a gun.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 8, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> That sounds like a very liberal interpretation. I know people get shot carrying pool cues and table legs and so on, but there should be something a little more substantial than I thought that bunch of flowers was an Uzi.


_*Ceci n'est pas un bouquet de fleurs*_


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> It wasn't in his hand and it didn't look like a gun.


I ask the same question again then.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 8, 2014)

Business as usual at Tottenham Hale, though I spotted a couple of lurking Police Officers.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 8, 2014)

My youngest son came home today 
His friends marched with him all the way 
The pipe and drum beat out the time 
While in his box of polished pine 
Like dead meat on a butcher's tray 
My youngest son came home today 
And this time he's here to stay


----------



## Corax (Jan 8, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What I'm getting at is that some people may want to think the absolute worst of plod to make a point, that it may well not be the case. It could, for example, have been cock-up followed by cover up.


Until they stop with the omerta then people are well entitled in thinking the worst IMO - given how often it later turns out to be correct.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 8, 2014)

Krishnan Murty just got proper shook (whilst interviewing Ken Hinds and that stupid ex-copper I mentioned earlier) when a few people started milling around them.  Think he thought they were gonna kick off.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 8, 2014)

Fedayn said:


> My youngest son came home today
> His friends marched with him all the way
> The pipe and drum beat out the time
> While in his box of polished pine
> ...



Billy Bragg!


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Jan 8, 2014)

shygirl said:


> Krishnan Murty just got proper shook (whilst interviewing Ken Hinds and that stupid ex-copper I mentioned earlier) when a few people started milling around them.  Think he thought they were gonna kick off.


To be fair he probably had people panicking in his ear 'Oh fuck, real life people! Ask them to talk - NO DON'T they're going to swear, back to studio, BACK TO STUDIO'


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 8, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Billy Bragg!



Eric Bogle wrote it, Mary Black's version is beautiful.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> To be fair he probably had people panicking in his ear 'Oh fuck, real life people! Ask them to talk - NO DON'T they're going to swear, back to studio, BACK TO STUDIO'


The point surely is the gap between people like him and the people they talk about. So saying he's panicking is sort of the point.


----------



## DRINK? (Jan 8, 2014)

well he looks armed to me


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

shit twitter 'joke'


----------



## sim667 (Jan 8, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Billy Bragg!



Eric bogle, no?


----------



## Tankus (Jan 8, 2014)

shygirl said:


> Krishnan Murty just got proper shook (whilst interviewing Ken Hinds and that stupid ex-copper I mentioned earlier) when a few people started milling around them.  Think he thought they were gonna kick off.


Hinds stopped and searched for 45 min before doing an interview earlier ...copper looked skyward when this was mentioned.

Not really followed the ins and outs , but how long after the shooting was the gun discovered, and when was gun dealer at the start of the taxi drive  raided ?


----------



## thriller (Jan 8, 2014)

Who cares. He shouldn't not have been carrying a gun. Gun's are bad you know. It's true. I saw it on a documentary on BBC2.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 8, 2014)

I hear Tottenham is beginning to get 'lively'.....


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

AKA pseudonym said:


> I hear Tottenham is beginning to get 'lively'.....



The atmosphere appeared to change as the C4 live progressed. Interesting broadcast.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The point surely is the gap between people like him and the people they talk about. So saying he's panicking is sort of the point.


I said he probably had somebody panicking in his ear so his apparent speechlessness was not necessarily because he, himself, was scared. But yes, prejudice and censorship on the television, who would have thought?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I said he probably had somebody panicking in his ear so his apparent speechlessness was not necessarily because he, himself, was scared. But yes, prejudice and censorship on the television, who would have thought?


I bet he was shitting it anyway.


----------



## friedaweed (Jan 8, 2014)

AKA pseudonym said:


> I hear Tottenham is beginning to get 'lively'.....


It'll be all those independent shops boarding up their windows in case the police start shooting


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, this is key. He thought that he saw a gun. You cannot get around that.



Looking back at accounts of V53's evidence it appears that he said, quite clearly and on a number of occasions, that there _was_ a gun, and that it _was_ in Duggan's hand and that Duggan aimed the weapon at V53 etc. The only expressed belief was that the officer _believed _that Duggan was about to fire the weapon.

Now it would appear that the majority verdict of the jury was that V53's testimony was false. As such, the verdict is a nonsense. Imagine if a civilian victim of crime (maybe defending himself against intruders etc.) attempted to justify a killing with such perjured evidence?



> _V53 said: "The minicab door opened and Mark Duggan jumped out at pace." He said he was convinced that Duggan was trying to escape.
> 
> He said warnings of "armed police" and "stand still" were shouted at Duggan as he was surrounded by officers with guns. The officers were wearing baseball caps that identifed them as police. V53 had an MP5 carbine weapon slung over his shoulder.
> 
> ...


----------



## thriller (Jan 8, 2014)

AKA pseudonym said:


> I hear Tottenham is beginning to get 'lively'.....





Funny how it never get's "lively" when there is "black on black" murder.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 8, 2014)

That bloke stabbed an undercover copper to death and was found not guilty


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Looking back at accounts of V53's evidence it appears that he said, quite clearly and on a number of occasions, that there _was_ a gun, and that it _was_ in Duggan's hand and that Duggan aimed the weapon at V53 etc. The only expressed belief was that the officer _believed _that Duggan was about to fire the weapon.
> 
> Now it would appear that the majority verdict of the jury was that V53's testimony was false. As such, the verdict is a nonsense. Imagine if a civilian victim of crime (maybe defending himself against intruders etc.) attempted to justify a killing with such perjured evidence?


Yep, agreed : now




			
				white rabbit said:
			
		

> A gun was found six metres away wrapped in a sock, so regardless of the jury's finding, V53 was lying. Yet they continued to accept that he thought Duggan had a gun and was about to shoot. A very bizarre decision.



Which was not what the jury found at all (which was what i was replying to). So a nonsense all and every ways.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> Funny how it never get's "lively" when there is "black on black" murder.


fuck off....
shit troll is shit


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> Funny how it never get's "lively" when there is "black on black" murder.


 
So it would have all been fine if they'd got a black copper to kill Duggan?

You should let them know for next time.


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> So it would have all been fine if they'd got a black copper to kill Duggan?
> 
> You should let them know for next time.


As it goes the Cop may have been black... nevertheless.... DON'T FEED THE TROLLS!


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

AKA pseudonym said:


> As it goes the Cop may have been black...


 
But then that comment would make no sense whatsoever.


----------



## pesh (Jan 8, 2014)

Jules Mattsson @*julesmattsson*
Follow
(Corrected) MT @*LexyTopping*: Carole Duggan has just punched a Daily Mail reporter in the face #*Duggan*

fair play


----------



## IC3D (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> yes like hyde park in '94 and the israeli embassy in '08/'09 and tottenham in '85 and the student ones the other year. yes they only happen in the summer


85 was early oct and Israeli embassy was really a scrap. I do think timing was taken into consideration and not wishing to speak for anyone else I doubt the youth were waiting for an outcome today, rather they knew the OB would get off and made that clear at the time.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 8, 2014)

pesh said:


> Jules Mattsson @*julesmattsson*
> Follow
> (Corrected) MT @*LexyTopping*: Carole Duggan has just punched a Daily Mail reporter in the face #*Duggan*
> 
> fair play


Though they are now going to be even more vicious in their treatment of her


----------



## AKA pseudonym (Jan 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> But then that comment would make no sense whatsoever.


As if the trolls comment had any semblance of reality to begin with...


----------



## Limerick Red (Jan 8, 2014)

http://awatewillmakeyourlifebetter.com/blog/mark-duggan-police-being-black


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

> 2013: Sarah Bell BBC News
> Commander Mak Chishty, responsible for community engagement, says: "_*It's really important we're seen as being seen, shows we care*_ and it's taking the opportunity to say our sympathies go out to the family members."



Cunts.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Cunts.




name the shooters then. Show them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Compulsory gunsight and helmet cams for all armed police now , surely ?



Never. Fucking. Happen.
It'd stop the fuckers doing their *real* job, which is keeping the likes of us from getting uppity, and killing us and/or fitting us up when we do.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

IC3D said:


> 85 was early oct and Israeli embassy was really a scrap. I do think timing was taken into consideration and not wishing to speak for anyone else I doubt the youth were waiting for an outcome today, rather they knew the OB would get off and made that clear at the time.


whatever you may think there has been an outcome


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Disarm the fucking cunts.



A worthy sentiment, Bish, but it'll never happen.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> No, but it's simple deduction. The logic runs as follows:
> 
> -Gun was found several yards from Duggan
> -Police say they didn't plant it there
> ...



He must have, even though no-one saw him do it, and to be fair it';d have needed to be more than a "toss", he'd have to have *hurled* the fucker.


----------



## thriller (Jan 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> So it would have all been fine if they'd got a black copper to kill Duggan?
> 
> You should let them know for next time.



It's wet and cold, there wont be any backlash to the verdict. they only riot when the weather's good.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

they


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-confusion-after-duggan-shooting-9046727.html
> 
> firearms cops to wear cameras. assuming they're not fiddled, then this would i expect make riots more, not less, likely.



"My gun-cam accidentally collided with that wall as I dove for cover, just before I shot the suspect in the face, your honour".


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

(Sir?) David Lammy, .... said.....The issues have been thoroughly discussed and debated, _and the jury’s findings should be respected_.”


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> It's wet and cold, there wont be any backlash to the verdict. they only riot when the weather's good.



Cunt off, you shit-eating arse-monkey.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> (Sir?) David Lammy, .... said.....The issues have been thoroughly discussed and debated, _and the jury’s findings should be respected_.”



David Lammy can bite my chunky arse.


----------



## thriller (Jan 8, 2014)

hmm. interesting comments. Wonder if he will be challenged in the next election by Duggan supporters.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 8, 2014)

treelover said:


> wetting yourself again , people died in those riots,


you've gone very quiet. are you going to explain yourself?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He must have, even though no-one saw him do it, and to be fair it';d have needed to be more than a "toss", he'd have to have *hurled* the fucker.




and as everyone knows, throwing drilled starter pistols is really conducive to health. So is trying to shoot one. Saturday night special dredged up from the last gun amnesty and planted? I recon so. No evidence of course. But it seems likely


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> Which raises the question of why they chose to have an armed confrontation on a busy London Street .



I gave this one some thought, and what occurred to me was "chaff".
Weirdly enough, human memory is such that the more people that see an event, the more confusion gets introduced into evidence, both because because memory is contextual (as is recall), and some people (most, really) will unconsciously confabulate what they saw with what they wanted to see, or what they think they should have seen.  So the more witnesses with partial stories, the more "chaff" gets introduced, and the more doubt that can be introduced as to the veracity of the accusatory narrative.  The Old Bill know this, too.  They train their interviewers/interrogators specifically in order to minimise "chaff", but obviously in this case, and in a coroner's court, it's worked very much in their favour.

Hope that makes sense!


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

weren't the jury 'happy' that it was an ok location to do it?
i may well have got that wrong


----------



## ska invita (Jan 8, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He must have, even though no-one saw him do it, and to be fair it';d have needed to be more than a "toss", he'd have to have *hurled* the fucker.


in the official, jury-agreed version, just when was he meant to have hurled this gun? it must have been after he got out the car which was surrounded by police. was it still in the sock when supposedly thrown? i cant make any sense of the order of what really happened or was supposed to have happened here


----------



## laptop (Jan 8, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> David Lammy can bite my chunky arse.



He has to say that, unless he's going to call for courts of the people's soviets. Trs: "Bloody hell. It's the rule of law, I suppose."

That said, my dealings with Lammy suggest that:

someone wrote it for him; and
that someone was behind him with a sharp stick to make sure he didn't go off piste, which he almost always does.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> and as everyone knows, throwing drilled starter pistols is really conducive to health. So is trying to shoot one. Saturday night special dredged up from the last gun amnesty and planted? I recon so. No evidence of course. But it seems likely



No one will ever know the truth apart from the filth what done it, and they know better than to cough.

From all I have read it seems like senior OB convinced themselves for whatever reason that Duggan was on a mission, wound up the foot soldiers who went well OTT. And the usual cover-up followed. Whether Duggan had a gun that was subsequently planted or another gun was planted it does seem quite clear that a gun was planted to cover up the actions of a trigger-happy wanker who was wound up by his superiors in to thinking that now is the time to live out his blood-lust.

Who knows?

ACAB


----------



## Belushi (Jan 8, 2014)

AKA pseudonym said:


> I hear Tottenham is beginning to get 'lively'.....



It's a normal night at the Hale, don't know what the atmosphere is like over towards the High Road.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

laptop said:


> He has to say that, unless he's going to call for courts of the people's soviets. Trs: "Bloody hell. It's the rule of law, I suppose."
> 
> That said, my dealings with Lammy suggest that:
> 
> ...



I disagree that he _had_ to say that.

When the separate findings of the jury are so contradictory and the verdict nonsensical, it should have been possible for him to express something other than _respect _for the finding.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 8, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Eric bogle, no?



apparently so and covered by Bragg, I think.

Interestingly, the song does not take sides, according to Wiki


----------



## Belushi (Jan 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> (Sir?) David Lammy, .... said.....The issues have been thoroughly discussed and debated, _and the jury’s findings should be respected_.”



Bernie must be turning in his grave.


----------



## laptop (Jan 8, 2014)

brogdale said:


> When the seperate findings of the jury are so contradictory and the verdict nonsensical, it should have been possible for him to express something other than _respect _for the finding.



I'm not defending him. If I said more about my asessement of him I'd risk being unfair to short planks.

But the person who wrote it isn't that thick. The words he issues didn't say he respected the findings. They said they _should_ be respected.

Were they briefed by the Yard?


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Jan 8, 2014)

I saw Lammy on C4 News saying that it was an unusual verdict, that the community have seen four unlawful killings in four decades, two riots in a generations and that the family are reporting police harassment not dissimilar to that which the Lawrence family suffered.
He fell short of contesting the jury's verdict but he seemed quite mindful of the implications of it.


----------



## thriller (Jan 8, 2014)

were the jury all white? if not, people should stfu


----------



## leanderman (Jan 8, 2014)

Sounds like a cock-up and cover-up to me.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

or you could stop desperately seeking a rise eh


----------



## sim667 (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> were the jury all white? if not, people should stfu



Did the jury lend 100% of their vote to each point they produced they voted on.

And if you can't be bothered to quickly google it, yes 1, that police did not act to the best level that the intelligence had provided.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

ska invita said:


> in the official, jury-agreed version, just when was he meant to have hurled this gun? it must have been after he got out the car which was surrounded by police. was it still in the sock when supposedly thrown? i cant make any sense of the order of what really happened or was supposed to have happened here



Well that's my point - no fucker saw Duggan throw the gun or a sock or anything at all.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> were the jury all white? if not, people should stfu


you are SUCH a DICK it is UNTRUE
grow the FUCK up


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Sounds like a cock-up and cover-up to me.


I don't see how we can tell, tbh. It was a cover-up, and the fitting up of the victim. But I don't see how we can tell why they killed him - the fog of their lies is too dense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Bernie must be turning over in his grave.



Grant would have been out of the court and haranguing the OB while still appealing for calm.  All Lammy is good for is trotting out homilies.


----------



## thriller (Jan 8, 2014)

ddraig said:


> you are SUCH a DICK it is UNTRUE
> grow the FUCK up



Meh. Don't get one iota of sympathy from me. fucking gangsta. carrying a gun. you should expect a bullet from the bill.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

ddraig said:


> you are SUCH a DICK it is UNTRUE
> grow the FUCK up



He's already as mature as he'll ever be.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 8, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Well that's my point - no fucker saw Duggan throw the gun or a sock or anything at all.


i can just about get my head around how the jury found killercop to have imagined the gun (despite his lengthy and detailed evidence in which he said there defintiley was a gun in his hand, and its precise movements), and can see why they might have thought the gun was chucked, what with it being a chuck-away from the car, but ffs, there is no imaginable chain of events that could transpire the would allow him out of the cop-surrounded taxi, chuck the gun unseen and then face off to the killercop to get shot. stinks like utter bullshit. all thats missing is the cops testifying they let him go and make a cup of tea in amongst it all.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

laptop said:


> I'm not defending him. If I said more about my asessement of him I'd risk being unfair to short planks.
> 
> But the person who wrote it isn't that thick. The words he issues didn't say he respected the findings. They said they _should_ be respected.
> 
> Were they briefed by the Yard?



Hmmm....what, in that others should respect the jury's findings? Leaving a scintilla of an impression that the Lammy might not, personally, respect them, but the yoot better behave themselves?

What a cunt.


----------



## telbert (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> Meh. Don't get one iota of sympathy from me. fucking gangsta. carrying a gun. you should expect a bullet from the bill.



Well Done.
Fuck Off.
Cunt.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 8, 2014)

The jury may have got it wrong, but at least their opinion is based on weeks of evidence and lengthy consideration over Christmas.


----------



## kenny g (Jan 8, 2014)

if there had not been any repercussions on the streets in 2011 I am sure there would have been more police killings.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i can just about get my head around how the jury found killercop to have imagined the gun (despite his lengthy and detailed evidence in which he said there defintiley was a gun in his hand, and its precise movements)...



Basically, given his job, the copper is pretty much *primed* to see guns everywhere, but theoretically he's trained to also calmly assess a situation before acting, so yeah, I can see why the jury went the way they did on the presence of the gun.



> and can see why they might have thought the gun was chucked...



I can't.  Not in the absence (in a fairly evidence-rich environment) of any evidence that Duggan threw anything, or even assumed a stance that could be read as him being about to throw something.



> ...what with it being a chuck-away from the car, but ffs, there is no imaginable chain of events that the could transpire the would allow him out of the car, chuck the gun unseen and then face off to the killercop to get shot. stinks like utter bullshit. all thats missing is the cops testifying they let him go and make a cup of tea in amongst it all.



The other issue is that a gun, even a drilled-out starter pistol loaded with real ammo, isn't light, it's a kilo to a kilo and a half of deadweight metal.  it's not amenable to being chucked, unless you've got a good bowling arm!


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 8, 2014)

Are people really that shocked by the verdict? 
The average person trusts the police


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 8, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Are people really that shocked by the verdict?
> The average person trusts the police



They do?  Not anywhere I've ever lived, mate!


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jan 8, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> That sounds like a very liberal interpretation. I know people get shot carrying pool cues and table legs and so on, but there should be something a little more substantial than I thought that bunch of flowers was an Uzi.



It can happen you know.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 8, 2014)

What a strange verdict. I was quite dumbfounded when I heard it.

Did anyone else see the video footage shown on the evening news? Don't quite know what to make of it.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 8, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> They do?  Not anywhere I've ever lived, mate!


Yeah, most people take the police at their word.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> Meh. Don't get one iota of sympathy from me. fucking gangsta. carrying a gun. you should expect a bullet from the bill.


How do you know he was carrying a gun?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> How do you know he was carrying a gun?




he doesn't, he is just a shit eating maggot looking for a rise


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The jury may have got it wrong, but at least their opinion is based on weeks of evidence and lengthy consideration over Christmas.



How much of that evidence was knowingly false is anyone's guess though. 

And it's not just a case of this not being the verdict the public wanted to hear, it's not even consistent with itself. Duggan had no gun, and yet it was lawful for the plod to kill him, on the grounds that he had a gun. Weeks of consideration my arse.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Are people really that shocked by the verdict?
> The average person trusts the police



It is the judge's job to make the jury aware of the law and direct them to answer specific legal questions. They were not asked if they thought killing him was _justified_, they were asked if it was lawful. Killing an unarmed man is not lawful.


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> Meh. Don't get one iota of sympathy from me. fucking gangsta. carrying a gun. you should expect a bullet from the bill.



cool all gangstas should shot police on sight from now on..


yay


----------



## leanderman (Jan 8, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> How do you know he was carrying a gun?



The jury ruled that, while he had a gun in the car, it was not on him when he was shot.

Which means police should not have shot him.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 8, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The jury ruled that, *while he had a gun in the car*, it was not on him when he was shot.
> 
> Which means police should not have shot him.





> The jury have also seen video footage of a police officer leaving the taxi, wandering off without explanation to where the gun was found before another officer returns to that spot and supposedly discovers the gun.


----------



## Corax (Jan 8, 2014)

I'm usually immune to most twattishness on twitter as I don't make a habit of filling my timeline with twats.  But I made the mistake of reading #Duggan.  Urgh.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 8, 2014)

This is what you can expect if you or yours gets killed by police btw. Lies, smears, a much delayed investigation then a let off for the shooters. We're at this now. They'll murder you and get away with it.


----------



## thriller (Jan 8, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> cool all gangstas should shot police on sight from now on..
> 
> 
> yay



condoning gun possession, hey.  let's hope someone pops a lead in yo ass.


----------



## thriller (Jan 8, 2014)

Corax said:


> I'm usually immune to most twattishness on twitter as I don't make a habit of filling my timeline with twats.  But I made the mistake of reading #Duggan.  Urgh.



link, bruv?


----------



## leanderman (Jan 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


>



Who knows?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 8, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> Are people really that shocked by the verdict?
> The average person trusts the police


yes, becasue its a jury verdict - i can only guess they felt intimidated by the power and presence of police and their testimony to go along with it in some way, despite the facts against. It must take a certain amount of balls to vote in a jury against the police, particularly so if you have lived a life in which your conception of policing is broadly positive.

Jurys often got against the state in activist cases though


----------



## Limerick Red (Jan 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> This is what you can expect if you or yours gets killed by police btw. Lies, smears, a much delayed investigation then a let off for the shooters. We're at this now. They'll murder you and get away with it.


Its not Now though is it, its been for fuckin years.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> let's hope someone pops a lead in yo ass.



Cap.

It's "pop a cap."

Nobody says "pop a lead."

Twit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> This is what you can expect if you or yours gets killed by police btw. Lies, smears, a much delayed investigation then a let off for the shooters. We're at this now. They'll murder you and get away with it.


And you can't bank on their ineptitude in the cover-up - they can bollocks it up and still get away with it.


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> condoning gun possession, hey.  let's hope someone pops a lead in yo ass.



Well let's just hope that no copper ever _thinks _that you're carrying.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 8, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> How much of that evidence was knowingly false is anyone's guess though.
> 
> And it's not just a case of this not being the verdict the public wanted to hear, it's not even consistent with itself. Duggan had no gun, and yet it was lawful for the plod to kill him, on the grounds that he had a gun. Weeks of consideration my arse.



I suspect it's exactly the verdict the public want to hear.


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> condoning gun possession, hey.  let's hope someone pops a lead in yo ass.



*take away beer can*


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 8, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I suspect it's exactly the verdict the public want to hear.


Really? How many people might there be thinking for the first time today, 'blimey, the rioters had a reason'.


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 8, 2014)

After Plebgate, you might have thought the idea that police might not be telling the whole truth would have become more accepted.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 8, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? How many people might there be thinking for the first time today, 'blimey, the rioters had a reason'.



It's my strong suspicion. Would be interesting to find out.


----------



## Corax (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> link, bruv?




http://lmgtfy.com/?q=twitter+#duggan


----------



## thriller (Jan 8, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Cap.
> 
> It's "pop a cap."
> 
> ...


----------



## xes (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> condoning gun possession, hey.  let's hope someone pops a lead in yo ass.


let's hope the next time you carry a table leg, or a bit of pipe, that the police think you have a gun and open fire.


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> condoning gun possession, hey.  let's hope someone pops a lead in yo ass.



lets look at say surveys of the police themselves, most don't want to be armed themselves as they see it as a call to arms for most criminals..

this case really does not help the cause


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 8, 2014)

ska invita said:


> yes, becasue its a jury verdict - i can only guess they felt intimidated by the power and presence of police and their testimony to go along with it in some way, despite the facts against. It must take a certain amount of balls to vote in a jury against the police, particularly so if you have lived a life in which your conception of policing is broadly positive.
> 
> Jurys often got against the state in activist cases though


I doubt they were intimidated. They just believed the police. The police are supposed to be trustworthy and most people still think they are


----------



## twentythreedom (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> condoning gun possession, hey.  let's hope someone pops a lead in yo ass.


So, you like being a dick annoying people etc. The internet is full of people like you. But could you not at least try to be a bit funny, or even just vaguely interesting?

Worst troll ever


----------



## ska invita (Jan 8, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I doubt they were intimidated. They just believed the police. The police are supposed to be trustworthy and most people still think they are


we agree: i mean intimidation in a subtle way, through uniform, respectability, all that stuff. Ive sat on a jury - its not a neutral space


----------



## ddraig (Jan 8, 2014)

http://www.inquest.org.uk/media/pr/...ncludes-he-did-not-have-a-gun-in-his-hand-whe
my bold


> *Marcia Willis Stewart, solicitor for the Duggan family said:*
> 
> “The jury has found that Mark Duggan was unarmed at the point at which he was shot.
> 
> ...


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

thriller said:


> Meh. Don't get one iota of sympathy from me. fucking gangsta. carrying a gun. you should expect a bullet from the bill.


 
Assuming of course that he was a gangster (alleged) and carrying a gun (alleged).  Not like the filth to lie...

I doubt he was any kind of saint but I've not heard any evidence yet of him being guilty of anything we currently have capital punishment for.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 8, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The jury may have got it wrong, but at least their opinion is based on weeks of evidence and lengthy consideration over Christmas.


 
It's a valid point that we'll never see the information they were given, not how it was presented.  I think if you were not in the courtroom then blaming them is a bit off.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 8, 2014)

8ball said:


> It's a valid point that we'll never see the information they were given, not how it was presented.  I think if you were not in the courtroom then blaming them is a bit off.


Especially the "2"; they must be pretty strong-willed to hold out against the majority.


----------



## elbows (Jan 9, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> I doubt they were intimidated. They just believed the police. The police are supposed to be trustworthy and most people still think they are



Just picking one poll at random, those who hear a police officer speak on the street or on tv and think they are likely (to at least some extent) to be telling the truth is far above 50%. But on the question of whether the police generally seem to try to cover up wrongdoing by those in its ranks, 40% lean in that direction. 

http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/1021/bbc-news-public-trust-in-the-police.htm

Given that I am also somewhat cynical about whether such polls really receive honest answers from the full cross-section of society, I'd say that the claim that 'most people still think they are trustworthy' is too strong.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 9, 2014)

"Neither the gun nor the sock had any DNA or fingerprints from Duggan on it. " http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-lawfully-killed-inquest
didnt hear that on the news


----------



## Libertad (Jan 9, 2014)

Was the gun in the sock the same gun that Mark Duggan took possession of?
Why did V53 of CO19 have to kill Duggan rather than arrest him?

Perhaps this may be the reason:


> *Ashley Underwood QC reports that anonymous note claiming that Duggan was set up was sent to Duggan family and Metropolitan Police Commissioner*
> 
> The Independent newspaper has reported that on Tuesday the 17th September, Ashley Underwood QC, counsel to the inquest, told the jury that the an anonymous note that was sent last year to a number of people including Mr Duggan’s family and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

The  bloke behind this suggestion got sent down iirc

edit: for being one of the people who provided the gun.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

It's turning into a JFK-style conspiracy theory fest.

Much more likely that the police screwed up and then tried to cover their tracks.

Which is what happens with doctors, politicians and no doubt other occupations


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> It's turning into a JFK-style conspiracy theory fest.
> 
> Much more likely that the police screwed up and then tried to cover their tracks.
> 
> Which is what happens with doctors, politicians and no doubt other occupations


Is it? Where are these JFK style conspiracies? And what are they?

Oddly enough the conspiracy most favoured is what you suggest - but, no there must be some long haired weirdos saying something else. You make me sick.


----------



## Libertad (Jan 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The  bloke behind this suggestion got sent down iirc
> 
> edit: for being one of the people who provided the gun.



Could you scratch up a link for that?


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 9, 2014)

Not seen the news all day and just read about this. Knew this would happen. Can't post much on this as I'd probably be arrested if I voiced what I'm really feeling, just too emotional right now.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 9, 2014)

edit - ill wait for the link


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

Libertad said:


> Could you scratch up a link for that?


I cannot. Not tonight. Will in morning. There's some mad grassy stuff going on if you follow this through.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> The QC got sent down for providing the gun?



No, the person sent down for providing the gun, Kevin Hutchinson-Foster and mates were behind the gun and the letter and other grass stuff.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 9, 2014)

Fucking disgusted, what a disgrace


----------



## Libertad (Jan 9, 2014)

This whole Wordpress piece addresses the background, the shooting and the collection and dissemination of the evidence as provided by the IPCC to the inquest.
Interesting and detailed reading, though protracted, for anyone interested in Mark Duggan's death.

http://inquestintodeathofmarkduggan.wordpress.com/


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 9, 2014)

Fucking bastards good luck to anyone protesting


----------



## Libertad (Jan 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I cannot. Not tonight. Will in morning. There's some mad grassy stuff going on if you follow this through.



Thanks. I'll pick it up tomorrow.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 9, 2014)

BlackArab said:


> Not seen the news all day and just read about this. Knew this would happen. Can't post much on this as I'd probably be arrested if I voiced what I'm really feeling, just too emotional right now.



Me too I've been keeping thoughts off fb for that reason, keep safe mate


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Is it? Where are these JFK style conspiracies? And what are they?
> 
> Oddly enough the conspiracy most favoured is what you suggest - but, no there must be some long haired weirdos saying something else. You make me sick.



I was thinking more of the idea that there was no gun, that a gun mysteriously appeared, that Duggan was not gangster, that it was even, in some way, a police set-up


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2014)

the pattern of lies, obfuscations press smears, so on, mirror the menezes case and tomlinson and here we go again. They just keep doing it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I was thinking more of the idea that there was no gun, that a gun mysteriously appeared, that Duggan was not gangster, that it was even, in some way, a police set-up


Which part and whose argued it? Be specific in your accusations.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

8ball said:


> It's a valid point that we'll never see the information they were given, not how it was presented.  I think if you were not in the courtroom then blaming them is a bit off.


We can see evidence here, I've no idea how complete this is though


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> We can see evidence here, I've no idea how complete this is though


Complete entire.


----------



## Libertad (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> We can see evidence here, I've no idea how complete this is though



Going to be a long night.


----------



## CRI (Jan 9, 2014)

Saw this pdf http://t.co/YuVwDfXBWM earlier on the movements of the minicab and the shoebox that supposedly contained the gun.  Mark Duggan's DNA & prints found on the box, though not on sock or gun he supposedly took out of the box and hurled 20 feet over a fence to where it was found.  IPCC were unaware that the box existed for a week.  It was then found in the boot of the car, though the report describes it being found in the rear seat foot well.  So, either some dipshit didn't think it important so flung it into the boot when it was initially found.  Or, it was in the boot the whole time, where it would have been physically impossible for the back seat passenger to reach it.  Either way, alot of shady shit.  Too late to read all those docs.  Can someone with more coffee report back tomorrow?  Cheers.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Which part and whose argued it? Be specific in your accusations.



Numerous examples above.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Numerous examples above.


Enumerate them. Be specific, both in your vague claim and how what you are quoting in the post supports your claim.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> How much of that evidence was knowingly false is anyone's guess though.
> .


Yes, there's been so much (deliberate?) information/misinformation doing the rounds, that the waters are by now truly muddied. As they were intended to be, presumably? The only way I can understand the jury's verdicts as being internally consistent, is for them to be suggesting that he did have a gun (one police witness's evidence stated Duggan pointed a gun at him - this may well have been what witness B saw as a Blackberry), and that Duggan threw it away *after* being shot twice... but IIRC a pathologist stated that given his injuries, that would have been highly unlikely (sorry, can't find quote right now). And if he had thrown it away* before* being shot, then it couldn't be a lawful killing surely. And all that only works *if* one accepts that he did have a gun, and that it wasn't planted 

At any rate, the idea that Duggan fired first at police must surely now be seen as misinformation...if there were two shots (page 1) heard by witness B, and Duggan was hit twice (chest and arm), then he cannot have fired.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

Can anyone read this handwriting ? Something like: "Just found a gun and / think it's Duggan's gun. / shot one at 19 [CO19] / officer's by accident./ by another 19 officer. Apparently MD came towards officer's firing" ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

Yep, the clown shooting each other noted - what word with a double gg after 'it's'? gen question - what possible words could there be?


----------



## Libertad (Jan 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, the clown shooting each other noted - what word with a double gg after 'it's'? gen question - what possible words could there be?



Duggan's


----------



## TruXta (Jan 9, 2014)

*edited cuz of pointless joke*


----------



## Libertad (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Can anyone read this handwriting ? Something like: "Just found a gun and / think it's Duggan's gun. / shot one at 19 [CO19] / officer's by accident./ by another 19 officer. Apparently MD came towards officer's firing" ?



That's how I read it.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 9, 2014)

Libertad said:


> Was the gun in the sock the same gun that Mark Duggan took possession of?
> Why did V53 of CO19 have to kill Duggan rather than arrest him?
> 
> Perhaps this may be the reason:



it certainly looks like a deliberate  execution. That would make it a deliberately arranged execution in advance .


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 9, 2014)

That's what it says.

E2a in reply to Libertad  and scalyboy


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

Libertad said:


> Duggan's


Bingo. So a half arsed _just found a gun thing _AND _some other blokes shot each other as well_. I suppose.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

What's after apparently?


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

[page 2] 'Very / loud shots, - saw him fall. / "What's going on  -he gets out of / car / Put it down' [page 3] '...then fire, 2 shots / then phone went flying' - this witness seems very certain it was a Blackberry. Were there any shots before the 2?


----------



## Libertad (Jan 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What's after apparently?



Apparently MD came towards officers firing


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 9, 2014)

MD came towards officers firing.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 9, 2014)

Bastards, just absolute bastards, if you are a young black man in London you can apparently legally be shot now for no apparent reason  they believed he was armed. 'Believed' ffs

RIP Mark duggan


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the pattern of lies, obfuscations press smears, so on, mirror the menezes case and tomlinson and here we go again. They just keep doing it.



one of the things thats struck me as quite odd is that the filth are claiming they tailed MD to where he was given a gun by someone, yet Ive seen no mention of anyone being done for supplying him with one . Maybe ive missed the details on that but i just havent seen it . One would think if he was under close surveillance theyd have nicked the supplier too .

which raises a few very dodgy scenarios


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> one of the things thats struck me as quite odd is that the filth are claiming they tailed MD to where he was given a gun by someone, yet Ive seen no mention of anyone being done for supplying him with one . Maybe ive missed the details on that but i just havent seen it . One would think if he was under close surveillance theyd have nicked the supplier too .
> 
> which raises a few very dodgy scenarios



The supplier of the gun was jailed, in a separate trial.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The supplier of the gun was jailed, in a separate trial.



thanks for that, never saw it


----------



## Libertad (Jan 9, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> one of the things thats struck me as quite odd is that the filth are claiming they tailed MD to where he was given a gun by someone, yet Ive seen no mention of anyone being done for supplying him with one . Maybe ive missed the details on that but i just havent seen it . One would think if he was under close surveillance theyd have nicked the supplier too .
> 
> which raises a few very dodgy scenarios



Here you go:

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resourc...evin-hutchinson-foster-sentencing-remarks.pdf


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> it certainly looks like a deliberate  execution. That would make it a deliberately arranged execution in advance .


Personally I'm more inclined to see it as cock-up and cover-up...cock-up in the sense of a panic reaction, shooting someone 'armed' with a Blackberry. Then the cover-up. The fact of one CO19 officer shooting another one... might this support a panic/shambles interpretation? Wasn't the de Menezes shooting another such cock-up?


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Personally I'm more inclined to see it as cock-up and cover-up...cock-up in the sense of a panic reaction, shooting someone 'armed' with a Blackberry. Then the cover-up. The fact of one CO19 officer shooting another one... might this support a panic/shambles interpretation? Wasn't the de Menezes shooting another such cock-up?



shooting each other might have been a cock up..but the extreme eagerness to open up in the first place , which led to them accidentally shooting each other, equally points to a determination to kill Duggan no matter what .


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

Could the family try a private prosecution for manslaughter?

Does that ever happen with police shootings? 

Although the inquest verdict wouldn't help.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Jan 9, 2014)

The shit regarding the gun/box/sock combo in the back seat/boot: 

With him apparently followed while under surveillance and also inline with the taxi driver's testimony, did it ever come up that MD accessed the boot at any time? I'm guessing not and that's why after it's been found in the boot they just remember "ah, it was originally in the back"


They executed the man then instantly started on character assassination by media.  Any other verdict would've been a real shock after the
one of europe's 48 most violent criminals and the rest of the shit they fired about.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

Anonymous1 said:


> The shit regarding the gun/box/sock combo in the back seat/boot:
> 
> With him apparently followed while under surveillance and also inline with the taxi driver's testimony, did it ever come up that MD accessed the boot at any time? I'm guessing not and that's why after it's been found in the boot they just remember "ah, it was originally in the back"


What is this boot stuff? Of a taxi he randomly caught. Who is saying stuff about the boot?


----------



## Anonymous1 (Jan 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What is this boot stuff? Of a taxi he randomly caught. Who is saying stuff about the boot?



Yes, of the random taxi. I know it's a weird one, that's why i'm saying.
I read somewhere on this thread, i'm sure, about the shoe-box with MD's prints apparantly being found in the boot well after the events unfolded.
If that is true then surely there would be surveillance footage of MD placing it there or atleast the taxi-driver's statement. 
Not once -and granted i haven't followed it very closely- did i hear of anything of the sort, hence the question.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Could the family try a private prosecution for manslaughter?



It would be a pretty shaky start from a "lawful killing" verdict wouldn't it?

ViolentPanda, I haven't really followed this. Any chance of a summary of the verdict?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

Anonymous1 said:


> Yes, of the random taxi. I know it's a weird one, that's why i'm saying.
> I read somewhere on this thread, i'm sure, about the shoe-box with MD's prints apparantly being found in the boot well after the events unfolded.
> If that is true then surely there would be surveillance footage of MD placing it there or atleast the taxi-driver's statement.
> Not once -and granted i haven't followed it very closely- did i hear of anything of the sort, hence the question.


Big fucking if mate. Not sure you read it on this thread - pretty evidence based thus far.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jan 9, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It would be a pretty shaky start from a "lawful killing" verdict wouldn't it?
> 
> ViolentPanda, I haven't really followed this. A*ny chance of a summary of the verdict?*



http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf


----------



## Anonymous1 (Jan 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Big fucking if mate.



Of course, and even if true it's only a small thread in a shawl of deceit. I'm sure there are easier points to pick apart but when i read the bit i'm referring 
to it just doesn't make sense but then along with the timeline then and verdict now, not much does.



butchersapron said:


> Not sure you read it on this thread - pretty evidence based thus far.



I'll have a look through to try and find it. Here's a bit referring to it from the Hutchinson-Foster case in the mean time. 



> For the first time, the jury heard:
> 
> Mark Duggan's fingerprints were found on the shoebox allegedly used to carry the gun, but neither his prints nor his DNA were found on the gun itself or the sock
> 
> The lead IPCC investigator, Colin Sparrow, said he was unaware of the existence of a crucial piece of evidence - the shoebox - until a week after the shooting. Police officers said it was found in the passenger footwell of the car. The jury heard that when an IPCC investigator finally saw the box, a week later, it was in the boot of the car



You can see from the piece those are just two in a list of bullet points, but they separate them as if they are completely non-related issues. Just as i'm sure they were relayed in such a fashion to the jury at the time.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 9, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf



Cheers.

Lots of reading to be done around this.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 9, 2014)

Anonymous1 said:


> Of course, and even if true it's only a small thread in a shawl of deceit. I'm sure there are easier points to pick apart but when i read the bit i'm referring
> to it just doesn't make sense but then along with the timeline then and verdict now, not much does.
> 
> 
> ...



are we to  take it from this there arent any scenes of crime photos of the box either in the boot or the passenger footwell...or, logically,  the inside of the car at all

eta

and if so is that not pretty astounding


----------



## Anonymous1 (Jan 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What is this boot stuff? Of a taxi he randomly caught. Who is saying stuff about the boot?





CRI said:


> Saw this pdf http://t.co/YuVwDfXBWM earlier on the movements of the minicab and the shoebox that supposedly contained the gun.  Mark Duggan's DNA & prints found on the box, though not on sock or gun he supposedly took out of the box and hurled 20 feet over a fence to where it was found.  IPCC were unaware that the box existed for a week.  It was then found in the boot of the car, though the report describes it being found in the rear seat foot well.  So, either some dipshit didn't think it important so flung it into the boot when it was initially found.  Or, it was in the boot the whole time, where it would have been physically impossible for the back seat passenger to reach it.  Either way, alot of shady shit.  Too late to read all those docs.  Can someone with more coffee report back tomorrow?  Cheers.



That's where i first got mentioned then must have read another bit elsewhere but that beeb link covers it well. Was too busy searching the first half of the thread as i thought i read it earlier on.

(sorry CRI only quoted you to show i never pulled that out my ring piece)


----------



## Anonymous1 (Jan 9, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> are we to  take it from this there arent any scenes of crime photos of the box either in the boot or the passenger footwell...or, logically,  the inside of the car at all
> 
> eta
> 
> and if so is that not pretty astounding



I can't answer that as i do not know but seeing as the lead IPCC investigator didn't even know of it for a week they probably thought why fucking bother?
The hatchet job was in full swing by then.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 9, 2014)

Anonymous1 said:


> I can't answer that as i do not know but seeing as the lead IPCC investigator didn't even know of it for a week they probably thought why fucking bother?
> The hatchet job was in full swing by then.



id strongly suspect the inside of the car would have been routinely photographed almost immediately


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

Anonymous1 said:


> That's where i first got mentioned then must have read another bit elsewhere but that beeb link covers it well. Was too busy searching the first half of the thread as i thought i read it earlier on.
> 
> (sorry CRI only quoted you to show i never pulled that out my ring piece)


OK thanks, CRI too.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 9, 2014)

The taxi was a people carrier so no separate boot.This is not to say it was accessible to a rear seat passenger.The difference between "the rear foot well" and in the luggage area (behind the rear seats ) is quite a difference.No DNA evidence on the sock and modified starter pistol but on the shoe box raises several questions, not least was the pistol ever in the box.The pistol having only one catridge and not being cocked is not at odds with it being planted.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Jan 9, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> id strongly suspect the inside of the car would have been routinely photographed almost immediately



Well that's kinda the point, along with a full search of the vehicle and both in a timely fashion. It's not as if it took a few weeks for the story to gather momentum ffs, it was immediately high-profile.  The main investigator finding out about it a week later only to be told it was found earlier, elsewhere, but has since been moved it just seems a bit... unprofessional at the least. But then that's par for the course with institutional racism i would think.


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Wasn't the de Menezes shooting another such cock-up?


That's putting a fairly favourable spin on it. I'm not sure that shooting someone repeatedly in the head can be described as a cock-up.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

peterkro said:


> No DNA evidence on the sock and modified starter pistol but on the shoe box raises several questions, not least was the pistol ever in the box.


 Exactly.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> That's putting a fairly favourable spin on it. I'm not sure that shooting someone repeatedly in the head can be described as a cock-up.


Cock-up in the sense that they shot an innocent man. 'Cock-up' maybe isn't the most appropriate phrase (as it may sound like something out of 'Fawlty Towers' ), but what I was meant was 'major incompetence'. I mean, AFAIK there's no suggestion that de Menezes was deliberately targeted for extra-judicial killing. It was a bungled operation - 'murderous incompetence' perhaps.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The supplier of the gun was jailed, in a *separate trial*.




3 of them


----------



## thriller (Jan 9, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> lets look at say surveys of the police themselves, most don't want to be armed themselves as they see it as a call to arms for most criminals..
> 
> this case really does not help the cause



are you serious? This is nothing to do about the debate on arming the police, LMFAO. This is an armed unit of the police force. Why you trying to bring the issue on police and gun carrying?


----------



## co-op (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Cock-up in the sense that they shot an innocent man. 'Cock-up' maybe isn't the most appropriate phrase (as it may sound like something out of 'Fawlty Towers' ), but what I was meant was 'major incompetence'. I mean, AFAIK there's no suggestion that de Menezes was deliberately targeted for extra-judicial killing. It was a bungled operation - 'murderous incompetence' perhaps.



This is what I feel because I haven't yet seen any good evidence why the police would want to execute him. It's obvious the aftermath stinks to high heaven and has cover-up written all over it but does anyone have a reason why they would deliberately set out to kill him in the first place?

Load of Police, just got a message telling them "Code Red, attack, attack" guns in their hands, testosteroned-up, absolutely certain they are after a gun-wielding dangerman, start shooting wildly (including at each other), kill Duggan and then start trying to work out what they've done. It sounds very similar to the de Menezes case.


----------



## thriller (Jan 9, 2014)

8ball said:


> Assuming of course that he was a gangster (alleged) ...



Stopped reading there.  

I know you are desperately missing this man (I don't) but this is just plain desperation on your part.


----------



## thriller (Jan 9, 2014)

xes said:


> let's hope the next time you carry a table leg, or a bit of pipe, that the police think you have a gun and open fire.



yeah. i will join the millions of other table leg and pipe victims of police brutality...


----------



## thriller (Jan 9, 2014)

twentythreedom said:


> So, you like being a dick annoying people etc. The internet is full of people like you. But could you not at least try to be a bit funny, or even just vaguely interesting?
> 
> Worst troll ever



cool story, bro.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 9, 2014)

It was one officer who fired two rounds admittidly one into one of his mates


----------



## Zapp Brannigan (Jan 9, 2014)

Armed police to be filmed, about time.  Would be nice to think all the footage will be kept, undoctored.  Some hope.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25663495


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 9, 2014)

I've just complained about a BBC R4 Today interview with his Aunt.  The tone was very hostile and it was insinuated that she wanted a repeat of the riots.  BBC are also reporting a unanimous verdict while Guardian are saying 8-2.  Does anyone know which is right?


----------



## sim667 (Jan 9, 2014)

eoin_k said:


> I've just complained about a BBC R4 Today interview with his Aunt.  The tone was very hostile and it was insinuated that she wanted a repeat of the riots.  BBC are also reporting a unanimous verdict while Guardian are saying 8-2.  Does anyone know which is right?


 
I think it depends on which point they're talking about. The only unanimous vote as far as I'm aware was ont he fact that police did not act to the best of their ability on the intel they had.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jan 9, 2014)

eoin_k said:


> I've just complained about a BBC R4 Today interview with his Aunt.  The tone was very hostile and it was insinuated that she wanted a repeat of the riots.  BBC are also reporting a unanimous verdict while Guardian are saying 8-2.  Does anyone know which is right?



I heard that interview and thought Humphrys was trying to goad the poor woman into saying she wanted trouble to come from this verdict.
Whatever the circumstances of the incident or whatever other members of the public feel at the end of the day she has lost a close family member and endured a long, drawn out inquest.
Show some feelings at least.

As far as I understand unanimous only means all of the jury are in agreement in a murder trial, I am not knowledgeable enough to know whether the same is true for inquests.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> i can just about get my head around how the jury found killercop to have imagined the gun (despite his lengthy and detailed evidence in which he said there definitely was a gun in his hand, and its precise movements), and can see why they might have thought the gun was chucked, what with it being a chuck-away from the car, but ffs, there is no imaginable chain of events that could transpire the would allow him out of the cop-surrounded taxi, chuck the gun unseen and then face off to the killercop to get shot. stinks like utter bullshit. all thats missing is the cops testifying they let him go and make a cup of tea in amongst it all.


 



CRI said:


> Saw this pdf http://t.co/YuVwDfXBWM earlier on the movements of the minicab and the shoebox that supposedly contained the gun.  Mark Duggan's DNA & prints found on the box, though not on sock or gun he supposedly took out of the box and hurled 20 feet over a fence to where it was found.  IPCC were unaware that the box existed for a week.  It was then found in the boot of the car, though the report describes it being found in the rear seat foot well.  So, either some dipshit didn't think it important so flung it into the boot when it was initially found.  Or, it was in the boot the whole time, where it would have been physically impossible for the back seat passenger to reach it.  Either way, alot of shady shit.  Too late to read all those docs.  Can someone with more coffee report back tomorrow?  Cheers.


 
I still cant even imagine what the official-verdict-approved narrative of events is, without hitting contradictions from the evidence - the judgement seems to be contradictory at different points. The only chain of events Ive been able to come up with that fits what we know for sure (pure speculation of course) is
1. Mark picks up a shoe box with a gun in it, leaves DNA on the box but never touches the gun, puts the box in either boot of taxi or footwell.
2. Rides in the taxi
3. Gets pulled
4. Gets out of the taxi
5. Gets shot
6. Someone from police takes the gun and plants it (couldn't plant it on him directly as thats too hot/'straight' copper might see?)

I guess thats a conspiracy theory. Im not trying to come up with a conspiracy, im just trying to think of a narrative that doesnt contradict the facts. The court case hasn't provided one


----------



## eoin_k (Jan 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> ... I guess thats a conspiracy theory...



Nope, a conspiracy theory would involve the police cover up having been deliberately orchestrated by zionists in order to provoke the riots.


----------



## xes (Jan 9, 2014)

That's not a conspiracy, that's community policing! Lie after lie after lie after lie. 

(the conspiracy bit is waaay too far fetched for this place)


----------



## xes (Jan 9, 2014)

eoin_k said:


> Nope, a conspiracy theory would involve the police cover up having been deliberately orchestrated by zionists in order to provoke the riots.


oh, so it's not too far fetched 
(you didn't mention it was 888 days from his shooting to yesterdays verdict)


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 9, 2014)

eoin_k said:


> BBC are also reporting a unanimous verdict while Guardian are saying 8-2.  Does anyone know which is right?


 
There were 5 verdicts (the 5 questions here: http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf)

8-2 unlawlful lawful killing. (with two people saying Open Verdict).

10-0 (unanimous) that he had a gun in the taxi prior to being stopped.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 9, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:
			
		

> 8-2 unlawlful killing. (with two people saying Open Verdict).



You mean 8-2 lawful killing?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 9, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> You mean 8-2 lawful killing?


 
yes, sorry. My subconscious clearly still hankers for justice.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 9, 2014)

eoin_k said:


> I've just complained about a BBC R4 Today interview with his Aunt.  The tone was very hostile and it was insinuated that she wanted a repeat of the riots.  BBC are also reporting a unanimous verdict while Guardian are saying 8-2.  Does anyone know which is right?


See for yourself:

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 9, 2014)

The text of the Questions put to the jury, and notes alongside them, is as follows:



> Record of an inquest
> 
> The following is the record of the inquest (including the statutory determination and, where required, findings) -
> 
> ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

xes said:


> That's not a conspiracy, that's community policing! Lie after lie after lie after lie.
> 
> (the conspiracy bit is waaay too far fetched for this place)



Exactly. The police force is itself one large conspiracy - overreact, cover up, lie (in court where necessary), blame the victim. It's the standard pattern, and they know they will be supported by the system, especially when the victim is a young black man with no job. The family's explanation - that Mark was executed in a premeditated murder - is the one most consistent with the facts where you disregard any 'fact' that only comes from the police.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Exactly. The police force is itself one large conspiracy - overreact, cover up, lie (in court where necessary), blame the victim. It's the standard pattern, and they know they will be supported by the system, especially when the victim is a young black man with no job. The family's explanation - that Mark was executed in a premeditated murder - is the one most consistent with the facts where you disregard any 'fact' that only comes from the police.



Premeditated in what way? The policeman who shot him had decided earlier in the day that he was going to kill him whatever happened or the policeman was ordered to kill him?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 9, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> The text of the Questions put to the jury, and notes alongside them, is as follows:



Interesting Dave.

There is an obvious imbalance in the  degree and depth of 'guidance' given for the 3 conclusions open to the jury, making Lawful very much the easiest option to select by criteria. The steer against unlawful is considerable, and the language and conditions far more demanding:-



> _*You have to be sure that the act was unlawful...
> 
> It is not for V53 to prove that he did act lawfully - before you conclude that his act was unlawful, you must be sure that it was unlawful.
> 
> ...



etc.....but compare that with the very straigtforward/simple "correct" option that the authorities had to get the jury to choose. (If they'd chosen the wrong one then the OB would have had to open investigations into their own and progress towards a possible prosecution.)



> _*Lawful killing. If you conclude that it was more likely than not that the fatal shot which killed Mark Duggan was the use of lawful force - then you should return a conclusion of lawful killing*_.



Job done.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Premeditated in what way? The policeman who shot him had decided earlier in the day that he was going to kill him whatever happened or the policeman was ordered to kill him?


In a way that sees a gun in a sock available to be planted at the scene.

Maybe they carry one all the time, just in case.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jan 9, 2014)

How were the jury members selected, anyone know?


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> ... The only chain of events Ive been able to come up with that fits what we know for sure (pure speculation of course) is
> 1. Mark picks up a shoe box with a gun in it, leaves DNA on the box but never touches the gun, puts the box in either boot of taxi or footwell.
> 2. Rides in the taxi
> 3. Gets pulled
> ...


That sounds plausible to me ska. With regard to the alleged planting of the gun, why not leave it close to his body, rather than 20-30 ft away? Perhaps, as you say, because there were other 'straighter' officers who would have spotted this being done? IIRC somewhere way, way upthread SpookyFrank quoted a sentence (I don't know where he'd taken it from, looked like a witness statement) stating that an officer had been seen walking over to the spot where the gun was later found, then walking back. I haven't got the stamina to trawl back through pages and pages of the thread, but maybe Frank will be along soon to re-post it.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> That sounds plausible to me ska. With regard to the alleged planting of the gun, why not leave it close to his body, rather than 20-30 ft away? Perhaps, as you say, because there were other 'straighter' officers who would have spotted this being done? IIRC somewhere way, way upthread SpookyFrank quoted a sentence (I don't know where he'd taken it from, looked like a witness statement) stating that an officer had been seen walking over to the spot where the gun was later found, then walking back. I haven't got the stamina to trawl back through pages and pages of the thread, but maybe Frank will be along soon to re-post it.


 
There is no way Mark had the gun in his hand and chucked it - theres no DNA on it or sock and no one saw it, no even the many cops.
So after the shooting and ensuing fall-out it would take time for a cop to find the box, find the gun and then do something with it (It couldn't be left in the box as he needed to have it out to justify being shot).
...By which point it would be too late for it to just appear near the body, but can be justified by turning up in the long grass later.

Would like to see Franks link


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

Barking_Mad said:


> How were the jury members selected, anyone know?


they picked the 10 most credulous people in london


----------



## laptop (Jan 9, 2014)

brogdale said:


> There is an obvious imbalance in the  degree and depth of 'guidance' given for the 3 conclusions open to the jury, making Lawful very much the easiest option to select by criteria. The steer against unlawful is considerable, and the language and conditions far more demanding:-



Also:




			
				Coroner said:
			
		

> Did V53 honestly believe or *may* he honestly have believed that at the time he fired the fatal shot that he needed to use force



My emphasis.

I may need to read it again, but it looks as though the jury was told that they could return a verdict of unlawful killing *only if* they were *sure* V53 *did not* hold a certain belief (*and* it was not "to prevent a crime"). 

That's a matter on which it is _impossible_ to be sure!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> There is no way Mark had the gun in his hand and chucked it - theres no DNA on it or sock and no one saw it, no even the many cops.
> So after the shooting and ensuing fall-out it would take time for a cop to find the box, find the gun and then do something with it (It couldn't be left in the box as he needed to have it out to justify being shot).
> ...By which point it would be too late for it to just appear near the body, but can be justified by turning up in the long grass later.
> 
> Would like to see Franks link


Isn't the simpler explanation that Mark never had a gun. The coppers had _all the guns_.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 9, 2014)

Were any officers or vehicles present at both scenes ? .The dealer's and Duggans?


----------



## ska invita (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't the simpler explanation that Mark never had a gun. The coppers had _all the guns_.


his DNA was on the shoebox though. i think its likely he had a shoebox which had a gun in a sock in it. I just dont think he ever got to touch the sock/gun


----------



## ffsear (Jan 9, 2014)

Don't forget as well a separate jury convicted a man of supplying Duggan with a gun on that day.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

ffsear said:


> Don't forget as well a separate jury convicted a man of supplying Duggan with a gun on that day.


and you remain persuaded that both juries acted in accordance with the facts of the events


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> his DNA was on the shoebox though. i think its likely he had a shoebox which had a gun in a sock in it. I just dont think he ever got to touch the sock/gun


A shoebox with Mark's fingerprints on it is said to have been found in the boot of the cab. 

This report of the trial of the man alleged to have supplied the gun to Mark is pretty telling. The first outing in court of the police's perjured testimony. 



> "The police marksmen were in no doubt that this was as dangerous a position as possible - gun in hand - and he was seen to start to bring it round as if to shoot.



Murdering, lying scumbags.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

ffsear said:


> Don't forget as well a separate jury convicted a man of supplying Duggan with a gun on that day.


Convicted on the basis of lies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

Have the police supplied any evidence that Mark was 'one of the UK's most dangerous criminals'?

The only justification I've seen them give is that he was spending more money than an unemployed person should be spending.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Have the police supplied any evidence that Mark was 'one of the UK's most dangerous criminals'?
> 
> The only evidence I've seen them give is that he was spending more money than an unemployed person should be spending.


'one of the UK's most dangerous criminals' => not liked by the police.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> 'one of the UK's most dangerous criminals' => not liked by the police.




like when a handcuffed man goes into the kitchen to make a cup of tea and somehow stabs himself to death


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 9, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jurys_Determination_and_Conclusion.pdf



Page 5 explains why the jury reached the verdict they did; they had little or no choice with the directions they were given by the coroner. BA had it right a long way back in this thread; all the police had to do was maintain that they honestly believed something to be true (that Duggan had a gun in his hand) even if it could be shown to be impossible. The honest belief of the police officer makes it a lawful killing;  this is an incredibly dangerous state of affairs and one that hasn't been picked up on by the mainstream media at all.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Page 5 explains why the jury reached the verdict they did; *they had little or no choice *with the directions they were given by the coroner. BA had it right a long way back in this thread; all the police had to do was maintain that they honestly believed something to be true (that Duggan had a gun in his hand) even if it could be shown to be impossible. The honest belief of the police officer makes it a lawful killing;  this is an incredibly dangerous state of affairs and one that hasn't been picked up on by the mainstream media at all.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



That's not quite true. The jury could also have reached the conclusion that the police were lying.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not quite true. The jury could also have reached the conclusion that the police were lying.




directions are given like they are word of god though, and even though in principle Jury has the say, in practise they do as directed. Or theres a mistrial and they'll select another Jury till the desired result comes in


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 9, 2014)

*Michael Segalov* @MikeSegalov  
Duggan family have called peaceful mass protest outside Tottenham police station - 2pm Sat 11th Jan. Spread the word and fast. No justice.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

Certainly true. But no juror is obliged to believe police testimony, and in this case, the jury accepted that they were lying at various crucial points.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not quite true. The jury could also have reached the conclusion that the police were lying.



Yes they could have done; which is why I said little or no choice. However, in the coroner's directions this alternative is not explicitly given; the space provided for the jury to make a statement that the police were being less than honest, was squeezed to a minimum. The space it opens up for the police to 'act in good faith' is huge and hugely worrying.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## ska invita (Jan 9, 2014)

eoin_k said:


> Nope, a conspiracy theory would involve the police cover up having been deliberately orchestrated by zionists in order to provoke the riots.


its a shame conspiracy theories have been so sullied: it does appear to me that the police have conspired to pervert the course of justice, and an unproven different version of accounts has to be a theory <classic conspiracy theory in fact.


----------



## xes (Jan 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> its a shame conspiracy theories have been so sullied: it does appear to me that the police have conspired to pervert the course of justice, and a different version of accounts has to be a theory <classic conspiracy theory in fact.


most conspiracies aren't, it's just some cointelpro bitch will chuck in a load of zionist type stuff, to discredit anything they don't want to be discussed. And it IS very effective. Yes, there are quite a few of the nutters out there who do believe in the zionisticy shit, and they are wankers too. (they fell for the cointelpro) But hardly any actual CT has anything to do with Jewish people. Like, at all.

The conspiracy coming out of this, involves numerology to some point. Not zion agendas.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 9, 2014)

Met chief says armed plod to wear cameras from now on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25663495


----------



## xes (Jan 9, 2014)

TruXta said:


> Met chief says armed plod to wear cameras from now on http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25663495


ALL polilce should wear cameras at ALL times they're on duty.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

xes said:


> ALL polilce should wear cameras at ALL times they're on duty.


it would diminish the number of assaults they receive


----------



## brogdale (Jan 9, 2014)

He actually said..



> _he..._ has agreed to _*a pilot project*_ involving firearms officers wearing video cameras to record incidents such as the one in which Duggan was killed.
> 
> "We want to see *if* this is an effective way to record evidence and ensure public confidence," he said in statement on Wednesday night.
> 
> ...



Interesting that Ian Blair seeks to reference the Rigby shootings; from memory, the OB did indeed appear to have very little time in which to react, and when they did they incapacitated both men with non-fatal shots. Hmmmm


----------



## xes (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it would diminish the number of assaults they receive


And fasle complaints against them!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it would diminish the number of assaults they receive


Always a drawback.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> It would be a pretty shaky start from a "lawful killing" verdict wouldn't it?
> 
> ViolentPanda, I haven't really followed this. Any chance of a summary of the verdict?



I notice Dexter has linked to the jury conclusions, and you can't really get a better summary from *their* perspective.

Unfortunately for the Duggan family, coroners courts and the decisions they offer aren't particularly nuanced (a straight choice between 3-5 possible verdicts), and of course jurors are led to believe that their choices reside only in the "official" verdicts that they're informed about, as coroners, briefs, judges etc tend to keep quiet about the fact that juries have the power (and indeed the *duty*) to pass "perverse" verdicts if they feel that the evidence warrants it.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 9, 2014)

brogdale said:


> He actually said..
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that Ian Blair seeks to reference the Rigby shootings; from memory, the OB did did indeed appear to have very little time in which to react, and when they did they incapacitated both men with non-fatal shots. Hmmmm


Cheers.


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 9, 2014)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Page 5 explains why the jury reached the verdict they did; they had little or no choice with the directions they were given by the coroner. BA had it right a long way back in this thread; all the police had to do was maintain that they honestly believed something to be true (that Duggan had a gun in his hand) even if it could be shown to be impossible. The honest belief of the police officer makes it a lawful killing;  this is an incredibly dangerous state of affairs and one that hasn't been picked up on by the mainstream media at all.


Surely the part of the point of juries is to evaluate the truthfulness of witnesses. If someone in the witness box is plainly lying, the jury isn't bound to accept that. In fact their job is the very opposite.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> Surely the part of the point of juries is to evaluate the truthfulness of witnesses. If someone in the witness box is plainly lying, the jury isn't bound to accept that. In fact their job is the very opposite.


Hard to reach any but the most depressing conclusions about the UK, including still-pervasive racism at all levels, when a jury knows it is being lied to but still gives a pro-police verdict.


----------



## xes (Jan 9, 2014)

Something which just occured to me, sorry if this has been covered, but Mark was shot whilst he was on his knees, with his hands behind his head. But wasn't there a bullet, which deflected from inside the taxi, which rebounded and ended up back in the cops radio? How does that happen?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 9, 2014)

i don't think it deflected from the taxi and hit the shooter, it hit his colleague
was it accepted that he was shot on his knees?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hard to reach any but the most depressing conclusions about the UK, including still-pervasive racism at all levels, when a jury knows it is being lied to but still gives a pro-police verdict.


so you're calling the jurors racist?


----------



## Balbi (Jan 9, 2014)

That's the through and through which went through his bicep, the first shot.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 9, 2014)

xes said:


> Something which just occured to me, sorry if this has been covered, but Mark was shot whilst he was on his knees, with his hands behind his head. But wasn't there a bullet, which deflected from inside the taxi, which rebounded and ended up back in the cops radio? How does that happen?


Wrong, wrong and wrong.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 9, 2014)

brogdale said:


> He actually said..
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that Ian Blair seeks to reference the Rigby shootings; from memory, the OB did indeed appear to have very little time in which to react, and when they did they incapacitated both men with non-fatal shots. Hmmmm


			Just luck taught to aim center of body mass and shoot to stop. So can be a non lethal shot or a lethal shot depending where the round ends up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> so you're calling the jurors racist?


The police, the prosecution service, the judge, and the jurors. Every part of the whole damn system.

Stephen Lawrence was buried in Jamaica because his mum didn't want him to be buried in this racist land. And Mark Duggan's murder and its aftermath show that nothing's changed.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 9, 2014)

xes said:


> Mark was shot whilst he was on his knees, with his hands behind his head.


----------



## xes (Jan 9, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i don't think it deflected from the taxi and hit the shooter, it hit his colleague
> was it accepted that he was shot on his knees?


In one of the links posted earlier, it said that's what they said in court. (refering to him being on his knees, not the deflected bullet)


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The police, the prosecution service, the judge, and the jurors. Every part of the whole damn system.
> 
> Stephen Lawrence was buried in Jamaica because his mum didn't want him to be buried in this racist land. And Mark Duggan's murder and its aftermath show that nothing's changed.



Way OTT.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The police, the prosecution service, the judge, and the jurors. Every part of the whole damn system.
> 
> Stephen Lawrence was buried in Jamaica because his mum didn't want him to be buried in this racist land. And Mark Duggan's murder and its aftermath show that nothing's changed.


but it was more than that, you said that racism was prevasive throughout the uk at all levels, which sounds to me like saying racism pervades society within and without the state: racism pervasive both socially and geographically.


----------



## plurker (Jan 9, 2014)

Can anyone point me to the Met's Rules of Engagement for Firearms units?
I've found this ACPO PDF http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2011/201111MCDofAO3.pdf (pp34/5) but am interested in more detailed info.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Way OTT.


It's not just black people they target, tbf. They treat traveller-types of all races in much the same way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

plurker said:


> Can anyone point me to the Met's Rules of Engagement for Firearms units?
> I've found this ACPO PDF (pp34/5) but am interested in more detailed info.


that link produces a 404


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Way OTT.


Was Doreen Lawrence OTT too?


----------



## xes (Jan 9, 2014)

Spymaster said:


>


This came from here, which was posted earlier in the thread.....



> I am so upset right now. I am not even angry, I’m distraught. I sat there in the court expecting them to just say that Mark Duggan killed himself or something. The family members were already crying. Their opening question said that there was not sufficient evidence the night before that he had gone to get a gun. This made everyone in the court cheer and set us up for hope. The second to last question was, ‘Did Mark Duggan have a gun in his hand when he was shot?’ and they said no. The final question was, ‘Was it a lawful or unlawful killing?’. I still cannot believe this. A man with no gun was executed. He was on his knees and had his hands behind his head. This is legal.



http://awatewillmakeyourlifebetter.com/blog/mark-duggan-police-being-black

Kind of presumed that this was the case, based on that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not just black people they target, tbf. They treat traveller-types of all races in much the same way.


oh! you don't mean racism pervades society at all levels, you mean racism pervades WHITE society at all levels.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 9, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Just luck taught to aim center of body mass and shoot to stop. So can be a non lethal shot or a lethal shot depending where the round ends up.



Does anyone know if the Rigby killers were shot with hollow-point rounds as well?


----------



## plurker (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> that link produces a 404


Thanks, cut&paste error; my OP amended

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/uniformed/2011/201111MCDofAO3.pdf


----------



## ddraig (Jan 9, 2014)

xes said:


> This came from here, which was posted earlier in the thread.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


why would you presume it was true from one persons account though?

happy to be proved wrong and see that reported somewhere officially but haven't noticed it.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 9, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Does anyone know if the Rigby killers were shot with hollow-point rounds as well?


 

	 Probably it is a standard issuse police bullet


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Yep, the clown shooting each other noted - what word with a double gg after 'it's'? gen question - what possible words could there be?



Cross-referencing the formation of the letters with others, it looks most likely to be capital N.i.g.g.e.r apostrophe s. "think it's nigger's gun".


----------



## xes (Jan 9, 2014)

ddraig said:


> why would you presume it was true from one persons account though?
> 
> happy to be proved wrong and see that reported somewhere officially but haven't noticed it.


I dunno, it was from someone who was allegedly in the court. So I'm guessing that he had heard them say that Mark was shot whilst he was on his knees, with his hands behind his head.

Now, you want an official source to tell you this, but you yourself know the bias media will omit certain things which are inconsistant with any 'public knowledge' version of events. So what official source do you want, is there one you trust? (there isn't really one I trust)

I'm also happy to be proved wrong, I was just going on the words from someone (seemingly) inside the courthouse who wasn't a copper.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2014)

Libertad said:


> Duggan's



Nah.  The first (capital) letter doesn't look like a "D".  There's another capital "D" elsewhere on the page, and they don't match, the guy doesn't dot all his "i"s, so we can't tell whether the second letter is an "i" or a "u".
I wonder whether they tested the original to make sure it was contemporaneous?

And yeah, I know I'm coming across as conspiracising about racist coppers.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 9, 2014)

xes said:


> I dunno, it was from someone who was allegedly in the court. So I'm guessing that he had heard them say that Mark was shot whilst he was on his knees, with his hands behind his head.
> 
> Now, you want an official source to tell you this, but you yourself know the bias media will omit certain things which are inconsistant with any 'public knowledge' version of events. So what official source do you want, is there one you trust? (there isn't really one I trust)
> 
> I'm also happy to be proved wrong, I was just going on the words from someone (seemingly) inside the courthouse who wasn't a copper.


oh come on 
if it was reported or part of the case then it should be able to be found somewhere
if he "had heard them say that Mark was shot whilst he was on his knees, with his hands behind his head" then it would be in the transcripts or reporting somewhere as such a big deal no?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cross-referencing the formation of the letters with others, it looks most likely to be capital N.i.g.g.e.r apostrophe s. "think it's nigger's gun".


Nah, it says 'Duggan's'.

wtf is that at the end? 'Life pronounced extinct'?  Who the fuck talks like that?


----------



## sim667 (Jan 9, 2014)

Was duggan shot with hollow point rounds?!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2014)

Casually Red said:


> id strongly suspect the inside of the car would have been routinely photographed almost immediately



Not "almost immediately", only once scene-of-crime officers (or SOCOs) were present, which isn't until *after* a crime scene has been established.
Basically the armed OB would have had 5-10 minutes, depending how far away the local copshop was, to do whatever the fuck they liked.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah, it says 'Duggan's'.



Why the big difference in the way the author writes his "D"s between "MD" and "Duggan's", though?



> wtf is that at the end? 'Life pronounced extinct'?  Who the fuck talks like that?



Coppers.  They love their jargon.  They've nicked that one straight from the medical world.  They think it makes them sound professional and dispassionate.  It just makes them sound like cunts.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Would like to see Franks link



The original link is eluding me but this account, derived entirely from events as presented to the inquiry, notes the same phenomenon: http://storify.com/humbleetc/harrystopes-on-duggan-inquest


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why the big difference in the way the author writes his "D"s between "MD" and "Duggan's", though?



It reads as Duggan's to me. Some people do have fancy or illformed D's like that, even more so when scribbling quickly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2014)

peterkro said:


> The taxi was a people carrier so no separate boot.This is not to say it was accessible to a rear seat passenger.The difference between "the rear foot well" and in the luggage area (behind the rear seats ) is quite a difference.No DNA evidence on the sock and modified starter pistol but on the shoe box raises several questions, not least was the pistol ever in the box.The pistol having only one catridge and not being cocked is not at odds with it being planted.



Fair point.  No-one with any actual knowledge of firearms would cock a piece of shit like that and leave a live round under the hammer, in fact you're taught that "cocked and locked" is for emergency situations only.  An armed copper would be careful, a "gangsta" would be far less likely to have any firearms knowledge beyond what they'd learned watching US TV programmes.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> wtf is that at the end? 'Life pronounced extinct'?  Who the fuck talks like that?



Coppers and ambulance people.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 9, 2014)

The _Riot From Wrong_ film is currently available to view for free:


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

ska invita said:


> his DNA was on the shoebox though. i think its likely he had a shoebox which had a gun in a sock in it. I just dont think he ever got to touch the sock/gun



That's how I see it too. What I never understand (well, I do, but...) in these situations is: why do they subsequently try to do a cover-up, put dodgy misinformation about, lie etc? Why not just say, yes,we f***ed up, we were told Duggan had just been to collect a gun, we understood he was armed and we understood him to be a violent criminal (*if* this is the intelligence that was give to CO19). On the basis of that info we were told to do a 'hard stop' and mistook his phone for a gun, split second decision etc. And we found the gun in this box in the back of the car, but which we now acknowledge he didn't have in his hand. 

Instead there is this apparent planting of the gun 30 feet away, police witnesses saying he was firing at them etc. Just stick to the facts and say we f***-ed up - I realise this wouldn't be very palatable to the victim's family, but all the misinformation and lies just compounds the problem IMHO.

I think Blair was getting at this when he referenced the armed police operation with Lee Rigby's killers - as if to say, we do get it right sometimes, but - having to make very quick decisions at a time of high pressure, testostorone/panic, other times we f*** up. As in Duggan, where it appears a man who posed no threat was shot dead.  

Why not just be honest and say, the CO19 officers were scared, based on the info they had received about this armed and dangerous man, Duggan, consequently they f***ed up big time, thought he had exited the car holding a gun, turns out he wasn't. 

Ideally CO19 personnel would be ice-cool Robocop types, but in reality I imagine such a type of person doesn't exist. I realise this may not be a popular view on Urban, to suggest that police are human  - but to my mind, the fault lies more with the intelligence that was given to the armed response team than with the CO19 shooters themselves (assuming it wasn't the same officers doing phone taps, surveillance of Duggan at Leyton etc and who also did the shooting). 

Of course, everything I've written above only applies *if* one accepts the version of events that says Duggan had gone to Leyton to get a gun (that was in a shoe box), and that he had this in the taxi. But given the amount of bullshit, misinformation and lies having been fed to the public, I for one now find it very hard to sift through it all, and tell exactly what is the truth


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

The lack of DNA on the sock or gun, the position it was 'found' in and the angle of the bullet that killed Duggan are all pretty damning evidence that Duggan was visibly unarmed and surrendering when he was killed, and that the police conspired to cover it up. That's the _only_ credible scenario here.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> That's how I see it too. What I never understand (well, I do, but...) in these situations is: why do they subsequently try to do a cover-up, put dodgy misinformation about, lie etc? Why not just say, yes,we f***ed up, we were told Duggan had just been to collect a gun, we understood he was armed and we understood him to be a violent criminal (*if* this is the intelligence that was give to CO19). On the basis of that info we were told to do a 'hard stop' and mistook his phone for a gun, split second decision etc. And we found the gun in this box in the back of the car, but which we now acknowledge he didn't have in his hand.
> 
> Instead there is this apparent planting of the gun 30 feet away, police witnesses saying he was firing at them etc. Just stick to the facts and say we f***-ed up - I realise this wouldn't be very palatable to the victim's family, but all the misinformation and lies just compounds the problem IMHO.
> 
> ...


Good post. From all I've read about the case this seems the most likely explanation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The lack of DNA on the sock or gun, the position it was 'found' in and the angle of the bullet that killed Duggan are all pretty damning evidence that* Duggan was visibly unarmed and surrendering when he was killed, and that the police conspired to cover it up*. That's the _only_ credible scenario here.


Yep. That's a pretty good minimum that we can say for sure.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> That's how I see it too. What I never understand (well, I do, but...) in these situations is: why do they subsequently try to do a cover-up, put dodgy misinformation about, lie etc? Why not just say, yes,we f***ed up, we were told Duggan had just been to collect a gun, we understood he was armed and we understood him to be a violent criminal (*if* this is the intelligence that was give to CO19). On the basis of that info we were told to do a 'hard stop' and mistook his phone for a gun, split second decision etc. And we found the gun in this box in the back of the car, but which we now acknowledge he didn't have in his hand.



The mistake you're making here is crediting the police with enough brains to make these kinds of decisions on the spot. Once some fuckwit copper took the gun and stashed it twenty feet away, the rest of them had no choice but to run with this and create a scenario whereby Duggan threw his gun a superhuman distance. I'm sure if the gun had been found untouched in the car and the same events unfolded they would still have got the same verdict, but they had to do it this way instead because some idiot decided to do something 'clever'. 

It is a matter of public record that detailed police reports on the incidents were written three days after the event, all at the same time in a room with a flipchart displaying all the relevant 'facts'. The initial police reports were made as vague as possible on the advice of lawyers. I'm sure this is standard procedure for fuckups like this but still, not clear on why this is seen as an acceptable way to deal with witness statements.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

PursuedByBears said:


> Good post. From all I've read about the case this seems the most likely explanation.


Not trying to be funny here, but why is that the most likely explanation? I see no evidence to back it up - discounting everything said by the police as worthless, all kinds of scenarios are possible, including that they set out that night to murder Mark Duggan in cold blood.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Instead there is this apparent planting of the gun 30 feet away, police witnesses saying he was firing at them etc. Just stick to the facts and say we f***-ed up - I realise this wouldn't be very palatable to the victim's family, but all the misinformation and lies just compounds the problem IMHO.



It wasn't even Duggan's death that caused the riots, it was the police's failure to be open about what happened and to admit responsibility.

Of course we now know the reason they didn't come straight out and say what happened is that it took them three days to _decide_ what happened. People died because of that, and many more are still needlessly rotting in jail.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 9, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Way OTT.



I'd say it's a little bit OTT, rather than way OTT, given what we know about ongoing issues of institutional racism within the criminal justice system.  That's not to say all individual coppers, lawyers, judges, probation officers etc are racist.  It's to say that the institutional practices of those people do not treat people equally, and that assumptions are still made on the basis of ethnicity.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> we now know the reason they didn't come straight out and say what happened is that it took them three days to _decide_ what happened. .


Yep.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not trying to be funny here, but why is that the most likely explanation? I see no evidence to back it up - discounting everything said by the police as worthless, all kinds of scenarios are possible, including that they set out that night to murder Mark Duggan in cold blood.



I think if they'd planned to murder him they'd have come up with a better plan to cover it up. Not that they'd need to of course, when they can get away with a story as patchy as this one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think if they'd planned to murder him they'd have come up with a better plan to cover it up. Not that they'd need to of course, when they can get away with a story as patchy as this one.



Another scenario: they had a gun ready to plant in case it was needed.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 9, 2014)

Auntie now playing ball and calling for calm



> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25665484
> Mark Duggan's aunt has said the family will fight the inquest decision of lawful killing "through the courts" and has called for calm.
> 
> On Wednesday, a jury concluded Mr Duggan was lawfully killed when he was shot dead by police in August 2011.
> ...


fuck right off dave


----------



## Tankus (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not quite true. The jury could also have reached the conclusion that the police were lying.


.....but isn't everything seen in the context of the rioting that came  after the shooting  ? It would be necessary for the state to show that the police action was just and couldn't be used as an excuse ..... I would not have wanted to be a juror on this .


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

ddraig said:


> fuck right off dave


He's said the same as Lammy, basically. TBH for a Tory PM, that's not bad.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 9, 2014)

So when's the demo in Tottenham then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Auntie now playing ball and calling for calm


Don't have a go at the auntie, though, mate.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think if they'd planned to murder him they'd have come up with a better plan to cover it up. Not that they'd need to of course, when they can get away with a story as patchy as this one.


Exactly.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2014)

So much misinformation etc. I'm getting a little lost.  Was the jury presented with anything that clearly pointed to the police lying?


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not trying to be funny here, but why is that the most likely explanation? I see no evidence to back it up - discounting everything said by the police as worthless, all kinds of scenarios are possible, including that they set out that night to murder Mark Duggan in cold blood.


What motive would there have been for a pre-planned extra-judicial hit? Are there any other examples of such hits by the Met (i.e. not Northern Ireland, and not alleged politics/secret state killings on the mainland)? I don't buy it. Far more likely to me that this was a monumental f***-up (see also de Menezes).


----------



## ffsear (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I think if they'd planned to murder him they'd have come up with a better plan to cover it up. Not that they'd need to of course, when they can get away with a story as patchy as this one.



Agreed!	Like they did with Tony Tucker and Pat Tate back in 95!


----------



## ddraig (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't have a go at the auntie, though, mate.


i am not at all! and never would, utmost respect for her and the rest of the family
meant that she is playing ball after loads of hassle and people leaning on her most likely


----------



## MrSki (Jan 9, 2014)

ddraig said:


> i am not at all! and never would, utmost respect for her and the rest of the family
> meant that she is playing ball after loads of hassle and people leaning on her most likely


Or maybe just maybe she does not want her neighbourhood wrecked by a riot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> What motive would there have been for a pre-planned extra-judicial hit? Are there any other examples of such hits by the Met (i.e. not Northern Ireland, and not alleged politics/secret state killings on the mainland)? I don't buy it. Far more likely to me that this was a monumental f***-up (see also de Menezes).


Well, let's stick to what we can say with confidence: 

The police shot an unarmed man and then constructed a web of lies about it, smearing their victim with unsubstantiated bullshit along the way. They lied in court at the trial of the man convicted of supplying the gun, and they lied again at the inquest. 

The rest is lost in the fog of misinformation.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 9, 2014)

A pared-down but broadly useful timeline:

http://people.co.uk/mark-duggan-timeline/


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 9, 2014)

> “McGuinness had told his debriefers in May 1998 that there were bags of imitation guns, wigs and balaclavas that the Flying Squad took out on operations to plant on suspects. They were used “in case an armed officer shot a robber and he wasn’t carrying a firearm” or to increase the chances of a prosecution. Everyone, he said, referred to it as a “first aid kit”. The point he made, as if this mitigated anything, was that only the guilty career criminal was fitted up this way.”
> 
> Excerpt From: Flynn, Laurie. “Untouchables (Bloomsbury Reader).” iBooks. https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=624535B499B08DA7649E7EFBFB4D7A69


----------



## MrSki (Jan 9, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> So when's the demo in Tottenham then?


2 pm Saturday.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Auntie now playing ball and calling for calm



_now playing ball_....suggests that she at some point did not want or was not calling for calm


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 9, 2014)

MrSki said:


> 2 pm Saturday.



Got a link?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 9, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> _now playing ball_....suggests that she at some point did not wantor was not calling for calm


right sorry everyone!

people on twitter etc were saying last night that she should have called for calm etc and that now this would be used as an excuse for "them to get new trainers" and those who "didn't get a 50" TV for xmas can get one now" etc etc
also the authorities (and others) would obviously prefer and want her/the family to call for calm as it makes their job easier

i am in no way suggesting that she did not want calm and that last night they were in severe shock and pain so it would have been unfair to expect some kind of calm and all encompassing statement from the family

is that ok?


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> What motive would there have been for a pre-planned extra-judicial hit? Are there any other examples of such hits by the Met (i.e. not Northern Ireland, and not alleged politics/secret state killings on the mainland)? I don't buy it. Far more likely to me that this was a monumental f***-up (see also de Menezes).


I don't think there had to be a plan as such. The culture of impunity is so deeply ingrained that there's virtually no inhibition. The likelihood of it coming to trial is fairly remote and if there is a trial, the likelihood of a conviction is vanishingly small given all the biases involved. In fact, given the history of these trials the chance is precisely zero. So they don't have to go out with the intention of murder. They can go out in the knowledge that there is no chance of them being called to account if their target does get killed. And given a particular mindset, that amounts to the same thing.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 9, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


> Got a link?


bottom of this report and saw it in a couple of places last night
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-was-lawfully-killed-jury-finds-9046813.html
hope the cop shop is surrounded


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> I don't think there had to be a plan as such. The culture of impunity is so deeply ingrained that there's virtually no inhibition. The likelihood of it coming to trial is fairly remote and if there is a trial, the likelihood of a conviction is vanishingly small given all the biases involved. In fact, given the history of these trials the chance is precisely zero. So they don't have to go out with the intention of murder. They can go out in the knowledge that there is no chance of them being called to account if their target does get killed. And given a particular mindset, that amounts to the same thing.



Gun police claim to have opened fire only six times in the past four years.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 9, 2014)

ddraig said:


> bottom of this report and saw it in a couple of places last night
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...n-was-lawfully-killed-jury-finds-9046813.html
> hope the cop shop is surrounded


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Gun police claim to have opened fire only six times in the past four years.


I can think of four police killings off the top of my head where the decision was questionable at best.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

DrRingDing said:


>



Def say this shit upon the internet.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> I can think of four police killings off the top of my head where the decision was questionable at best.



The barrister guy?


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The barrister guy?


The barrister guy, the table leg guy, de Menezes and Duggan.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2014)

ddraig said:


> right sorry everyone!
> 
> people on twitter etc were saying last night that she should have called for calm etc and that now this would be used as an excuse for "them to get new trainers" and those who "didn't get a 50" TV for xmas can get one now" etc etc
> also the authorities (and others) would obviously prefer and want her/the family to call for calm as it makes their job easier
> ...




Yeah. Wasn't having a go at you but it does annoy me that people have been attacking her as if by not making this call last night she was somehow hoping the opposite to happen.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The barrister guy?


mark saunders


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> The barrister guy, the table leg guy, de Menezes and Duggan.



Agreed. All extremely questionable. 12-year period.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> The barrister guy, the table leg guy, de Menezes and Duggan.


and diarmuid o'neill


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Agreed. All extremely questionable. 12-year period.


more than that if you include diarmuid o'neill.

and much more than that if you include stephen waldorf (not killed, sorry) and john shorthouse http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/24/newsid_2535000/2535421.stm


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> and diarmuid o'neill



Interesting case. Had quite forgotten it.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 9, 2014)

Lammy admitting Duggan wasn't a gangster and mentions the event on Sat
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25668934


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> I don't think there had to be a plan as such. The culture of impunity is so deeply ingrained that there's virtually no inhibition. The likelihood of it coming to trial is fairly remote and if there is a trial, the likelihood of a conviction is vanishingly small given all the biases involved. In fact, given the history of these trials the chance is precisely zero. *So they don't have to go out with the intention of murder. They can go out in the knowledge that there is no chance of them being called to account if their target does get killed.* And given a particular mindset, that amounts to the same thing.


Well, yes, that makes sense - but it's different to what has been suggested by some, that this was a pre-planned hit by the Met.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

Regarding this idea that Duggan was targeted for death, again - what would the motive be? Because he was "one of the 42(?) most violent criminals in Europe"  

And related to this, I have another question - have any details of his police records etc (if any) been released? i.e. if it's been said that he was a "violent gangster" did he have any convictions? Given that info about de Menezes (e.g. overstayed his visa IIRC) was leaked to the police-friendly media as smears, surely if Duggan had a criminal record it would by now have been leaked? Has it? I'm genuinely asking because I don't recall having seen this, but I may have missed it. 

This stuff about his being a member of a gang in itself doesn't hold much water for me, IMHO belonging to a gang can sometimes just mean living on a certain estate. I've seen references to his having been involved in two violent gun crimes...but where did this (mis)information come from if it isn't a matter of record? False rumours can be leaked, be disseminated in the press, possibly refuted months later, but the damage is done, and then the original 'facts' are repeated on Twitter... Anyone got any links please?

But anyway, his being or not being a criminal doesn't or shouldn't have any bearing on whether it's permissible to shoot dead an unarmed man (if he was unarmed, as seems to have been the case). But it may have helped to sway the jury..?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

It's bollocks. He had convictions for possession of cannabis and handling stolen goods, nothing violent at all. I would assume the rest is police lies until someone can show otherwise.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 9, 2014)

The #1 boy you've been after is there. Accuracy - the whole let off is based on inaccuracy. What this dick was is not as important as what they _think _it was. 

Getting dark. Few hours left.


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> This stuff about his being a member of a gang in itself doesn't hold much water for me, IMHO belonging to a gang can sometimes just mean living on a certain estate.



The Metropolitan Police are the biggest armed gang in London.


----------



## gabi (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Regarding this idea that Duggan was targeted for death, again - what would the motive be? Because he was "one of the 42(?) most violent criminals in Europe"
> 
> And related to this, I have another question - have any details of his police records etc (if any) been released? i.e. if it's been said that he was a "violent gangster" did he have any convictions? Given that info about de Menezes (e.g. overstayed his visa IIRC) was leaked to the police-friendly media as smears, surely if Duggan had a criminal record it would by now have been leaked? Has it? I'm genuinely asking because I don't recall having seen this, but I may have missed it.
> 
> ...



Seems he got arrested a number of times for some fairly serious shit but never actually done. Looks like the coppers (and the mail) had it in for him, but who knows. Regardless. The cops have dodged a bullet here, yet again.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...olent-gangsters-thug-death-sparked-riots.html


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 9, 2014)

ddraig said:


> Lammy admitting Duggan wasn't a gangster and mentions the event on Sat
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25668934



Leave it out, Lammy is light years away from saying he wasn't a gangster there. What on earth are you on about?

He says he had no record of violence but his obfuscation and bluster around the direct question is a very long way from what you suggest.

From that little performance it actually seems to me that he thought he _was_ a gangster.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

gabi said:


> Seems he got arrested a number of times for some fairly serious shit but never actually done. Looks like the coppers (and the mail) had it in for him, but who knows. Regardless. The cops have dodged a bullet here, yet again.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...olent-gangsters-thug-death-sparked-riots.html


 Disgusting article. Don't quote the fucking Mail on this, gabi, ffs.


----------



## gabi (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Disgusting article. Don't quote the fucking Mail on this, gabi, ffs.



I agree, it's a filthy rag and a terribly biased article. There is some info in there tho that other papers aren't publishing, and is probably the info that swayed the jurors.

And I'll quote whoever the fuck I want thanks.


----------



## Grace Johnson (Jan 9, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Was duggan shot with hollow point rounds?!



Yeah, there standard police issue. They say because they fragment so are less likely to travel through the target's body and into someone else.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 9, 2014)

Oh right....... but they're also designed to be totally lethal


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

gabi said:


> Seems he got arrested a number of times for some fairly serious shit but never actually done. Looks like the coppers (and the mail) had it in for him, but who knows. Regardless. The cops have dodged a bullet here, yet again.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...olent-gangsters-thug-death-sparked-riots.html


cheers gabi


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

gabi said:


> I agree, it's a filthy rag and a terribly biased article. There is some info in there tho that other papers aren't publishing, and is probably the info that swayed the jurors.
> 
> And I'll quote whoever the fuck I want thanks.


are you sure it was information heard by the jury?


----------



## telbert (Jan 9, 2014)

ffsear said:


> Agreed!	Like they did with Tony Tucker and Pat Tate back in 95!


The O.B. didnt do these.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

The only plausible evidence against Duggan is from an associate who, asked by police about Duggan's death, said: 'They say karma is bitch. Live by the gun, die by the bullet.'


----------



## Grace Johnson (Jan 9, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Oh right....... but they're also designed to be totally lethal



Yeah, it's fucked innit. Standard rounds might not stop someone from moving if they're wired with adrenaline or drugs so they use the argument that hollow points are more incapacitating  . What them bullets do to you is fucking brutal, their use is even banned in the military ffs.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Oh right....... but they're also designed to be totally lethal


 
Yes, they are designed to stop just the person you are pointing the gun at, without hurting anyone else.  Unfortunately it's not easy to reliably stop someone without killing them - more penetrating rounds will kill reliably but the assailant still has time to get some shots off before they go down, and you can hit other people since the bullet goes through them - so it's actually easier to kill a whole bunch of people than it is to instantly stop just one. 

An ultra-reliable 'killswitch' ranged taser would be a great thing but no such thing exists to my knowledge.

None of which is remotely relevant with how you should deal with a man armed only with a Blackberry.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The jury ruled that, while he had a gun in the car, it was not on him when he was shot.
> 
> Which means police should not have shot him.



Does anyone know exactly what the police 'rules of engagement' are? When carrying a gun, we were under very strict instructions as to opening fire. Essentially, you had to see and identify a firearm, and it had to be pointed at you to be able to fire. Rules regarding vehicles were different, if a car failed to stop, you were permitted to fire. (As I said on another thread, I came within seconds of killing a drunken comrade, who had returned from a night out in Hannover, and zig-zagged the barrier.)

It seems that simply failing to comply with police instructions is liable to get you shot. If this is the case, then the rules need a major rethink.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2014)

I'm not sure if maybe these coppers were so hyped up that he could have been holding a puppy and they would have seen a gun.  What's worse is that this is probably the most charitable reading of things possible.


----------



## xes (Jan 9, 2014)

I just survived a conversation with an EX london met and military cop. 

*breathes deeply*

He is such a cunt, and I kept my composure and everything!! (even after he told us the time he dressed up as a miner, during the strikes which he was earning shit loads of overtime for, and how much fun he had after people told him what bad taste it was)

AND I KEPT MY CALM.

This is like, a first!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

xes said:


> I just survived a conversation with an EX london met and military cop.
> 
> *breathes deeply*
> 
> ...


nice people you work with


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Another scenario: they had a gun ready to plant in case it was needed.



It seems more likely that Duggan did have the gun in the car. If only because if I was a plod wanting to fit someone up to make them look like a professional gangster on the way to kill someone I'd have chosen a proper gun, and I'd have made sure Duggan's DNA found its way on to it. I wouldn't rule out a planned execution, but it seems less likely than the now traditional fuck up plus conspiracy scenario.

Also, if this had all been planned it wouldn't have taken them three days to get their statements straight.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> I don't think there had to be a plan as such. The culture of impunity is so deeply ingrained that there's virtually no inhibition. The likelihood of it coming to trial is fairly remote and if there is a trial, the likelihood of a conviction is vanishingly small given all the biases involved. In fact, given the history of these trials the chance is precisely zero. So they don't have to go out with the intention of murder. They can go out in the knowledge that there is no chance of them being called to account if their target does get killed. And given a particular mindset, that amounts to the same thing.



This is how I see it, less a premeditated execution than a murder that happened because of a culture of impunity for police officers. And this verdict is unlikely to make firearms officers more likely to check their targets in future, confirming as it does that even fatal fuck ups can be brushed under the carpet without the killer's name even being made public.

That's another double standard I fucking hate. It's common practice to name suspects in most high-profile cases, but when a police officer kills someone his name is just fucking V53. If their actions were lawful and justified, why the secrecy? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear isn't that how it works?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

8ball said:


> So much misinformation etc. I'm getting a little lost.  Was the jury presented with anything that clearly pointed to the police lying?



Well I'd look at the fact that the officer who shot Duggan claiming he was stood facing him, pointing a gun. Not only was he not carrying a gun but the angle at which the bullet hit him, diagonally downward through the chest, suggests that either the copper was ten feet tall or Duggan was leaning forward. The only non-police witness to this has said Duggan had his hands behind his head and was facing down, in a pose of surrender. This is the only version of what happened that would account for the angle of the bullet wound.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well I'd look at the fact that the officer who shot Duggan claiming he was stood facing him, pointing a gun. Not only was he not carrying a gun but the angle at which the bullet hit him, diagonally downward through the chest, suggests that either the copper was ten feet tall or Duggan was leaning forward. The only non-police witness to this has said Duggan had his hands behind his head and was facing down, in a pose of surrender. This is the only version of what happened that would account for the angle of the bullet wound.



According to V53's testimony the angled shot down through the chest was the first round discharged. Was V53 up a step-ladder when he loosed the hollow-tip?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

brogdale said:


> According to V53's testimony the angled shot down through the chest was the first round discharged. Was V53 up a step-ladder when he loosed the hollow-tip?



It was a warning shot aimed high, but it richocheted off a passing pigeon that happened to be wearing body armour.

e2a: I shouldn't joke, that's pretty much the exact explanation the Italian pigs came up with for the death of Carlo Guiliani


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

This is odd - BBC account of the Kevin Hutchinson-Foster trial. Says: "After the handover, Mr Duggan carried on towards Tottenham Hale with the gun, taking it out at some point during the journey, the court was told." - but his DNA wasn't found on the gun. So was he wearing gloves? But his DNA _was_ on the shoebox. Presumably only the minicab driver could have testified to having seen this?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well I'd look at the fact that the officer who shot Duggan claiming he was stood facing him, pointing a gun.


 
Is this what he said in court (as opposed to before the inquiry when all manner of guff, lies and disinformation were flying about), and do you have the time he said it or some link to the recorded statements and evidence?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

8ball said:


> Is this what he said in court (as opposed to before the inquiry when all manner of guff, lies and disinformation were flying about), and do you have the time he said it or some link to the recorded statements and evidence?



The transcripts are here:

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/hearing-transcripts.htm

...I'm gonna have a trawl through them myself. As I understand it though the officer who shot Duggan stated in court that Duggan was pointing a gun at him.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 9, 2014)

worst rated comment on the fail link posted earlier by gabi , worth a C&P just for the irony 


> Interesting how these are all accusations and the only people caught red handed killing someone was the police.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

Christ all these number codes for people make it fucking impossible to follow any of this.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The transcripts are here:
> 
> http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/hearing-transcripts.htm
> 
> ...I'm gonna have a trawl through them myself. As I understand it though the officer who shot Duggan stated in court that Duggan was pointing a gun at him.


 
Hmmm - officer W70 seems to be describing Duggan as pulling out the gun and then somehow teleporting it away by some distance.  If plod are telling the truth I can see why they were scared of the bloke.

edit:  just so can see what I'm referring to, see 11th December hearing, part 1 line 13 to part 2 line 24 (the 'parts' are probably pages from the original transcript)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

Have a look at the transcript for 24th September, page 26, line 19. The testimony of a DCI Mick Foote. He reports that the tactical firearms commander at the scene spoke to him minutes after Duggan's shooting. Apparently the firearms commander described the operation as having 'gone as planned'.

That's raised a few eyebrows here at Frank towers, I don't mind telling you.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 9, 2014)

8ball said:


> Is this what he said in court (as opposed to before *the inquiry*...)



The ‘inquiry’ into Mark Duggan's death was a coroner's inquest, which like a criminal trial is a judicial process conducted in a manner clearly prescribed under statute, with clear procedures and clear goals.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> The ‘inquiry’ into Mark Duggan's death was a coroner's inquest, which like a criminal trial is a judicial process conducted in a manner clearly prescribed under statute, with clear procedures and clear goals.


 
Scruffy language on my part, soz - not a lawyer, just wanted to separate what was presented at these hearings as opposed to what was flying about in the media..


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

One thing that's clear from these transcripts is that even the met's senior commanders are about as competent as a chimpanzee driving a bulldozer.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

8ball said:


> Scruffy language on my part, soz - not a lawyer, just wanted to separate what was presented at these hearings as opposed to what was flying about in the media..



If you want to help trawl the court transcripts feel free


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> One thing that's clear from these transcripts is that even the met's senior commanders are about as competent as a chimpanzee driving a bulldozer.


you're not being entirely fair to chimps.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> One thing that's clear from these transcripts is that even the met's senior commanders are about as competent as a chimpanzee driving a bulldozer.


One can never underestimate the incompetence and brute stupidity of the police.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> It seems more likely that Duggan did have the gun in the car. If only because if I was a plod wanting to fit someone up to make them look like a professional gangster on the way to kill someone I'd have chosen a proper gun, and I'd have made sure Duggan's DNA found its way on to it. I wouldn't rule out a planned execution, but it seems less likely than the now traditional fuck up plus conspiracy scenario.
> 
> Also, if this had all been planned it wouldn't have taken them three days to get their statements straight.



I don't doubt for a moment that Mr Duggan had a gun at one point. What I do doubt is that the gun was ever pointed at the police.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you want to help trawl the court transcripts feel free


 
That's how I spotted the teleportation incident.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> I don't doubt for a moment that Mr Duggan had a gun at one point. What I do doubt is that the gun was ever pointed at the police.


the jury said it was never pointed at the police


----------



## laptop (Jan 9, 2014)

Tidbit from the _Fail_:



> During the inquest his mother claimed Duggan returned to Tottenham several years later as a ‘well balanced’ man.
> 
> What was carefully omitted was the fact the one of Duggan’s uncles was the late Desmond *‘Dessie’ Noonan*, whose feared family are ‘major players’ in the Manchester underworld.



See Beating the Fascists thread...

E2A: It seems to me likely that the _Fail_ in its monstering of Mark Duggan has been extensively briefed by the Met. Or, as it may turn out, "rogue" officers. Who of course received no remuneration of any kind...


----------



## Numbers (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The transcripts are here:
> 
> http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/hearing-transcripts.htm
> 
> ...I'm gonna have a trawl through them myself. As I understand it though the officer who shot Duggan stated in court that Duggan was pointing a gun at him.





> 21  Q.  How was he holding his hand?
> 22  A.  Again, may I stand up?
> 
> 23  THE ASSISTANT CORONER:  Yes, please, yes.
> ...





> 24  A.  Again because -- the only way I can describe this,
> 25  there's a line in the sand now or there's a tipping
> 
> 
> ...


From Oct 15th hearing http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/1207.htm


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

He can see the handle, the barrel and the trigger guard. And the gun is covered with a sock. OK.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

laptop said:


> Tidbit from the _Fail_:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dessie Noonan was also a committed anti-fascist who played a big role in chasing the national front out of manchester.

All of which is irrelevant to Duggan's character of course.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 9, 2014)

detective boy's input here is sorely missed


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> detective boy's input here is sorely missed


no, it isn't.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2014)

Numbers said:


> From Oct 15th hearing http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/1207.htm


 
That describes the exact same teleportation event.

edit:  page 52 (all of it) to page 53, line 11 - actually rather to page 54 line 4


----------



## laptop (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Dessie Noonan was also a committed anti-fascist who played a big role in chasing the national front out of manchester.



Yes, that's what I was alluding to. And, no, it's not _necessarily_ heritable.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 9, 2014)




----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, it isn't.


but he used to get _so_ angry!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 9, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> but he used to get _so_ angry!


so in reality it's not his input you miss but his output


----------



## xes (Jan 9, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> nice people you work with


Work? I wish! Just a patron of my local. (last row we had was over the eviction of Dale farm, he was chanting for the cops, I was chanting for the travellers to throw bricks at cops)


----------



## CNT36 (Jan 9, 2014)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03nv0m9
Listened to this on the way to work. Tory bellend argues that the problem was PR. The police shouldn't of let conflicting stories come out at the start. There should of been one person one narrative. I take from that his solution is for the Met to become better liars.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03nv0m9
> Listened to this on the way to work. Tory bellend argues that the problem was PR. The police shouldn't of let conflicting stories come out at the start. There should of been one person one narrative. I take from that his solution is for the Met to become better liars.


 
I think that would have been fine.  There would have been just one story circulating that turned out to be glaringly different to the facts.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Disgusting article. Don't quote the fucking Mail on this, gabi, ffs.


If you think everything in that Fail article is made up (which is possible ), why do you think the Met had targeted Duggan? Serious question BTW


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

OK, so perusing the testimony of V53 seems to suggest that Duggan managed to hurl the gun thirty feet _after _he was shot in the chest. So, even with a hollowpoint round in him, his main concern is still disposing of evidence.

 For those that don't know hollowpoint rounds are designed to transfer as much of the impact energy as possible directly to the target, so as to have a greater chance of killing that target with a single round. And after he's taken one of these in his chest, Mark Duggan has time to worry about the fact that the gun he's holding might get him in trouble. More trouble than he's already in. He somehow summons the strength to hurl his weapon away so fast that a man mere yards in front of him fails to see his arm move.

I know I'm going over the same ground a lot here but I'm still utterly dumbfounded that we're being expected to swallow this shit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> If you think everything in that Fail article is made up (which is possible ), why do you think the Met had targeted Duggan? Serious question BTW


I didn't say that I think the Met targetted Duggan. I said that what we know doesn't rule it out.

But yes, best not to give credence to anything the police say about Mark Duggan. If a copper hits you, he will try to make out that you are the violent person and you hit him. If a copper kills you, well, he's going to have to try to make out that you were a killer.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2014)

its been this dumbfoundingly bullshit since day 1. Delaying an inquest for this long always works.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One can never underestimate the incompetence and brute stupidity of the police.



Or the fact that in any hierarchical institution, when it comes to promotion, idiots choose like idiots, to perpetuate the system.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I didn't say that I think the Met targetted Duggan.


 But they had...they were following his minicab, after having had him under surveillance.


----------



## treelover (Jan 9, 2014)

sim667 said:


> View attachment 46285




Isn't that how the riot started in 2011?, a peaceful protest outside the nick


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

I suppose the jury had two options: to label the police shooter as a killer ... or a trigger-happy idiot. 

And, they chose the latter.


----------



## white rabbit (Jan 9, 2014)

CNT36 said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03nv0m9
> Listened to this on the way to work. Tory bellend argues that the problem was PR. The police shouldn't of let conflicting stories come out at the start. There should of been one person one narrative. I take from that his solution is for the Met to become better liars.


Unless they're accusing Tory MPs of calling them plebs. Then they are liars.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> But they had...they were following his minicab, after having had him under surveillance.


There could be lots of reasons for them being there that night. An escalation of misunderstandings triggered by a crank 999 call, for instance.

So, the only non-police witness report has Mark with his hands in the air 'looking like he's surrendering'. And also looking 'baffled'. If you disregard everything the police say, that's pretty much all we have to go on.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There could be lots of reasons for them being there that night. An escalation of misunderstandings triggered by a crank 999 call, for instance.
> 
> So, the only non-police witness report has Mark with his hands in the air 'looking like he's surrendering'. And also looking 'baffled'. If you disregard everything the police say, that's pretty much all we have to go on.



Well, if the police are into extrajudicial executions they are pretty 'unproductive'. 

As the low numbers of police shootings show. 

This looks like a one-off tragedy to me.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Regarding this idea that Duggan was targeted for death, again - what would the motive be? Because he was "one of the 42(?) most violent criminals in Europe"
> 
> And related to this, I have another question - have any details of his police records etc (if any) been released? i.e. if it's been said that he was a "violent gangster" did he have any convictions? Given that info about de Menezes (e.g. overstayed his visa IIRC) was leaked to the police-friendly media as smears, surely if Duggan had a criminal record it would by now have been leaked? Has it? I'm genuinely asking because I don't recall having seen this, but I may have missed it.
> 
> ...




When one serves on a jury, one swears to judge the case on the evidence. Not on previous news reports, or anything else. The evidence, and ONLY the evidence.

If the jurors were swayed by press innuendo, they are beyond despicable.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There could be lots of reasons for them being there that night. An escalation of misunderstandings ...


 One senior officer apparently described it as: "death by a thousand f*ck ups"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> When one serves on a jury, one swears to judge the case on the evidence. Not on previous news reports, or anything else. The evidence, and ONLY the evidence.
> 
> If the jurors were swayed by press innuendo, they are beyond despicable.


No getting around the fact that the verdict shows that the jury thought both that the policemen involved were lying and that they had killed him legally. It wasn't tiny lies either. It was full-on fabrication._ So we know you're lying your head off, but we choose to believe that you thought you saw a gun - just that bit we believe, everything either side is a fabrication. _


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Well, if the police are into extrajudicial executions they are pretty 'unproductive'.
> 
> As the low numbers of police shootings show.
> 
> This looks like a one-off tragedy to me.



Like Harry Stanley and John Charles DeMenezes, and all the other one offs.

Not that I believe the police are "into" extrajudicial killings


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 9, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> Unless they're accusing Tory MPs of calling them plebs. Then they are liars.



They were. That is another issue though. The two incidents are related by being perpetrated by the same; apparently increasingly corrupt; police service.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> One senior officer apparently described it as: "death by a thousand f*ck ups"


Which they are trying to get away with by a thousand lies.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No getting around the fact that the verdict shows that the jury thought both that the policemen involved were lying and that they had killed him legally. It wasn't tiny lies either. It was full-on fabrication._ So we know you're lying your head off, but we choose to believe that you thought you saw a gun - just that bit we believe, everything either side is a fabrication. _



I would really like to know how the jury arrived at their verdict. I wouldn't mind betting that pushy Foreman (is there any other kind?) was a DM reader.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Like Harry Stanley and John Charles DeMenezes, and all the other one offs.
> 
> Not that I believe the police are "into" extrajudicial killings



1999 and 2005. 

It's bad, but not that bad. 

I feel the shooter should face a trial. 

Although, again, a jury will probably show clemency.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> 1999 and 2005.
> 
> It's bad, but not that bad.
> 
> ...



he didn't mention tomlinson, smiley culture and the host of other less well known people who have had fatal encounters with the police during the act of being not guilty


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> he didn't mention tomlinson, smiley culture and the host of other less well known people who have had fatal encounters with the police during the act of being not guilty



There are those. I am thinking about shootings.


----------



## telbert (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> 1999 and 2005.
> 
> It's bad, but not that bad.
> 
> ...


I imagine its still pretty fucking bad for the families


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

telbert said:


> I imagine its still pretty fucking bad for the families



Of course.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I suppose the jury had two options: to label the police shooter as a killer ... or a trigger-happy idiot.
> 
> And, they chose the latter.



Your two options are not mutually exclusive. Seems pretty clear that the plod in question is both a killer and an idiot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> There are those. I am thinking about shootings.


Why? It's the killing bit that's important here, surely, not the shooting bit.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why? It's the killing bit that's important here, surely, not the shooting bit.



That's why criminal jurisdictions have degrees of murders.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> There are those. I am thinking about shootings.



I think I'd rather be shot to death than beaten unconscious and left to die on the floor of a police cell in a pool of my own blood.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> That's why criminal jurisdictions have degrees of murders.



Are there different degrees of dead?


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Are there different degrees of dead?



It's a matter of intent and degree etc, long-established principle.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No getting around the fact that the verdict shows that the jury thought both that the policemen involved were lying and that they had killed him legally. It wasn't tiny lies either. It was full-on fabrication._ So we know you're lying your head off, but we choose to believe that you thought you saw a gun - just that bit we believe, everything either side is a fabrication. _



This seems to be what they're telling us. The jury weren't ask to give a verdict on the question of Duggan's magic gun, so that whole thing can be ignored.


----------



## deadringer (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There could be lots of reasons for them being there that night. An escalation of misunderstandings triggered by a crank 999 call, for instance.
> 
> So, the only non-police witness report has Mark with his hands in the air 'looking like he's surrendering'. And also looking 'baffled'. If you disregard everything the police say, that's pretty much all we have to go on.



Because no one with an axe to grind would ever say something like that. Make up the police had done something they hadn't.

Wasn't there a guy who said he could be sure of what he saw from the window of a 9th story window? Common sense tells you that some people will exaggerate, lie, or make things up, including the police themselves


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> This seems to be what they're telling us. The jury weren't ask to give a verdict on the question of Duggan's magic gun, so that whole thing can be ignored.


Might I suggest that it was the difficulty they had getting a gun to appear that ended up _confusing_ the testimonies.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> It's a matter of intent and degree etc, long-established principle.



But we don't have 'second degree murder' in the UK. The only question is whether you intended to kill the victim or not, if you didn't then it's manslaughter. 

If you aim an automatic weapon loaded with hollowpoint rounds at someone's chest and fire, your intention to kill that person is fairly clear.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> But we don't have 'second degree murder' in the UK. The only question is whether you intended to kill the victim or not, if you didn't then it's manslaughter.
> 
> If you aim an automatic weapon loaded with hollowpoint rounds at someone's chest and fire, your intention to kill that person is fairly clear.



Tell that to the jury!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 9, 2014)

deadringer said:


> Because no one with an axe to grind would ever say something like that. Make up the police had done something they hadn't.
> 
> Wasn't there a guy who said he could be sure of what he saw from the window of a 9th story window? Common sense tells you that some people will exaggerate, lie, or make things up, including the police themselves


Sure, confidence in that one witness's report should only go so far. However, he's the only witness not to have been proven a liar. Which means he's the only witness, effectively.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Might I suggest that it was the difficulty they had getting a gun to appear that ended up _confusing_ the testimonies.



Still V53 was only too happy to stand up in court and present a version of events which given the known facts of the case cannot possibly have been true.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Tell that to the jury!



I would but they don't seem to understand logic or facts so there's probably no point.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 9, 2014)

Sasaferrato said:


> When one serves on a jury, one swears to judge the case on the evidence. Not on previous news reports, or anything else. The evidence, and ONLY the evidence.
> 
> If the jurors were swayed by press innuendo, they are beyond despicable.


Could the reports of Duggan's alleged criminal past have formed part of the evidence, though? As in, supporting evidence for why the police might have been trigger-happy... if they believed him to be a violent armed gangster? Or would it be inadmissible (as it would be in a trial)?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 9, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Could the reports of Duggan's alleged criminal past have formed part of the evidence, though? As in, supporting evidence for why the police might have been trigger-happy... if they believed him to be a violent armed gangster? Or would it be inadmissible (as it would be in a trial)?



In the inquest the nature of the police's intelligence on Mark Duggan was discussed. Coincidentally, this might have served to create a poor estimation of Duggan's character in the minds of the jury. Of course even if he made his living selling stolen human kidneys to kebab shops it still wouldn't be legal to kill him while he was unarmed and surrounded.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I would but they don't seem to understand logic or facts so there's probably no point.


 
Well, 80% of them don't.

Which seems to be the going rate for humans tbf.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 9, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I would but they don't seem to understand logic or facts so there's probably no point.



Funny and quite possibly true - but also dismissive and superior!


----------



## laptop (Jan 9, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No getting around the fact that the verdict shows that the jury thought both that the policemen involved were lying and that they had killed him legally. It wasn't tiny lies either. It was full-on fabrication._ So we know you're lying your head off, but we choose to believe that you thought you saw a gun - just that bit we believe, everything either side is a fabrication. _



Mmm. The way the questions were posed encouraged the jury to do that. But it didn't have to follow them.

I'm forming a picture of someone like an accountant becoming the chair of the jury, and taking it through all the questions separately, steering the members away from the bigger picture.

(Interesting question: it's illegal to discuss what _did_ go on in a jury room. But is this that? _The above, your honour, is fiction and not based on experience at all._ Oh no.)


----------



## PursuedByBears (Jan 9, 2014)

Good piece on Mark Duggan by the artist taxi driver


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 9, 2014)

Going to a vigil for mark duggan at the weekend.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Jan 9, 2014)

This is not, strictly speaking, about the verdict but what has been pissing me off about this story all day is everybody asking the family to 'call for calm' or praising them 'calling for calm' as though they had incited the riots which followed Duggan's death. It was never their idea or their fault or their responsibility that people rioted after he was killed, the onus is not on them to call for calm


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 9, 2014)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> This is not, strictly speaking, about the verdict but what has been pissing me off about this story all day is everybody asking the family to 'call for calm' or praising them 'calling for calm' as though they had incited the riots which followed Duggan's death. It was never their idea or their fault or their responsibility that people rioted after he was killed, the onus is not on them to call for calm



Spot on. It has been boiling my piss too. Like they have the responsibility and power to control the situation, implying they did after Mark was killed also.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Funny and quite possibly true - but also dismissive and superior!



I'm happy to dismiss people who make excuses for murder. Fuck them and the horses they rode in on. Their decision makes it more likely that this shit will happen again, and ensures that a murderer will never face justice.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 10, 2014)

The met have actually fired only 4 times in 6 years out of thousands of times armed poice have been deployed.

They may well have fucked up every time the trigger is pulled but a fuck up rate of less than one in a thousand is pretty good even though a fuck up is usually fatal.

Until a stun gun that actually works is developed or people stop using weapons in crimes people are going to die in confrontations with police.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm happy to dismiss people who make excuses for murder. Fuck them and the horses they rode in on. Their decision makes it more likely that this shit will happen again, and ensures that a murderer will never face justice.



That's the heart of it: The jury knew that an unlawful killing verdict would brand him a murderer.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2014)

leanderman said:


> That's the heart of it: The jury knew that an unlawful killing verdict would brand him a murderer.



they had open verdict available to them too. I don't get the leniency some here are giving the jury. They failed in what they needed to do.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> they had open verdict available to them too. I don't get the leniency some here are giving the jury. They failed in what they needed to do.



They heard the evidence - it's their call. Whatever you or I think they need to do.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> they had open verdict available to them too. I don't get the leniency some here are giving the jury. They failed in what they needed to do.



Do we know the class, race or gender composition of the jury?


----------



## leanderman (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Do we know the class, race or gender composition of the jury?



I heard only that they are north Londoners, some from around Tottenham.

I guess they are as representative, or not, as a criminal jury. 

They have asked for confidentiality - unsurprising after apparently ugly scenes at the high court - and the animosity their verdicts have drawn.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I heard only that they are north Londoners, some from around Tottenham.
> 
> I guess they are as representative, or not, as a criminal jury.
> 
> They have asked for confidentiality - unsurprising after apparently ugly scenes at the high court - and the animosity their verdicts have drawn.




The verdict would certainly be easier to understand had the jury been unrepresentative of the community in terms of race or class.

Does confidentiality regarding personal identity preclude the release of such information?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 10, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Oh right....... but they're also designed to be totally lethal


Of course they are! What do you think the main purpose of shooting someone is?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2014)

let's not get sidetracked into issues round the jury's background or identity now.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 10, 2014)

re the jury, ian bone posted this today

‘I WLL MISS YOU’ JUDGE TO DUGGAN INQUEST JURY

Having taken the extraordinary step of giving the jury three weeks off over Christmas the judge prefaced the jury’s verdict by saying how much he would ‘miss them’. More significant than might seem at first. Judge Cutler seems to have develop an avuncular relationship with the jury – to the extent that they were reluctant not to follow his directions……or rather they were bamboozled by his five steps approach. Rather than simply ask for one of three possible verdicts the judge instructed them to deliver five separate verdicts on police procedures that day – the first being was the police information on Mark Duggan handled well. They were then instructed to follow a ‘if you think this then this must have happened’ approach which bamboozled them into delivering a nonsense verdict

--------------------------

Supposedly as that list of 5 verdicts was being read out in court the family and supporters felt increasingly hopeful, and it made the final incongruous verdict all the more depressing


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> let's not get sidetracked into issues round the jury's background or identity now.



It's not a sidetrack.

This looks like a case of jury nullification.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> This seems to be what they're telling us. The jury weren't ask to give a verdict on the question of Duggan's magic gun, so that whole thing can be ignored.


 
What is the indication that the jury thought the police were lying?


----------



## sim667 (Jan 10, 2014)

Fuchs66 said:


> Of course they are! What do you think the main purpose of shooting someone is?



Er.... you can have non lethal projectiles, rubber bullets etc (although I do understand people have died as a result of impact by a rubber bullet).


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Er.... you can have non lethal projectiles, rubber bullets etc (although I do understand people have died as a result of impact by a rubber bullet).


 
That seems a bit disingenuous given the type of rounds used.  And a rubber bullet at that range would very likely be lethal anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> It's not a sidetrack.
> 
> This looks like a case of jury nullification.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification


no, this looks like you trying to fuck up the thread


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, this looks like you trying to fuck up the thread



Seriously Pickman's: Not Here.  OK?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Seriously Pickman's: Not Here.  OK?


 
Your claim to the moral high ground has been denied.  Please contact the Rhetorical Land Registry within 14 days if you wish to appeal this decision.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> It's not a sidetrack.
> 
> This looks like a case of jury nullification.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification


This is irrelevant. The jury did not make a stand against the law. They did make a stand against logic.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is irrelevant. The jury did not make a stand against the law. They did make a stand against logic.



That is precisely what makes it relevant:

*"Jury nullification* occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant they believe to be guilty of the charges against them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> Seriously Pickman's: Not Here.  OK?


i'll hold you to that promise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> That is precisely what makes it relevant:
> 
> *"Jury nullification* occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant they believe to be guilty of the charges against them."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification


oh dear. one post on and you seem to be in full sidetrack mode. what about the promise you made not to sidetrack the thread?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Jan 10, 2014)

sim667 said:


> Er.... you can have non lethal projectiles, rubber bullets etc (although I do understand people have died as a result of impact by a rubber bullet).


You can also hit them with a pillow. Not quite sure what you're getting at as baton rounds and live ammunition are very different tools for different jobs, requiring different equipment.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 10, 2014)

potentially interesting story on Guido

don't know if it warrants a thread/or if its even related to Duggan but the Home Office are refusing to deny Hogan-Howe tendered his resignation over a coming scandal.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2014)

Dan U said:


> potentially interesting story on Guido
> 
> don't know if it warrants a thread/or if its even related to Duggan but the Home Office are refusing to deny Hogan-Howe tendered his resignation over a coming scandal.


not a wholehearted confirmation tho


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2014)

Dan U said:


> potentially interesting story on Guido
> 
> don't know if it warrants a thread/or if its even related to Duggan but the Home Office are refusing to deny Hogan-Howe tendered his resignation over a coming scandal.


Hillsborough related maybe? Rather than this?


----------



## Dan U (Jan 10, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Hillsborough related maybe? Rather than this?



Yeah that did cross my mind. 

Some within the Tory party will be itching to bring in a US 'super cop' I should think, didn't they change the rules to allow them to appoint someone from overseas?

anyway, i don't want to derail this thread, just felt it worth posting somewhere.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> What is the indication that the jury thought the police were lying?



They decided that Duggan was not holding a gun when he was killed. The officer who shot him, in his testimony to the inquest, described in some detail the gun he was holding, and exactly what he did with it.

So the man who pulled the trigger lied, in the opinion of the jury.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> They decided that Duggan was not holding a gun when he was killed. The officer who shot him, in his testimony to the inquest, described in some detail the gun he was holding, and exactly what he did with it.
> 
> So the man who pulled the trigger lied, in the opinion of the jury.


 
That would seem to be more a matter of uncertainty about the exact point at which the gun-teleportation-singularity formed.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

leanderman said:


> That's the heart of it: The jury knew that an unlawful killing verdict would brand him a murderer.



Not necessarily. There was a verdict of unlawful killing in the Ian Tomlinson case but the man who inflicted his fatal injuries was not charged with manslaughter but gross misconduct or something. In fact I don't think he was even charged with a criminal offence, just put before an internal plod disciplinary hearing and sacked (for the second time).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> That would seem to be more a matter of uncertainty about the exact point at which the gun-teleportation-singularity formed.



Neither the verdict nor V53's testimony is unclear. Yet they contradict each other and both are true.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Not necessarily. There was a verdict of unlawful killing in the Ian Tomlinson case but the man who inflicted his fatal injuries was not charged with manslaughter but gross misconduct or something. In fact I don't think he was even charged with a criminal offence, just put before an internal plod disciplinary hearing and sacked (for the second time).


One of the very many unsettling things about this verdict is that the man who killed Mark Duggan may very well still be walking the streets of London with a gun in his hand.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Neither the verdict nor V53's testimony is unclear. Yet they contradict each other and both are true.


 
I've gone over the court transcripts again - I guess they could believe V53 mis-remembered the exact sequence of events in the heat of the moment (which is pretty common), but the case would remain that there would be no reason to believe all sorts of other things weren't mis-remembered and so it would have to be an open verdict.  The only thing going for the police testimony is that at least they all got their story straight ie. V53's testimony matches that of W70's pretty well re: the magic gun.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One of the very many unsettling things about this verdict is that the man who killed Mark Duggan may very well still be walking the streets of London with a gun in his hand.



Well he did nothing wrong so why wouldn't he be?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well he did nothing wrong so why wouldn't he be?


In line for some kind of medal, perhaps.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> I've gone over the court transcripts again - I guess they could believe V53 mis-remembered the exact sequence of events in the heat of the moment (which is pretty common), but the case would remain that there would be no reason to believe all sorts of other things weren't mis-remembered and so it would have to be an open verdict.  The only thing going for the police testimony is that at least they all got their story straight ie. V53's testimony matches that of W70's pretty well re: the magic gun.



So all the officers present mis-remembered the same thing in the same way? On the balance of probability it seems more likely that they were simply bullshitting.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In line for some kind of medal, perhaps.



More likely he's been off sick on full pay ever since, citing 'operational exhaustion' or something.


----------



## ffsear (Jan 10, 2014)

look at yourselves



its a nice day


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> So all the officers present mis-remembered the same thing in the same way?


 
It could be read to suggest that what they all saw was consistent and that their training led them to the same interpretation.  It could also be read to suggest that there was a bit of cognitive re-constructing going on where they concluded that V53 was initially mistaken, discussed with W70 later, who on some level being his mate thought Duggan must have had a gun by pure virtue of the fact that V53 had shot him and described the incident thus.

These are just speculations about the jury's thought processes, though.  The bit that looks really smelly to me is the way V53 talks about his focus being on the gun like a laser beam, and the image being etched into his brain, yet this heavy bit of metal then gets chucked quite some distance by a man who is not yet known to have been effectively neutralised and he fails to notice this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 10, 2014)

ffsear said:


> look at yourselves
> 
> 
> 
> its a nice day


all the more reason not to spend time looking in the mirror


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2014)

ffsear said:


> look at yourselves
> 
> 
> 
> its a nice day




not for duggan it aint


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> .  The bit that looks really smelly to me is the way V53 talks about his focus being on the gun like a laser beam, and the image being etched into his brain, yet this heavy bit of metal then gets chucked quite some distance by a man who is not yet known to have been effectively neutralised and he fails to notice this.



Yes and seems odd that the 'laser focus' he describes so memorably was directed to an object we know wasn't there.

Then there's the question of how you throw something so far after you've been shot in the chest. Again, hollowpoint rounds are designed for maximum stopping power, which is a gun catalogue's way of saying maximum probability of killing with a single shot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2014)

ffsear said:


> look at yourselves
> 
> 
> 
> its a nice day


Fuck off.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Then there's the question of how you throw something so far after you've been shot in the chest. Again, hollowpoint rounds are designed for maximum stopping power, which is a gun catalogue's way of saying maximum probability of killing with a single shot.


 
According to the jury Duggan did not have the gun at the point he was shot.  Not that the media seems to have noticed this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> OK, so perusing the testimony of V53 seems to suggest that Duggan managed to hurl the gun thirty feet _after _he was shot in the chest. So, even with a hollowpoint round in him, his main concern is still disposing of evidence.
> 
> For those that don't know hollowpoint rounds are designed to transfer as much of the impact energy as possible directly to the target, so as to have a greater chance of killing that target with a single round. And after he's taken one of these in his chest, Mark Duggan has time to worry about the fact that the gun he's holding might get him in trouble. More trouble than he's already in. He somehow summons the strength to hurl his weapon away so fast that a man mere yards in front of him fails to see his arm move.
> 
> I know I'm going over the same ground a lot here but I'm still utterly dumbfounded that we're being expected to swallow this shit.



Just to add that a *jacketed* hollow point round (which is, in effect, only jacketed as far as the start of the hollow) transfers that energy through the lead core of the bullet extruding past the jacket in a mushroom-type shape.  These rounds are generally used for game hunting.  Fully jacketed ammunition is what is mandated for military use.  It causes fewer surgical issues than unjacketed and JHP rounds.  Most police services also use fully-jacketed ammo.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> If you think everything in that Fail article is made up (which is possible ), why do you think the Met had targeted Duggan? Serious question BTW



*If* they deliberately targeted him for death, I'd take a guess at _pour encourager les autres_ being the primary reason.  His death wouldn't be enough to start a gang war, but the OB might see it as encouraging the local gangsters to be a bit more circumspect, unless they wanted a portion of police lead too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Well, if the police are into extrajudicial executions they are pretty 'unproductive'.
> 
> As the low numbers of police shootings show.



You mean, the ones we hear about, rather than the non-fatals, too?



> This looks like a one-off tragedy to me.



Odd how these "one-off tragedies" keep happening though, isn't it?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 10, 2014)

Bone has reminded me of something this morning.

I was able to follow the N24 live coverage of the hearing verdicts on Jan 8th and have to say that Judge Cutler's, slightly odd and unintelligble, remarks preceeding the verdicts left me in no uncertainty about the way the verdicts were going to pan out. Bone's contention is that the warm comments from judge to jury demonstrate the final example of a controlling, infantilising and overly directive relationship established over the course of the inquiry.

Here's Cutler's remarks:-



> Firstly, I want to express sincere gratitude both on
> 12  my behalf and on behalf of the public as a whole for the
> 
> 13  hard work that you, the jury, have put in.  I speak for
> ...



Cutler (CBE) is, of course, a freemason.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2014)




----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> cognitive re-constructing



You're being very kind.  But I don't see how several people could "re-construct" a scenario in ways that are internally consistent.  Which they must have noticed when they compared notes.

This is jury nullification or I'm a Dutchman.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2014)

Too kind. It is a simple case of getting together afterwards and making sure their lies matched.

It's standard police 'coverupafuckup' practice.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Too kind. It is a simple case of getting together afterwards and making sure their lies matched.



I was referring to the jury.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> So all the officers present mis-remembered the same thing in the same way? On the balance of probability it seems more likely that they were simply bullshitting.



They (the team deployed to stop Duggan) were allowed to spend an entire work day together writing their statements about events.
Of course, being honest coppers (sarcastic laugh, retching sounds) they didn't consult one another or agree a "party line".


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2014)

someone leaked the fantasy land version of this to the sun journo. And even now we've still got people giving it 'live bythe gun die by the gun' and similar. Goes to show how effective getting your version out first, and on the biggest platform is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> They (the team deployed to stop Duggan) were allowed to spend an entire work day together writing their statements about events.
> Of course, being honest coppers (sarcastic laugh, retching sounds) they didn't consult one another or agree a "party line".


Lie your head off. Discredit/smear the victim. Blame the victim.

Standard MO.


----------



## Serotonin (Jan 10, 2014)

Ive given that issue some consideration (the statements and collaboration) after my initial thoughts, and as someone whos written quite a few statements for Coroners inquests, its a very different approach from say giving evidence for a criminal trial. Theres a time limit for submission of statements and of course they are legal documents,  but its nothing like giving a statement for the police or a criminal trial, you just write a document, which is usually scrutinised by your organisation (in my case th NHS Trust legal team) and then its sent to the Coroners officer. Theres nothing stopping you collaborating with anyone during the process (ie I might confer with a colleague about the issue while writing it) Thats not defending the cops in this situation, but it does make me wonder if its a bit of a red herring in this case.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> This is jury nullification or I'm a Dutchman.


 
By jury nullification, do you mean that the jury knew it was an unlawful killing by the word of the law but felt Duggan had it coming anyway and acted accordingly?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Too kind. It is a simple case of getting together afterwards and making sure their lies matched.
> 
> It's standard police 'coverupafuckup' practice.


 
I know - I'm jusy speculating about how the jury managed to come to to the conclusion they did, rather than trying to come up with scenarios that realistically exonerate the police.


----------



## laptop (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> This is jury nullification or I'm a Dutchman.



_Ga heen en vermenigvuldigt u, Dwyer_

Anyway, the thing that it isn't is a "perverse verdict" in English English.


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> By jury nullification, do you mean that the jury knew it was an unlawful killing by the word of the law but felt Duggan had it coming anyway and acted accordingly?



That is my suspicion.

My suspicion would be deepened if I knew that, for example, the jury was composed entirely of posh white people.

But I do not know that.  Does anyone?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> That is my suspicion.
> 
> My suspicion would be deepened if I knew that, for example, the jury was composed entirely of posh white people.



I doubt it if most of them came from Tottenham.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 10, 2014)

yuck http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...sm-was-the-root-of-Mark-Duggans-shooting.html


----------



## Favelado (Jan 10, 2014)

J Ed said:


> yuck http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...sm-was-the-root-of-Mark-Duggans-shooting.html



Shameless considering they published this too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ooting-incident-involving-police-officer.html


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 10, 2014)

white rabbit said:


> The barrister guy, the table leg guy, de Menezes and Duggan.





Pickman's model said:


> more than that if you include diarmuid o'neill.
> 
> and much more than that if you include stephen waldorf (not killed, sorry) and john shorthouse http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/august/24/newsid_2535000/2535421.stm



And James Ashley and Azelle Rodney. The Barrister guy was armed iirc. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_firearms_in_the_United_Kingdom#Notable_incidents


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2014)

barrister had a shotgun. Press very sympathetic to him. Right colour and class I suppose.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> barrister had a shotgun. Press very sympathetic to him. Right colour and class I suppose.



Even the Kensington and Chelsea riots were little more than a few middle class people tutting over the morning papers.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jan 10, 2014)

why are so many people you thought were sensible turning out to be massive pricks with chode-like erections for the police?  fucksake.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> why are so many people you thought were sensible turning out to be massive pricks with chode-like erections for the police?  fucksake.


 
When something like this happens the only silver lining I can think of it that it helps a lot of us trim down the Facebook friends list.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> They decided that Duggan was not holding a gun when he was killed. The officer who shot him, in his testimony to the inquest, described in some detail the gun he was holding, and exactly what he did with it.
> 
> So the man who pulled the trigger lied, in the opinion of the jury.


Also, and I'm not sure if this has already been covered, how was he able to describe in such detail a gun and sock which he hadn't in fact seen in Mark Duggan's hand?  Why was that not picked up?  No, I know WHY, of course. Cunts.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 10, 2014)

Can anyone clear up for me why there only seemed to be 10 people on the determination notes, and not 12?


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> That is my suspicion.
> 
> My suspicion would be deepened if I knew that, for example, the jury was composed entirely of posh white people.
> 
> But I do not know that.  Does anyone?


That Littlejohn article (posted upthread) said the jury was mostly young people and some were mixed race. But, y'know, that was what Littlejohn said, so...


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 10, 2014)

sojourner said:


> Also, and I'm not sure if this has already been covered, how was he able to describe in such detail a gun and sock which he hadn't in fact seen in Mark Duggan's hand?  Why was that not picked up?  No, I know WHY, of course. Cunts.


He said he'd seen it in Duggan's hand, but other evidence (e.g. lack of DNA on the sock or gun), the testimony of witness B (looking at the scene from nearby flat) would suggest otherwise. The jury didn't believe him on this point, either.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 10, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> He said he'd seen it in Duggan's hand, but other evidence (e.g. lack of DNA on the sock or gun), the testimony of witness B (looking at the scene from nearby flat) would suggest otherwise. The jury didn't believe him on this point, either.


That's what I'm saying. His 'lovely view' of the gun and sock in Mark's hand could not  have been anything other than a big fat lie, given it was found later, without any DNA on it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2014)

Judge's directions remind me of Peter Cook 



> You are now to retire, as indeed should I, carefully to consider your verdict of "Lawful Killing".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

sojourner said:


> Also, and I'm not sure if this has already been covered, how was he able to describe in such detail a gun and sock which he hadn't in fact seen in Mark Duggan's hand?  Why was that not picked up?  No, I know WHY, of course. Cunts.



Because that was what it said on the fucking flipchart in the briefing room where they all sat down to write their statements, three days after the fact.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Because that what it said on the fucking flipchart in the briefing room where they all sat down to write their statements, three days after the fact.


Aye. It's fucking astounding how they can get away with such huge lies. And as for that being allowed to fucking well confer - speechless about that.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Judge's directions remind me of Peter Cook


Totally led them


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Just to add that a *jacketed* hollow point round (which is, in effect, only jacketed as far as the start of the hollow) transfers that energy through the lead core of the bullet extruding past the jacket in a mushroom-type shape.  These rounds are generally used for game hunting.  Fully jacketed ammunition is what is mandated for military use.  It causes fewer surgical issues than unjacketed and JHP rounds.  Most police services also use fully-jacketed ammo.



I rather thought any form of expanding ammunition was internationally banned for military use.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 10, 2014)

sojourner said:


> Can anyone clear up for me why there only seemed to be 10 people on the determination notes, and not 12?


Because there were ten jurors not twelve?


----------



## sojourner (Jan 10, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Because there were ten jurors not twelve?


You need 12 though don't you? Or am I missing something?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 10, 2014)

sojourner said:


> You need 12 though don't you? Or am I missing something?


On skim-reading, the Coroners Act says only "not less than seven".

http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1988/ukpga_19880013_en_1.html#pb3-l1g8


----------



## likesfish (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I rather thought any form of expanding ammunition was internationally banned for military use.


 Hague convention the met are not classed as a military and niether are criminals as long as the met domt appear on a battlefield they are legal.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 10, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> On skim-reading, the Coroners Act says only "not less than seven".
> 
> http://www.bailii.org/uk/legis/num_act/1988/ukpga_19880013_en_1.html#pb3-l1g8


Ta.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Hague convention the met are not classed as a military and niether are criminals as long as the met domt appear on a battlefield they are legal.



Yeah, interesting contradiction isn't it? Use it against soldiers and it's a war crime, use it against unarmed civillians and it's 'lawful killing'.

Coming up next, facillitating peaceful protest via the tactical use of landmines.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 10, 2014)

That's how they get away with using chemical weapons on us. Banned for military use.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 10, 2014)

SLAF's statement: http://www.slaf.org.uk/post/72862697449/duggan-verdict-of-lawful-killing-reveals-the-depth-of


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yeah, interesting contradiction isn't it? Use it against soldiers and it's a war crime, use it against unarmed civillians and it's 'lawful killing'.


 
Why are they banned for use in the military?  If someone was pointing a rocket launcher at me I'd definitely want hollow points.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 10, 2014)

Hat tip to Mr Bone.... he reminds us of the power of genetics; Littlejohn's father was filth.


----------



## Grace Johnson (Jan 10, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Hat tip to Mr Bone.... he reminds us of the power of genetics; Littlejohn's father was filth.



Fuckin hell.... that is properly disgusting. How the actual fuck did that get printed?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I rather thought any form of expanding ammunition was internationally banned for military use.



That's kind of my point.  A fully-jacketed round *can't* expand, so:
a) It's more likely to give a through-and-through injury, and 
b) it *can't* dump all the kinetic energy into a small area of the body.
Of course, you then have the problem of over-penetration with larger rounds, but at least you don't have fragmentation, which you'll get off of unjacketed rounds, or internal cavities caused by expansion, which you'll get off of semi-jacketed rounds.
Me, I never used semi-jacketed hollow points when shooting.  Apart from anything else, jacketed rounds feed much better in semi-auto and automatic weapons (less friction between the projectile part of the round and the feed ramp).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Why are they banned for use in the military?  If someone was pointing a rocket launcher at me I'd definitely want hollow points.



Hollowpoints are harder to remove surgically than ordinary rounds, and cause more extensive injuries. I guess the theory is once you get shot with any kind of round you're out of the game for the forseeable future, and it's unsporting to cause more damage to someone than necessary to achieve this aim. Of course if you kill them then that's fine.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Why are they banned for use in the military?  If someone was pointing a rocket launcher at me I'd definitely want hollow points.


 It because the orginal dums dums may have caused extra suffering.
 Killing people is fine.
 Inflicting extra injurys on them not fine.
  Also the fact it takes most armys around a 10000 bullets to kill anyone the extra cost of hollow points isnt worth it.
 Machine guns artillery and grenades and the major killers.

If the met were anywhere else this wouldnt even be news


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

likesfish said:


> If the met were anywhere else this wouldnt even be news



Indeed. I can't imagine a headline in the US saying 'LAPD kills unarmed black man', it'd be like leading with the news that a plumber in Minneapolis had fixed a toilet.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Hollowpoints are harder to remove surgically than ordinary rounds, and cause more extensive injuries. I guess the theory is once you get shot with any kind of round you're out of the game for the forseeable future, and it's unsporting to cause more damage to someone than necessary to achieve this aim. Of course if you kill them then that's fine.


 
The thing is, from the perspective of the safety of your army, taking an assailant out of the game a second or 5 quicker can make a huge difference.  And I've seen the kind of damage a jacketed round from an MP5 will do on a slab of ballistic gel unless it's a graze it's either an amputation or a fatality without body armour.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Why are they banned for use in the military?  If someone was pointing a rocket launcher at me I'd definitely want hollow points.



Because of the injuries they cause.
And guess who pioneered them (albeit by accident originally)?  That's right! The British army, back in the days when we first started using bullets rather than ball in India.  The arsenal at DumDum tended to underfill bullet moulds, leaving a concave depression at the head of the bullet, which people soon found out caused the bullet to fragment on impact, meaning that many injuries that would usually have been non-fatal weren't.
And from there the idea of using fully-jacketed ammo was born, as was the serious design of bullets.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

likesfish said:


> It because the orginal dums dums may have caused extra suffering.
> Killing people is fine.
> Inflicting extra injurys on them not fine.
> Also the fact it takes most armys around a 10000 bullets to kill anyone the extra cost of hollow points isnt worth it.
> Machine guns artillery and grenades and the major killers.


 
Apparently the US use hollow points in sniper rifles - not sure if that's just a matter of openly flouting the rules.
But anyway, modern weaponry is sufficiently nasty that rules from 120 years ago that were drafted with explosive rounds in mind (which the military openly use) seem a bit pointless.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Indeed. I can't imagine a headline in the US saying 'LAPD kills unarmed black man', it'd be like leading with the news that a plumber in Minneapolis had fixed a toilet.


Rodney King?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 10, 2014)

Unfortunatly thats true the americans have invented the "no knock warrant"
 When they steam into a house unannouced often in plain clothes 
  In a country where people are often armed in no way could this end badly


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The arsenal at DumDum tended to underfill bullet moulds, leaving a concave depression at the head of the bullet...


 
Ah, hence the name...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Rodney King?




its a fair comparison isn't it? police filmed doing a mass beatdown on one bloke, aquittal of those who did it sparks massive riots, anyone caught rioting or post riot slapped with a huge stretch


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> The thing is, from the perspective of the safety of your army, taking an assailant out of the game a second or 5 quicker can make a huge difference.  And I've seen the kind of damage a jacketed round from an MP5 will do on a slab of ballistic gel unless it's a graze it's either an amputation or a fatality without body armour.



A hit with a fully-jacketed assault rifle or pistol round is traumatic enough that there's little difference in the speed of "taking an assailant out". Hollow points are unnecessary unless you're looking to make kill shots every time, which is why game hunters use them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> Apparently the US use hollow points in sniper rifles - not sure if that's just a matter of openly flouting the rules.



Military snipers tend to "roll their own" in terms of ammo, or have specific preferences for different jobs.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's kind of my point.  A fully-jacketed round *can't* expand, so:
> a) It's more likely to give a through-and-through injury, and
> b) it *can't* dump all the kinetic energy into a small area of the body.
> Of course, you then have the problem of over-penetration with larger rounds, but at least you don't have fragmentation, which you'll get off of unjacketed rounds, or internal cavities caused by expansion, which you'll get off of semi-jacketed rounds.
> Me, I never used semi-jacketed hollow points when shooting.  Apart from anything else, jacketed rounds feed much better in semi-auto and automatic weapons (less friction between the projectile part of the round and the feed ramp).








*rubs thighs*


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 10, 2014)

likesfish said:


> It because the orginal dums dums may have caused extra suffering.
> Killing people is fine.
> Inflicting extra injurys on them not fine.
> Also the fact it takes most armys around a 10000 bullets to kill anyone the extra cost of hollow points isnt worth it.
> ...


Sorry if this has been covered before, but am I wrong in thinking that the idea of using hollow point ammo in these situations, is that the bullet stays in the victim's body and doesn't travel through it, going all over the place and potentially hitting others? Because that's exactly what *did* happen in this case, one bullet passing through Duggan's body to hit another cop (his radio), and the other finishing up in the cab, inside a bag 

Or do they use hollow points because they're more likely to 'stop' the suspect?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Sorry if this has been covered before, but am I wrong in thinking that the idea of using hollow point ammo in these situations, is that the bullet stays in the victim's body and doesn't travel through it, going all over the place and potentially hitting others? Because that's exactly what *did* happen in this case, one bullet hitting the another officer (his radio), and the other finishing up in the cab, inside a bag
> 
> Or is the use of hollow point ammo because they're more likely to 'stop' the suspect?



The *excuse* for use is the former, the actual reason is the latter.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 10, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Sorry if this has been covered before, but am I wrong in thinking that the idea of using hollow point ammo in these situations, is that the bullet stays in the victim's body and doesn't travel through it, going all over the place and potentially hitting others? Because that's exactly what *did* happen in this case, one bullet passing through Duggan's body to hit another cop (his radio), and the other finishing up in the cab, inside a bag
> 
> Or is the use of hollow point ammo because they're more likely to 'stop' the suspect?



iirc the round that ended up in another coppers radio had gone though Duggans arm, not his torso


----------



## 8ball (Jan 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> A hit with a fully-jacketed assault rifle or pistol round is traumatic enough that there's little difference in the speed of "taking an assailant out". Hollow points are unnecessary unless you're looking to make kill shots every time, which is why game hunters use them.


 
There doesn't seem to be unanimous agreement on that, the authorities who approved the use of these bullets did so based on the fact that they were designed for 'instantaneous incapacitation'.

edit:  there's the over-penetration too iirc, but it was the first design feature that was mentioned in the press (not seen any mention of bullet type in the court transcripts yet)

edit2:  I'm aware this is a bit of a crap post, still kind of thinking aloud over why munitions banned in warfare are ok for use on civilians


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its a fair comparison isn't it? police filmed doing a mass beatdown on one bloke, aquittal of those who did it sparks massive riots, anyone caught rioting or post riot slapped with a huge stretch


I think so. The idea that only in Britain would people care so much about an injustice meted out by the authorities on an individual is wrong, I think.


----------



## xes (Jan 10, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> its a fair comparison isn't it? police filmed doing a mass beatdown on one bloke, aquittal of those who did it sparks massive riots, anyone caught rioting or post riot slapped with a huge stretch


another case with suss numerology  (7777)


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The *excuse* for use is the former, the actual reason is the latter.


So is the intention that they expand/explode inside the body? And cause greater injury?


----------



## ffsear (Jan 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> A hit with a fully-jacketed assault rifle or pistol round is traumatic enough that there's little difference in the speed of "taking an assailant out". Hollow points are unnecessary unless you're looking to make kill shots every time, which is why game hunters use them.



Don't hollow points tend to stay in the target though?	SO used more in urban situations


edit: seen already answered


----------



## phildwyer (Jan 10, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> That Littlejohn article (posted upthread) said the jury was mostly young people and some were mixed race. But, y'know, that was what Littlejohn said, so...



That's about as openly racist an article as the British press will publish.

But nevertheless, it's hard to believe he'd get away with straight-up lying.  So presumably this is true:

"The jury comprised seven women and three men from North London, including the Borough of Haringey, where Duggan lived.  They were mostly young and many were mixed race, just like Duggan himself, chosen to reflect the diversity of the area."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...angster-not-Nelson-Mandela.html#ixzz2q0hc5sPD

In which case the verdict is truly inexplicable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> So is the intention that they expand/explode inside the body? And cause greater injury?


Yes. If you use them for game hunting, you use them in the knowledge that when you shoot a deer behind its left shoulder, the bullet will punch through the ribcage, start to expand out through the opening in the jacket of the bullet due to the impact, and to have "mushroomed to full expansion as it hits the heart, dumping about 75% of the bullet's remaining energy into the heart muscle and basically turning it into mince.
They don't, however, "explode". 
Picture to give you some idea of the expansion capacity.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 10, 2014)

ffsear said:


> Don't hollow points tend to stay in the target though?	SO used more in urban situations
> 
> 
> edit: seen already answered



TBF, if the police really wanted to make sure of stopping someone, while using a round that wouldn't over-penetrate, they could easily have carried on using their old Webley & Scott .32 auto pistols (which they used from about 1911 until the '80s), which were powerful enough to stop someone, but not to over-penetrate anything larger than a labrador.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 10, 2014)

phildwyer said:


> "The jury comprised seven women and three men from North London, including the Borough of Haringey, where Duggan lived.  They were mostly young and many were mixed race, just like Duggan himself, chosen to reflect the diversity of the area."
> 
> In which case the verdict is truly inexplicable.



I don't see what bearing the demographic of the jury has upon the verdict. If the law determines a killing as lawful, when based upon the 'honest' belief of the police, it is possible to explain how the jurors were encouraged to chose the verdict they did...irrespective of their ethnicity. Wrong, maybe, but not inexplicable.


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 10, 2014)

When we've finished penetrating labradors can we get back to the case in hand.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 10, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Hat tip to Mr Bone.... he reminds us of the power of genetics; Littlejohn's father was filth.



Won't be a proper RL success unless she kills herself. Doubtless if she complains to the PCC then fuck all will happen.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 10, 2014)

Grace Johnson said:


> Fuckin hell.... that is properly disgusting. How the actual fuck did that get printed?



Because it's encouraged.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

8ball said:


> The thing is, from the perspective of the safety of your army, taking an assailant out of the game a second or 5 quicker can make a huge difference.  And I've seen the kind of damage a jacketed round from an MP5 will do on a slab of ballistic gel unless it's a graze it's either an amputation or a fatality without body armour.



We've got to the point where I know longer know what I'm talking about. My research only got me as far as the revelation that UK police routinely carry expanding rounds of a type prohibited for military use by the Hague convention.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 10, 2014)

Some astonishing knowledge of firearms being shown here!


----------



## Belushi (Jan 10, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Some astonishing knowledge of firearms being shown here!



There's quite a few ex squaddies on here.


----------



## kikiscrumbles (Jan 10, 2014)

Lads lads lads - are you through with all the ammo porn yet? Is nobody else listening open-mouthed at the ASTONISHING PR coup of creating a Posh-o Tory news story spin to distract the masses from all this? I mean... 'But how can we possibly trust the police now?' (then stern radio 4 voice intones) 'A Tory politician has lost his career.. a policeman his job.' Then the pretty posh blonde daughter sobs - quite literally, Mr Plebgate's daughter said just now: 'All of a sudden, we realised something was very, very wrong - that we could no longer trust the police. It was simply devastating for our family, I don't think we'll recover...'

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK - It seems they are going to punish a polis for fibbing a bit about a shouty sweary posh-o (who freely admits to 'fucking' but not 'plebs'). 
Yet the LYING BASTARDS who colluded in the murder of a man they had every chance to arrest and bring to trial - and who they clearly set up, given the fact that they surveilled him collecting a gun but didn't apprehend him nor the supplier at that point... ACH!! words fail me. It's all just as cynical as I suspected. It's truly despair-making. Would be ironic or summat if it weren't so just awful. Sad slump...


----------



## likesfish (Jan 10, 2014)

[quote="8ball, 

edit2:  I'm aware this is a bit of a crap post, still kind of thinking aloud over why munitions banned in warfare are ok for use on civilians[/quote]

Because the rules were made over a 100 years ago and were set up to in the belief that two european armies batter the hell out of each could be relied on to play by the rules.

Criminals and terrorists dont play by any rules so not get protection by the rules.


----------



## barney_pig (Jan 10, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Criminals and terrorists dont play by any rules so not get protection by the rules.


Like failing to to had anything to do with the guns that the pigs say they were waving at them?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 10, 2014)

Belushi said:


> There's quite a few ex squaddies on here.



Is that Sass with the medic's bag?


----------



## Belushi (Jan 10, 2014)

Nah, Sas is standing to his left.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 10, 2014)

The rules were set up over a hundred years ago one of the first attempts at international law.
  It makes a very good sense to use hollow points in say hostage rescue you can shoot the bad guy and the bullet will stay in them rather than going straight through and hitting someone else.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 10, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Is that Sass with the medic's bag?


i used to be the one on the right with the scarf


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2014)

kikiscrumbles said:


> LYING BASTARDS who colluded in the murder of a man they had every chance to arrest and bring to trial - and who they clearly set up, given the fact that they surveilled him collecting a gun but didn't apprehend him nor the supplier at that point... A.


This is a very good point. The police's own story contains this central question - why did they let him take the gun away with him? Arresting him then and there would have meant charging him with something far more serious than anything he had ever been convicted for previously. 

However, it is not a fact that he did this. The police -  those same lying, self-serving police - say that he did this. Very different thing.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Jan 10, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Criminals and terrorists dont play by any rules so not get protection by the rules.



What about suspects yet to see a court room? 

How many more deaths without bothering with the judicial process will it take until this may be seen as 'a bit much'?

And fuck off with your 'hostage situation' trying to twist it even further. This is about armed police killing unarmed individuals on the street who are unlikely to survive due to the nature of the ammo used. Any reaction to a hostage situation would be well planned out and so have time to decide if other ammo was more suitable.

I think the the obvious point the thread is showing that the scum don't play by the rules, far fucking from it. In doing so they make a mockery of them more than any civvy could.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 10, 2014)

Filth whinging on again to the Guardian...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/10/mark-duggan-metropolitan-police-fiirearms-chief



> In a Guardian interview, Commander Neil Basu condemned a "ground swell of opinion" that his officers should automatically be treated as criminals for opening fire during the course of their lawful duties..... "As head of armed policing in London this has been an extremely difficult experience, but an awful experience for the family," Basu added.



...and this is Basu (apparently) siding with the family...



> But in a surprise intervention Basu, commander for armed policing in London, sided with the Duggan family in condemning as distasteful some media comments suggesting Duggan deserved to be shot because of his alleged criminal past....
> Basu criticised media comment suggesting Duggan deserved to be shot because he was a "gangster"....._*Basu said: "I don't think anyone deserve to die because they are a 'gangster', I think that is distasteful."*_



So still ramming that story home, then Basu?

ACAlyingB


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2014)

About Mark's age. He was 29. Handling stolen goods was the only thing on his criminal record, aside from possession of cannabis. Nothing violent and nothing serious. He'd never been in jail.

And yet … he was one of Europe's 46 most dangerous criminals. He was 29 - presumably he'd been going for a few years already working his way up to supercriminal status, and all without a single conviction for anything violent at all.

It's an odd one to claim - to make this claim is to admit that you (the police) are utter failures in your job. It is to make yourself look silly if it's true. It's what politicians do when caught out - ask people to believe that they are morons rather than cunts. But this is not an individual politician. It is the whole Met police. Making something up that makes them look like fools, they find themselves in such a desperate hole. .

And if they had any real muck on him, they would have been leaking it like mad for ages. But they don't. So they haven't. The opposite is happening. The likes of the Mail are making far more moderate claims now than they were - someone's told them that the stuff they were reporting two years ago was bullshit. They are just resorting to simple racism now.

Let's not forget Kevin Hutchinson-Foster, too. Jailed for 11 years on the back of perjured testimony from the police.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

> Prime Minister David Cameron welcomed [plebgate plod's] guilty plea but said it was "completely unacceptable for a serving police officer to falsify an account of any incident".



Utterly staggering that he can say such things with a straight face.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 10, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> Utterly staggering that he can say such things with a straight face.


'Black day for the met' a headline on the BBC front page. Of Mark Duggan, not a single word today on the front page. I looked quite thoroughly thinking there must be somewhere.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 10, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Filth whinging on again to the Guardian...
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/10/mark-duggan-metropolitan-police-fiirearms-chief



I think we can all agree that gun cops are the true victims in this whole sorry affair.


----------



## kikiscrumbles (Jan 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> About Mark's age. He was 29. Handling stolen goods was the only thing on his criminal record, aside from possession of cannabis. Nothing violent and nothing serious. He'd never been in jail.
> 
> And yet … he was one of Europe's 46 most dangerous criminals. He was 29 - presumably he'd been going for a few years already working his way up to supercriminal status, and all without a single conviction for anything violent at all.
> 
> ...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 10, 2014)

likesfish said:


> i used to be the one on the right with the scarf



I always had you down as more of a Corporal Jones figure.

And reading Violent Panda's posts in your head in the voice of Sergeant Wilson works uncannily well


----------



## Lemon Eddy (Jan 10, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The *excuse* for use is the former, the actual reason is the latter.



You use hollow point because it's the best compromise for both of the above points.  If you just want maximum trauma and damn the collateral, you use jacketed with a larger calibre.  That way you'd still inflict overkill levels of trauma, and not have a problem if you were shooting at someone either armoured or in a car.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 10, 2014)

kikiscrumbles said:


> Lads lads lads - are you through with all the ammo porn yet? Is nobody else listening open-mouthed at the ASTONISHING PR coup of creating a Posh-o Tory news story spin to distract the masses from all this? I mean... 'But how can we possibly trust the police now?' (then stern radio 4 voice intones) 'A Tory politician has lost his career.. a policeman his job.' Then the pretty posh blonde daughter sobs - quite literally, Mr Plebgate's daughter said just now: 'All of a sudden, we realised something was very, very wrong - that we could no longer trust the police. It was simply devastating for our family, I don't think we'll recover...'
> 
> FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK - It seems they are going to punish a polis for fibbing a bit about a shouty sweary posh-o (who freely admits to 'fucking' but not 'plebs').
> Yet the LYING BASTARDS who colluded in the murder of a man they had every chance to arrest and bring to trial - and who they clearly set up, given the fact that they surveilled him collecting a gun but didn't apprehend him nor the supplier at that point... ACH!! words fail me. It's all just as cynical as I suspected. It's truly despair-making. Would be ironic or summat if it weren't so just awful. Sad slump...




100%

As many times as I hear a conspiracy to execute Duggan a voice says, "No, must have been an cock up and cover up."

Then another voice says, "Wake up you silly cunt, Hillsborough."

And I realise all my ACAB has not nearly been even fucking close to how fucked these wankers we appoint and pay to look after us are.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 10, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Arresting him then and there would have meant charging him with something far more serious than anything he had ever been convicted for previously.



Needs repeating.

I've been nicked far many times than this 'gangstar'. Most of my mates have. None of us could remotely be classed as gangsters.


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 10, 2014)

Just read a comment elsewhere that chilled me to the bone. If they can stitch up and conspire to lie about a white, middle class, middle-aged Tory MP like Andrew Mitchell what fucking chance do I and other black men have?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 10, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> 100%
> 
> As many times as I hear a conspiracy to execute Duggan a voice says, "No, must have been an cock up and cover up."
> 
> ...



We don't appoint them, _they_ do.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 10, 2014)

BlackArab said:


> Just read a comment elsewhere that chilled me to the bone. If they can stitch up and conspire to lie about a white, middle class, middle-aged Tory MP like Andrew Mitchell what fucking chance do I and other black men have?



They're out of control.

And have been for years.

Blair Peach was battered to death less that 1/2 a mile from me when I was five.

When I was thirtynine the Met finally admitted one of their officers murdered him, but dismissed any investigation as it was all too long ago.

Yvonne Fletcher's killer is still being actively hunted. In spite of the time-frames being similar and the target not being a former civil servant of the UK whose name and address we know


----------



## andysays (Jan 10, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> They're out of control.
> 
> And have been for years.
> 
> ...



Have I misunderstood this, or are you suggesting the the Met have specifically admitted that Blair Peach was murdered, and that they know the name etc of the person responsible?

I remember posting on the Guardian when the Ian Tomlinson case was going on about that case, saying that he can been murdered by a member of the SPG and my comments were removed for being defamatory 

I thought at the time that I was chancing my arm, at least in legal terms, but maybe I was on safer ground than I knew...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 10, 2014)

BlackArab said:


> Just read a comment elsewhere that chilled me to the bone. If they can stitch up and conspire to lie about a white, middle class, middle-aged Tory MP like Andrew Mitchell what fucking chance do I and other black men have?




One example of a realisation that most Black men in this country and beyond experience at one point or another imo, triggered by cases like this or by their own individual experiences.


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 10, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> They're out of control.
> 
> And have been for years.
> 
> ...



I've been waiting 30 years for them to admit murdering Colin Roach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Colin_Roach (edited to add missing word, apols my typing goes to pot when I get angry)


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 10, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> One example of a realisation that most Black men in this country and beyond experience at one point or another imo, triggered by cases like this or by their own individual experiences.


 
and they wonder why black men will try and run sometimes when stopped even if they are guilty of no crime, it's the potential crime that could be committed against us we're worried about.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2014)

BlackArab said:


> and they wonder why black men will try and run sometimes when stopped even if they are guilty of no crime, it's the potential crime that could be committed against us we're worried about.


The only eye witness we have says that Mark looked 'baffled'. That sticks with me.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 11, 2014)

BlackArab said:


> and they wonder why black men will try and run sometimes when stopped even if they are guilty of no crime, it's the potential crime that could be committed against us we're worried about.




I once had a policeman ask me this as I berated him for yet again harrassing the young guys who lived around my estate in Haggerston.... His exact words were _'...if they've done nothing wrong, why are they running...?'_ I asked _'If they've done nothing wrong why are you chasing them..?_' His response was _'Erm...'_ I then said '_exactly, because you can, it's your favorite sport and they don't want to play your games..'_ I didn't wait around for his response.


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The only eye witness we have says that Mark looked 'baffled'. That sticks with me.



I've been fortunate not to be stopped too often in my life but on the two occasions I've been stopped at night with no witnesses present, the sheer terror in my eyes has meant they have had to calm me down before I could be questioned and this is in Bristol. The stories I used to read in the Voice about black men and the Met was one of the things that put me off moving to London when I was older.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 11, 2014)

BlackArab said:


> I've been fortunate not to be stopped too often in my life but on the two occasions I've been stopped at night with no witnesses present, the sheer terror in my eyes has meant they have had to calm me down before I could be questioned and this is in Bristol. The stories I used to read in the Voice about black men and the Met was one of the things that put me off moving to London when I was older.




Such an important point. The psychological damage that can be and is done even to those like yourself who by your own admission haven't been stopped that much yourself. Darcus Howe nailed it when in an interview during the riots of 2011 said that his grandson and peers were internalising being stopped and searched/harrassed by police in London as a 'rite of passage'...a truly sickening and saddening reality.


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 11, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> I once had a policeman ask me this as I berated him for yet again harrassing the young guys who lived around my estate in Haggerston.... His exact words were _'...if they've done nothing wrong, why are they running...?'_ I asked _'If they've done nothing wrong why are you chasing them..?_' His response was _'Erm...'_ I then said '_exactly, because you can, it's your favorite sport and they don't want to play your games..'_ I didn't wait around for his response.



Lucky you were a female, when I was younger I wouldn't have dared berating a policeman.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 11, 2014)

BlackArab said:


> Lucky you were a female, when I was younger I wouldn't have dared berating a policeman.



I used to do it a lot actually. I lived on the ground floor and I was often outside during the day/evening or woken up at night by the police screeching into the estate or simply pulling lads over outside my bedroom window. I know being female was a factor, my age too. But I couldn't ignore it, many of the lads around there I had known or seen since they were small kids. A lot of times I would simply watch and refuse to move on/close the window or other times have a go at the police if they were getting rough/physical because they thought no one was watching.


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 11, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Such an important point. The psychological damage than can be and is done even to those like yourself who by your own admission haven't been stopped that much yourself. Darcus Howe nailed it when in an interview during the riots of 2011 said that his grandson and peers were internalising being stopped and search/harrassed by police in London as a 'rite of passage'...a truly sickening and saddening reality.



A mate of mine used to keep all his documents in his car as he was stopped so often it saved him the hassle of getting a producer and having to go down the nick. Another one who was arrested for breaking into his own house despite having a key and offering to take them inside and show them his photos on the mantelpiece to prove he lived there. His dad made a complaint and he actually received a letter of apology. He took to carrying the letter in his wallet to show the police every time he got stopped after that. White lads we went to college with were skeptical until he showed them the letter and then they said he shouldn't stand for it, we were gobsmacked that they were so naive.


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 11, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> I used to do it a lot actually. I lived on the ground floor and I was often outside during the day/evening or woken up at night by the police screeching into the estate or simply pulling lads over outside my bedroom window. I know being female was a factor, my age too. But I couldn't ignore it, many of the lads around there I had known or seen since they were small kids. A lot of times I would simply watch and refuse to move on/close the window or other times have a go at the police if they were getting rough/physical because they thought no one was watching.



It's sad but one of the few apps I have on my phone is one which gives you details of your legal rights in the event of stop and search. I found it via twitter @stopnsearchapp if anyone needs it. Covers street searches, vehicle stops and rights re taking photos.


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 11, 2014)

Really wishing I hadn't mentioned producers as now I have the Smiley Culture song going through my head which isn't helping my current mood. 

RIP Smiley.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 11, 2014)

BlackArab said:


> Really wishing I hadn't mentioned producers as now I have the Smiley Culture song going through my head which isn't helping my current mood.
> 
> RIP Smiley.



Innit! Been happening to me since I was a kid playing that track...takes on new ugliness as an adult and knowing how he met his end.


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 11, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Innit! Been happening to me since I was a kid playing that track...takes on new ugliness as an adult and knowing how he met his end.



It really has become unlistenable hasn't it. Used to love that song but don't think I could play it now without breaking down.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 11, 2014)

BlackArab said:


> It really has become unlistenable hasn't it. Used to love that song but don't think I could play it now without breaking down.



Is it 'tragic irony'?...The playful boastfulness of that track, jokingly making a very serious point about what was the SUS...all of that turned into something much more sinister. Same as it ever was.


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 11, 2014)

Just remembered being at sister's place for Christmas a few years ago and watching the dvd of Babylon that I had bought her. It got to the bit where Brinsley Forde's character is being chased by the police and my ten year old nephew pipes up and asks why he is running if he doesn't anything. I'll never forget the looks of shock and shaking of heads that passed between me, my sister and my brother-in-law as we silently agreed that he was too young, sweet and innocent to be told the truth.


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 11, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Is it 'tragic irony'?...The playful boastfulness of that track, jokingly making a very serious point about what was the SUS...all of that turned into something much more sinister. Same as it ever was.



It's shocking now that this was such a normal occurrence someone could actually make a humorous song about it and that we would dance and sing along to it with smiles on our faces.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 11, 2014)

BlackArab said:


> It's shocking now that this was such a normal occurrence someone could actually make a humorous song about it and that we would dance and sing along to it with smiles on our faces.



Those smiles were never about happiness, in the _real _sense of the word. That for me has always been about recognition/validation IMO, warts and all. Humour is a common way to deal with such things.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 11, 2014)

Stab wound to the heart. 

Perhaps he should have shown proper respect to our brave police officers ... 

*puke*


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 11, 2014)

I guess it's a survival instinct to use humour about situations like this. Racial prejudice has always been a fertile topic for some black and Jewish comedians.

(edited to add, great minds think alike!)


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 11, 2014)

My mate is speaking tomorrow at the protest.RIP Mark


----------



## Anonymous1 (Jan 11, 2014)

Someone embedded a video the other day (apologies can't be arsed trawling pages on a hunt) Riot from Wrong.	  
Just had a look and i thought it was a good watch, it lays out the severe cuts to youth services, 8 of 13 local youth centres closed, cuts to ema and increasing tuition fees etc and of the disenchantment that bred. Quite different to the msm's "looting for trainers/tv's" and Camerons "feral youth" outcries.  Nothing people here won't know about but it's well made and worth a peek.


----------



## miktheword (Jan 11, 2014)

BlackArab said:


> It's shocking now that this was such a normal occurrence someone could actually make a humorous song about it and that we would dance and sing along to it with smiles on our faces.





I remember playing the toon whilst handing back A level essays to white flight  Essex sociology  students studying race,police  and crime, mid 90s.
 doubt  if many  heard of his fate. although  they were  visibly shocked after  watching  trevor  Phillips  London programme on racism with  hidden  cameras . 

 nephew, professional footballer , stopped  in all white Hampshire  village within days of turning  pro and getting  a bmw, ob were fans of his non league  club,,when realising, asked for photo;   fast forward 6 years, few  weeks  back ,plays for London  championship club, driving through  west London, behind girlfriend s car, ob cut in, drive at 25mph, then stop  him asking  'why u driving  up our arse?'..checked license , admitted  to being  fans of his club...asked for and got photos .
i' vetold him bout his rights , will give him that app (remember him getting  stopped  leaving  in same  motor  following being  at celebrity juice  few months  back. Now , I need  to make sure he knows  of cockney translator / smiley.  defoe got worse treatment  recently . they  call it profiling  or something , I believe .


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 11, 2014)

Anonymous1 said:


> Someone embedded a video the other day (apologies can't be arsed trawling pages on a hunt) Riot from Wrong.
> Just had a look and i thought it was a good watch, it lays out the severe cuts to youth services, 8 of 13 local youth centres closed, cuts to ema and increasing tuition fees etc and of the disenchantment that bred. Quite different to the msm's "looting for trainers/tv's" and Camerons "feral youth" outcries.  Nothing people here won't know about but it's well made and worth a peek.



I work for a family & youth charity and am currently trying to keep the last youth centre in the area open. It was closed for most of the first six months of the year and I have seen the crime figures in this area rise and yet I am still trying to convince people of the benefits of keeping it open. The irony is every day I do my best to cut govt expenditure on prisons which is far more expensive than keeping kids off the streets.


----------



## ska invita (Jan 11, 2014)

a mate of mines older brother joined the police, amiable guy, quite innocent - ended up on a bus incident response team - saw him a year in and he said he was shocked how much racism there was in the force, behind closed doors talk, this was early 2000s, he was thinking about leaving because of the culture


----------



## Anonymous1 (Jan 11, 2014)

BlackArab said:


> I work for a family & youth charity and am currently trying to keep the last youth centre in the area open. It was closed for most of the first six months of the year and I have seen the crime figures in this area rise and yet I am still trying to convince people of the benefits of keeping it open. The irony is every day I do my best to cut govt expenditure on prisons which is far more expensive than keeping kids off the streets.



Prisons are a money spinner though, maybe if they started privatising yoof centres they'd be worth the effort .


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 11, 2014)

Anonymous1 said:


> Prisons are a money spinner though, maybe if they started privatising yoof centres they'd be worth the effort .



They privatised the youth service already and are trying to now transfer the centres to the voluntary sector to run. I'm bidding along with others to keep i open. You would have thought they would have learnt after the three riots the area had in 2011.


----------



## Anonymous1 (Jan 11, 2014)

Ffs, that was only a throw away comment.

I don't know the ins and outs of your service/area but where they would normally ,at least claim to, "slash and burn" and see who and where survives/thrives has now become "frenzied slashing and stabbing" incase the monster survives. 
It's just a fucking pity that 'monster' is the poorest communities/children in the country, and the slash and burn isn't capitalism in action i.e failing/growing business' etc but facilities that not only help young ones grow through socialising but offer some immediate safety/shelter they might not find elsewhere.

I'm sure they'll figure it all out after the next riots. If not then at least start by addressing the situation seriously and in good faith rather than sweep it all under the rug. or maybe they'll just buy a bigger rug.


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 11, 2014)

kikiscrumbles said:


> Lads lads lads - are you through with all the ammo porn yet? Is nobody else listening open-mouthed at the ASTONISHING PR coup of creating a Posh-o Tory news story spin to distract the masses from all this? I mean... 'But how can we possibly trust the police now?' (then stern radio 4 voice intones) 'A Tory politician has lost his career.. a policeman his job.' Then the pretty posh blonde daughter sobs - quite literally, Mr Plebgate's daughter said just now: 'All of a sudden, we realised something was very, very wrong - that we could no longer trust the police. It was simply devastating for our family, I don't think we'll recover...'
> 
> FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK - It seems they are going to punish a polis for fibbing a bit about a shouty sweary posh-o (who freely admits to 'fucking' but not 'plebs').
> Yet the LYING BASTARDS who colluded in the murder of a man they had every chance to arrest and bring to trial - and who they clearly set up, given the fact that they surveilled him collecting a gun but didn't apprehend him nor the supplier at that point... ACH!! words fail me. It's all just as cynical as I suspected. It's truly despair-making. Would be ironic or summat if it weren't so just awful. Sad slump...



top notch post


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> Have I misunderstood this, or are you suggesting the the Met have specifically admitted that Blair Peach was murdered, and that they know the name etc of the person responsible?
> 
> I remember posting on the Guardian when the Ian Tomlinson case was going on about that case, saying that he can been murdered by a member of the SPG and my comments were removed for being defamatory
> 
> I thought at the time that I was chancing my arm, at least in legal terms, but maybe I was on safer ground than I knew...




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Blair_Peach



> The Metropolitan Police reports into the death of Blair Peach, identifying the probable responsibility of one of their own officers, were made available to the public on 27 April 2010...The Metropolitan Police report stated that an SPG policeman, identified as Officer E, was “almost certainly” the one whose assault killed Peach.[12] Alan Murray, at the time an inspector in charge of SPG Unit One and now a lecturer in Accounting and Corporate Responsibility at Sheffield University,[22] has admitted that he believes himself to be Officer E



Sadly of course the key witnesses are from a group who don't talk to the police, the police.


----------



## andysays (Jan 11, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Blair_Peach
> 
> Sadly of course the key witnesses are from a group who don't talk to the police, the police.



Thanks for that. I was unaware that the person likely to have been responsible had been identified.

There's nothing there to indicate that the Met agree that it was murder though, which was the inference I drew from your post (my mistake). I'm sure they would still argue it was another lawful killing...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> Thanks for that. I was unaware that the person likely to have been responsible had been identified.
> 
> There's nothing there to indicate that the Met agree that it was murder though, which was the inference I drew from your post (my mistake). I'm sure they would still argue it was another lawful killing...



They have basically admitted that he was assaulted by a cop and as a result of that assault he died; that's as close an admission to murder as we'll ever hear from those fuckers. But they say it's too long ago to investigate, especially as the witnesses were all coppers and so won't help in a murder investigation.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2014)

same deal for tomlinson. Unlawful killing, nobody held to account for it.


----------



## Libertad (Jan 11, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> [snip]
> 
> Sadly of course the key witnesses are from a group who don't talk to the police, the police.



Yep and there we have it.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 11, 2014)

Who polices the police?my mate produced this leaflet for the protest this afternoon. 

http://disillusionedmarxist.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/tmp_whopolicesthepolice-2-23123740.pdf


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jan 11, 2014)

The readers comments and letters section of newspapers and the bile against the duggan family from some commentators - e.g littlejohn and charles moore in the telegraph (referring to how we shouldn't pussyfoot around the feelings of the 'duggan clan') - all promote a disgusting dehumanisation of the victim and his family. The theme is very much that they are underclass scum, he thoroughly deserved to be gunned down and how dare his family be angry at the brave policeforce. 

At the same time we are being treated to establishment outrage at the police's stitching up at a man of such standing as andrew mitchell.

The message given to the young black working class men couldn't really be clearer.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2014)

ITV were brilliantly lacking in self awareness last night. Running the Duggan verdict story almost without comment on police trust, directly after the plebgate story where talking heads lined up to wring hands about how this represents a fundamental breach in the trust of police probity etc

one law for the rich eh


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2014)

Beautiful day here in Tottenham, can't make the vigil as I'm waiting for a friend to come over, will update the thread if things get lively


----------



## DRINK? (Jan 11, 2014)

Why are the RMT and NUT at this peaceful vigil with unrelated banners?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2014)

DRINK? said:


> Why are the RMT and NUT at this peaceful vigil with unrelated banners?


i don't know, why are the rmt and nut at this peaceful vigil with unrelated banners?


----------



## DRINK? (Jan 11, 2014)

Parasitic?


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 11, 2014)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Blair_Peach
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly of course the key witnesses are from a group who don't talk to the police, the police.


Iirc, Blair Peach's murderer is now a lecturer at Sheffield University. Seriously.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2014)

DRINK? said:


> Parasitic?


new jokes thread >>>


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 11, 2014)

LKJ's License Fi Kill says it all.


----------



## andysays (Jan 11, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Iirc, Blair Peach's murderer is now a lecturer at Sheffield University. Seriously.



In corporate responsibility, no less...


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2014)

DRINK? said:


> Parasitic?




you spelt solidarity wrong


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 11, 2014)

andysays said:


> In corporate responsibility, no less...


Indeed. Fucking perverse or what?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 11, 2014)

I'm going out in a bit, stay safe everyone.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 11, 2014)

s


DRINK? said:


> Why are the RMT and NUT at this peaceful vigil with unrelated banners?[/quote
> 
> solidarit perhaps, that good old fashioned principle that many seem unaware of these days


----------



## shygirl (Jan 11, 2014)

DRINK? said:


> Why are the RMT and NUT at this peaceful vigil with unrelated banners?



its called solidarity


----------



## redcogs (Jan 11, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Iirc, Blair Peach's murderer is now a lecturer at Sheffield University. Seriously.



Sheffield Uni might be able to find a post for Comrade Delta at some stage?


----------



## J Ed (Jan 11, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> The readers comments and letters section of newspapers and the bile against the duggan family from some commentators - e.g littlejohn and charles moore in the telegraph (referring to how we shouldn't pussyfoot around the feelings of the 'duggan clan') - all promote a disgusting dehumanisation of the victim and his family. The theme is very much that they are underclass scum, he thoroughly deserved to be gunned down and how dare his family be angry at the brave policeforce.
> 
> At the same time we are being treated to establishment outrage at the police's stitching up at a man of such standing as andrew mitchell.
> 
> The message given to the young black working class men couldn't really be clearer.



How else could you possibly justify what is happening? If Mark Duggan and Andrew Mitchell were regarded equally then it would be impossible.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 11, 2014)

Looks from Twitter that today's demo/vigil is yet another SWP branded enterprise


----------



## DRINK? (Jan 11, 2014)

Swp flogging papers... This solidarity brings a tear to my eye


----------



## shygirl (Jan 11, 2014)

DRINK? said:


> Swp flogging papers... This solidarity brings a tear to my eye




hater


----------



## hipipol (Jan 11, 2014)

filth shoot dead an unarmed man then go free
The same story I've heard all my life
Meantime the elite whine about doubts re filth trust index for toffs
proper groundhog day/year/life


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2014)

its a cheap smear anyway- gove did the same at a teachers protest, used the presence of a few swappie placards to sneeringly dismiss the whole mass of protestors as 'trots'. Standard arch sneering from 'public school gangster' DRINK? though. Blokes a bugle


----------



## Belushi (Jan 11, 2014)

Sirens! Heading towards the high road but might not be connected.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 11, 2014)

My daughter goes to school in Tottenham. I was glad to see NUT banners at the vigil.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 11, 2014)

Just seen C4 news , they seemed disappointed that more than a few went home before they transmitted live at 4.30.

A few hundred ....somewhat less than expected apparently.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 11, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Just seen C4 news , they seemed disappointed that more than a few went home before they transmitted live at 4.30.
> 
> A few hundred ....somewhat less than expected apparently.



I'd say there was at least 1000 there at peak time. Maybe a lot more.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jan 11, 2014)

DRINK? said:


> Swp flogging papers... This solidarity brings a tear to my eye


The SWP are against the bourgeois justice system.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 11, 2014)

Maybe C4 were given the count by the police


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I'd say there was at least 1000 there at peak time. Maybe a lot more.




the usual downcount taken from OB estimates I suppose? Jus like the 'tense and hostile' atmosphere the press often attribute to the most convivial of protest marches/vigils/etc


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 11, 2014)

I wouldn't swear to it, but no way was it 200.

ETA BBC is saying 500, so I'd expect it to be more. http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25686732


----------



## kraepelin (Jan 11, 2014)

[/quote]

That has to be one of the sickest !!! things i've ever seen.Even if Mark had been a "gangster" which i've seen no proof of. That woman lost her son, which no mother should ever live to see

And that cunt littlejohn attacks her as if she was a fictional character and not a living person.

What a sick twisted person he is.If thats what he willing to put in print imagine what he really thinks.
I thought we had move on as a society, but if you can print that in a national paper, we are truely fucked


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2014)

sleaterkinney said:


> The SWP are against the bourgeois justice system.


tbh i thought the consensus was that their alternative hadn't been found entirely satisfactory


----------



## Dexter Deadwood (Jan 11, 2014)

Fuck Littlejohn.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2014)

Dexter Deadwood said:


> Fuck Littlejohn.


you don't know what you'd catch


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh i thought the consensus was that their alternative hadn't been found entirely satisfactory



I dunno. Denunciations, show trials and gulags have been getting a bad rap lately but it's certainly cheaper, at least until you get to the point where you've got no taxpayers left because you've killed them all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> I dunno. Denunciations, show trials and gulags have been getting a bad rap lately but it's certainly cheaper, at least until you get to the point where you've got no taxpayers left because you've killed them all.


no, i meant their internal courts for their recent, er, local difficulty


----------



## Limerick Red (Jan 11, 2014)

Would have said maybe 500 myself,was expecting a bigger turnout.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> Would have said maybe 500 myself,was expecting a bigger turnout.


i think the police emphasis that 'these people are rioters in waiting' probably put a lot of people off. also first nice saturday in ages, so people probably decided to do other things. very quiet at work today.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jan 11, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> no, i meant their internal courts for their recent, er, local difficulty



Yes that was one of the most shameful fiascoes I've ever seen. Tallies with the accounts I've heard from several women who were briefly involved in the SWP but had to leave because of the sheer level of sexism they experienced.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2014)

kraepelin said:


>



That has to be one of the sickest !!! things i've ever seen.Even if Mark had been a "gangster" which i've seen no proof of. That woman lost her son, which no mother should ever live to see

And that cunt littlejohn attacks her as if she was a fictional character and not a living person.

What a sick twisted person he is.If thats what he willing to put in print imagine what he really thinks.
I thought we had move on as a society, but if you can print that in a national paper, we are truely fucked[/quote]


Littlewit lives in a gated community in LA and sells vile opinion pieces to the daily mail who keep publishing him because he strikes a tone some people are glad to hear. He's got fuck all to do with real opinions- theres dyed in the blue wool tories who would go 'steady on' at his shittest pieces. The mans a fucking joke and hopefully will be targeted by a reaper drone by accident


----------



## treelover (Jan 11, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Won't be a proper RL success unless she kills herself. Doubtless if she complains to the PCC then fuck all will happen.




Just read this, its horrendous, how does he get away with it, anyway, she is much more articulate than that creature...


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 11, 2014)

We went on the protest, nobody flogging papers or anything, quite a lot of public support


----------



## kraepelin (Jan 11, 2014)

Respect for going froggy.Was there much of a racial divide, I was listening to the radio and they were playing it like the whole O.J, Trayvon Martin where there was a pretty stark divide on based on race

But the area Mark was from is pretty integrated.

Surely he is seen as a son of the area


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 11, 2014)

kraepelin said:


> Respect for going froggy.Was there much of a racial divide, I was listening to the radio and they were playing it like the whole O.J, Trayvon Martin where there was a pretty stark divide on based on race
> 
> But the area Mark was from is pretty integrated.
> 
> Surely he is seen as a son of the area



It was a really small protest where I was (Oxford) but we had lots of public support


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 11, 2014)

The London one was pretty good on race/gender/age balance fwiw.

Good to see speakers from the Turkish community and also the Hillsborough campaign.


----------



## salem (Jan 11, 2014)

kraepelin said:


> Respect for going froggy.Was there much of a racial divide, I was listening to the radio and they were playing it like the whole O.J, Trayvon Martin where there was a pretty stark divide on based on race
> 
> But the area Mark was from is pretty integrated.
> 
> Surely he is seen as a son of the area


I should hope so, the guy was as much white as black and I'm not aware of anything to suggest that he was shot for being black so its a shame that some elements of the media and community are pushing it as a race thing.


----------



## Limerick Red (Jan 11, 2014)

kraepelin said:


> Respect for going froggy.Was there much of a racial divide, I was listening to the radio and they were playing it like the whole O.J, Trayvon Martin where there was a pretty stark divide on based on race
> 
> But the area Mark was from is pretty integrated.
> 
> Surely he is seen as a son of the area


The London demo was very mixed and as you describe representative of the area.family members and speakers spoke of orgreave,hillsborough,Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4,travellers, there was a speaker from the Kurdish community, there was a real sense that this keeps happening over and over again in working class communities,and while undoubtably the black members of our communities get a ridiculasly high portion of the shit dealt out, that the thing that binds all the mentioned incidents is poverty, and class.


----------



## salem (Jan 11, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Beautiful day here in Tottenham, can't make the vigil as I'm waiting for a friend to come over, will update the thread if things get lively





Belushi said:


> Sirens! Heading towards the high road but might not be connected.



Fingers crossed  We really need to divide people right now! Fight the power!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2014)

salem said:


> I should hope so, the guy was as much white as black and I'm not aware of anything to suggest that he was shot for being black so its a shame that some elements of the media and community are pushing it as a race thing.


He was under surveillance from Trident, which until 2012 “focused primarily on gun crime and homicide within the black community”, indicating that the Met certainly considered him to be ‘black’.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> detective boy's input here is sorely missed


He's currently popping veins over this on twitter.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 11, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> He's currently popping veins over this on twitter.




I assume he supports the shooters?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> He was under surveillance from Trident.


... according to the police. I've yet to see them produce anything specific to back it up.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 11, 2014)




----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 11, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> He's currently popping veins over this on twitter.



PM me


----------



## brogdale (Jan 11, 2014)

Yet more evidence of the Met's instinctive tendancy to close ranks and lie.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/12/police-mark-duggan-risk-disorder



> _Police knew that the shooting of Mark Duggan risked triggering wider disorder, despite Scotland Yard's later claim that the Tottenham riots that spread across England could not have been predicted, the Observer can reveal.
> 
> Extra security measures were ordered by senior officers on the night of Duggan's death in August 2011, including the instruction that fire engines and ambulances were not to attend calls from potential flashpoints without police authorisation. Local police stations were told to increase the security of their back gates and riot police were ordered not to drive around due to the risk of being embroiled in further incidents.
> 
> *The steps taken in the immediate aftermath of the death of the father-of-six at the hands of an armed officer have not previously been made public, despite an independent inquiry and a police report into the handling of the riots. Until now the police have insisted that they had no intelligence that could have allowed them to predict the initial disorder in Tottenham*, which led to the deaths of five people, an estimated £500m of damage and more than 4,000 arrests across the country._



And they ask for respect from 'the community'.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ... according to the police. I've yet to see them produce anything specific to back it up.


You mean apart from evidence produced or testimony delivered at the inquest, eg

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/1011.htm
http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/CD029532_-_CD029538.pdf
http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/1324.htm
http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/CD032777_-_CD032799A(2).pdf

etc


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Yet more evidence of the Met's instinctive tendancy to close ranks and lie.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/12/police-mark-duggan-risk-disorder
> 
> ...



Given the deployment of SDS into anti-racism groups and the Lawrence family support campaign from 1993 onwards based on this pretext, one wonders whether the Met has been using its Special Projects Team undercovers to do a similar job here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> You mean apart from evidence produced or testimony delivered at the inquest, eg
> 
> http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/1011.htm
> http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/CD029532_-_CD029538.pdf
> ...


The evidence is police records. I'd like to see something that can be independently corroborated. 

But if even some of that is true, it's now time to shut down Operation Trident.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The evidence is police records. I'd like to see something that can be independently corroborated.
> 
> But if even some of that is true, it's now time to shut down Operation Trident.


You claimed there was no evidence that Trident was looking at Duggan before he was killed; I provided a small sample of the heaps put before the inquest.

Now you suggest it was all fabricated?

Odd.

That Trident had files on Duggan doesn't mean that he _was_ Europe's #1 gangster. Nor does it mean that Duggan's death was right, nor that the police narrative was accurate.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jan 11, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> PM me


And me!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 11, 2014)

I am saying that there is no reason to believe that it isn't fabricated. They've had plenty of time. I don't know, but I'm not taking the police's word for it. Some, most or all of it may be fabricated or changed. They're liars.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I am saying that there is no reason to believe that it isn't fabricated.



Probably best that you quietly exit the internet, then. Your blood pressure is unlikely to take it.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 11, 2014)

Orang Utan said:


> And me!


You're a nosy Rosie!


----------



## kraepelin (Jan 11, 2014)

Limerick Red said:


> The London demo was very mixed and as you describe representative of the area.family members and speakers spoke of orgreave,hillsborough,Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4,travellers, there was a speaker from the Kurdish community, there was a real sense that this keeps happening over and over again in working class communities,and while undoubtably the black members of our communities get a ridiculasly high portion of the shit dealt out, that the thing that binds all the mentioned incidents is poverty, and class.


That warms my heart, when i grew up in islington race was still a big deal and most of my friends were black and they wouldn't come and visit as there had be many attacks.
But now the same guys i knew that were racist have black mates and everything is mixed,and the way the media were playing it i thought maybe the divide was still a issue in other parts if london.

I do love that in an area were i use. To hear people singing NF songs.
Now the issue is jobs for the working class instead of jobs for the white working class

Of course me being irish there cockney cunts


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 12, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> That Trident had files on Duggan doesn't mean that he _was_ Europe's #1 gangster. Nor does it mean that Duggan's death was right, nor that the police narrative was accurate.



When it comes to the Met I NEVER trust their narrative.

De Menzies was running away. Had a big thick coat with wires hanging out. Resisted arrest. That materialised to be bollocks. When that was proven to be wrong stuff about him being an illegal immigrant was leaked to the media too.

Duggan came out of the taxi guns blazing-shot an officer-turns out that wasnt true either. The met took what was it 4 days to visit the family-in the meantime they leaked all this unproven gang links info to the media.

Ive seen Duggan described as a thug. A serial gang member. Drug runner. Fact is this is all speculation. It may or may not be true-but its source is highly fucking questionable, and even if it was true-it would appear an unarmed man was gunned down. Frankly I dont give a shit if it was Adolf Hitler gunned down-nothing changes the pertinent facts. An unarmed man stepped out of a vehicle and raised his arms-and paid the ultimate price.

After the riots kicked off every single member of that unit were allowed 8 hours to confer and compile statements. When questioned by the IPCC all the officers chose to make no comment except submit their prepared statements. The taxi that duggan was in (a minefield of forensic evidence) was allowed to be driven away before being returned the next day.

No senior scenes of crime officer was appointed for 48 hours.

This whole incident has cock up written all over it, and taking away the taxi driver, and the ONLY independent witness, we have a bunch of coppers submitting preprepared statements.

One senior met officer was quoted as saying 'This was death by a thousand fuck ups'...to me that says it all.


----------



## laptop (Jan 12, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> One senior met officer was quoted as saying 'This was death by a thousand fuck ups'...



Quoted where?

E2A: Please


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I assume he supports the shooters?


What do you think?


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> He's currently popping veins over this on twitter.



 of course if anyone wound him up a bit over this it wouldn't be a good thing at all.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 12, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> PM me


purrrlease me too 
would love that


----------



## Grandma Death (Jan 12, 2014)

laptop said:


> Quoted where?
> 
> E2A: Please




http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-death-london-riots



> One informed Met source said: "It was death by a thousand fuckups."



A met source sorry


----------



## leanderman (Jan 12, 2014)

Grandma Death said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/08/mark-duggan-death-london-riots
> 
> 
> 
> A met source sorry



Quite a good read. 

It's intriguing that Duggan knew he was being followed by an unmarked Trident car, and sent an encrypted Blackberry message saying so.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 12, 2014)

kraepelin said:


>



That has to be one of the sickest !!! things i've ever seen.Even if Mark had been a "gangster" which i've seen no proof of. That woman lost her son, which no mother should ever live to see

And that cunt littlejohn attacks her as if she was a fictional character and not a living person.

What a sick twisted person he is.If thats what he willing to put in print imagine what he really thinks.
I thought we had move on as a society, but if you can print that in a national paper, we are truely fucked[/quote]

Not that it makes it any better but Littlejohn is referring to the aunty, not the mum.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 12, 2014)

Hmm, the board fucked the quote up there editor . Did the same with dotty's post.


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2014)

My monitor has just screwed up so please report any posts that need the mods' attention. Thanks.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jan 12, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> He's currently popping veins over this on twitter.



<bangs own head repeatedly on table at db's fuckwittery>


----------



## kropotkin (Jan 12, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Quite a good read.
> 
> It's intriguing that Duggan knew he was being followed by an unmarked Trident car, and sent an encrypted Blackberry message saying so.


The fact that a man being followed by an unmarked police car correctly suspects that it is trident should suggest to some of those claiming Duggan was a fitted up normal chap that perhaps he was involved in gun crime. 

Obviously I don't think he should have been executed by the police,  nor that this was other than a poorly covered up fuckup.  I do think that it undermines your case if you pretend he wasn't an anti social shit.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 12, 2014)

kropotkin said:


> The fact that a man being followed by an unmarked police car correctly suspects that it is trident should suggest to some of those claiming Duggan was a fitted up normal chap that perhaps he was involved in gun crime.
> 
> Obviously I don't think he should have been executed by the police,  nor that this was other than a poorly covered up fuckup.  I do think that it undermines your case if you pretend he wasn't an anti social shit.



There is also the fact the convicted (after three trials) supplier of the gun said of Duggan: 'Live by the gun, die by the bullet.'

And Duggan's print being on the gun box (but not gun, or gun sock).

Of course, this means he was unarmed and should have been arrested, not shot.


----------



## Tankus (Jan 12, 2014)

Were there scene of crime photos if the taxi was allowed to drive off ? ( box)


----------



## leanderman (Jan 12, 2014)

Tankus said:


> Were there scene of crime photos if the taxi was allowed to drive off ? ( box)



More incredible incompetence.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 12, 2014)

Once guns are involved and when stopped if the target does anything other than put his hands up immediatly you've a good chance of getting shot.
  Unfortuatly they have done  research that concludes when challenged by armed  police officers the natural response is to turn round not immedialty obey instructions being shouted by hyped up officers.

Short of inventing some sort of stun gun that actually works these sort of shootings will continue


----------



## brogdale (Jan 12, 2014)

likesfish said:


> these sort of shootings will continue



Of course they will, given that agents of the state have been reminded that they are 'lawful' irrespective of the presence of a firearm.


----------



## Sue (Jan 12, 2014)

'MP [Lammy] would not share platform with 'anarchist groups''. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25702948


----------



## Balbi (Jan 12, 2014)

Fucking hell Lammy, that's no way to get the mayoralty.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 12, 2014)

brogdale said:


> Of course they will, given that agents of the state have been reminded that they are 'lawful' irrespective of the presence of a firearm.



You have armed criminals they exsist
 Stopping them means arming police.
 Armed police meet suspects chances o police shooting someone very high.
 Met police get called out several times a day
 They have shot less than ten people in ten years.
  Unless your expecting  armed police to never actually shoot someone your asking for an impossible standard.
  Nobody is ever going to turn around and claim my relative was up to no good so you've got to expect this sort of thing to happen


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 12, 2014)

So much to say about Lammy...

1. What actual anarchist groups were on the platform yesterday? The Hillsborough campaigners? The other families of people who have died in police custody? The priest who buried Mark Duggan?

2. If _no_ jury verdict should be questioned, where does this leave campaigns for justice like the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6. Were they "anarchists" too?

3. Some of Lammy's constituents in Haringey are anarchists who have no criminal records but have been victims of spycops. Is he saying that he wouldn't support them in their quest for justice?

4. Say what you like about anarchists but they will actually provide the sort of scrutiny that the police is not getting from the media, the IPCC or the judicial system. Anarchists were at the forefront of exposing the corruption at Stoke Newington police station in the 80s, triggering the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in November 1991.

5. Whilst we're on the topic of the media presumably Lammy will talk to the Telegraph and the Mail who have printed lies about Mark Duggan and the Duggan family.

I think what we're seeing here is an attempt to criminalise the campaigns for justice for people who have died in police custody. I know which side I'm on.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 12, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> 3. Some of Lammy's constituents in Haringey are anarchists who have no criminal records but have been victims of spycops. Is he saying that he wouldn't support them in their quest for justice?



I think we can all imagine where Lammy stands when it comes to Helen Steel, Dave Morris and the rest of Haringey Community Action on the one side, and lying, cheating, firebombing, child-non-supporting, head-fucking rape cop Bob Lambert and his chums on the other.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 12, 2014)

likesfish said:


> You have armed criminals they exsist
> Stopping them means arming police.
> Armed police meet suspects chances o police shooting someone very high.
> Met police get called out several times a day
> ...



But I was saying, with armed agents of the state shown that they are effectively beyond judicial accountability and censure, this will not be the last killing of an unarmed suspect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2014)

nothing then about his apparent prejudice against people from o/s london working in london?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 12, 2014)

Fozzie Bear said:


> 4. Say what you like about anarchists but they will actually provide the sort of scrutiny that the police is not getting from the media, the IPCC or the judicial system. Anarchists were at the forefront of exposing the corruption at Stoke Newington police station in the 80s, triggering the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in November 1991.



Naturally if Mayor Lammy would commission a proper investigation into the burglary of HCDA's premises around the launch of the Defendants' Information Service, or the burglaries of the offices of the Lawrence Inquiry and its members shortly before the release of the final report; all illegal acts against organisations concerned with social justice where there has been strong evidence pointing towards the involvement of Special Branch or similar...


----------



## leanderman (Jan 12, 2014)

likesfish said:


> You have armed criminals they exsist
> Stopping them means arming police.
> Armed police meet suspects chances o police shooting someone very high.
> Met police get called out several times a day
> ...



Agreed, mistakes will happen.

So, for me, it's a question of whether our police are more murderously trigger-happy and incompetent than other similar forces. And whether our courts and watchdogs are effective.

I don't know the answer to that. 

Ten sounds a low figure in a decade. But maybe it is zero in Paris, for example.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jan 12, 2014)

Sue said:


> 'MP [Lammy] would not share platform with 'anarchist groups''.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25702948



What a bell-end.

His own personal political position (and his views on 'anarchist groups') aside, why isn't he doing his fucking job of providing advocacy and support to his constituents and community?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 12, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> What a bell-end.
> 
> His own personal political position (and his views on 'anarchist groups') aside, why isn't he doing his fucking job of providing advocacy and support to his constituents and community?



I think he would reply "Because of those awful anarchists. They're _preventing _me from doing my job of providing advocacy."


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 12, 2014)

Lammy's doesn't know shite from shinola. He's a complete fuckwit.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 12, 2014)

nino_savatte said:


> Lammy's doesn't know shite from shinola. He's a complete fuckwit.


Perfect material for Mayor then!


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 12, 2014)

To quote Refused, formerly of this parish (via twitter):



> i'm guessing the swp will be really hacked off that anarchists have stolen their limelight. AGAIN.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 12, 2014)

eatmorecheese said:


> What a bell-end.
> 
> His own personal political position (and his views on 'anarchist groups') aside, why isn't he doing his fucking job of providing advocacy and support to his constituents and community?



Because he knows he doesn't have to to get re-elected in Tottenham.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jan 12, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Because he knows he doesn't have to to get re-elected in Tottenham.



Ah, of course! So much for the concept of vocation and duty when you're on the careerist trip...


----------



## IC3D (Jan 12, 2014)

Lammy has always been absent on any issue involving self organised workers in Haringey.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Once guns are involved and when stopped if the target does anything other than put his hands up immediatly you've a good chance of getting shot.
> Unfortuatly they have done  research that concludes when challenged by armed  police officers the natural response is to turn round not immedialty obey instructions being shouted by hyped up officers.
> 
> Short of inventing some sort of stun gun that actually works these sort of shootings will continue



What are the chances that a hyped-up person pointing a gun at someone will panic and shoot anyway. The first shot almost missed him, after all, suggesting a state of panic. The copper appears to have gathered himself for the second shot, which went right through the heart.

_If_ this is what happened - he was shot by a hyped-up copper who panicked - and _if_ some parts of the police reports are true and he had just picked up a gun, then the gun must have been in the box in the boot, and they must have taken it out of the box and planted it afterwards.

The fog of lies makes surmising even the above questionable if you disregard uncorroborated police records as worthless. It's the most charitable plausible scenario, though, even if you believe that it is only the coppers who were there that are totally lying, and there might be some truth in some of what others have said.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jan 12, 2014)

I know Peter Hitchens is paid to be stupid, but this is really pushing it:



> It was ‘compassion’ that abolished the death penalty for murder, so forcing us to arm the police – who had until then been guarded from violent criminals by the real threat of the gallows.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...k-Duggan-50-years-liberal-compassion-did.html

So no police officer fired a gun or was killed on duty before the abolition of the death penalty. If only we had records, old newspaper articles or some other way of checking this.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 12, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> To quote Refused, formerly of this parish (via twitter):





Damarr said:


> I know Peter Hitchens is paid to be stupid, but this is really pushing it:
> 
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...k-Duggan-50-years-liberal-compassion-did.html
> ...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 12, 2014)

hipipol said:


> filth shoot dead an unarmed man then go free
> The same story I've heard all my life



And, of course, the accompanying story that doesn't often get told, of the injuries so many black and/or working class males manage to spontaneously get while in custody from "running into walls" etc.



> Meantime the elite whine about doubts re filth trust index for toffs
> proper groundhog day/year/life



Fuck 'em. Like anyone with sense should give a shit that a gobshite MP whose stock-in-trade is being a rude cunt and manipulating others (because that's what whips do) got some of his own medicine back.
Fuck 'em all.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 12, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> Littlewit lives in a gated community in LA and sells vile opinion pieces to the daily mail who keep publishing him because he strikes a tone some people are glad to hear. He's got fuck all to do with real opinions- theres dyed in the blue wool tories who would go 'steady on' at his shittest pieces. The mans a fucking joke and hopefully will be targeted by a reaper drone by accident



He lives in a gated community in Florida, reputedly one of those "developments full of individual gated "mansions", and where the only black people are the security guards, and the only Hispanics are the pool guys and gardeners.


----------



## andysays (Jan 12, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Because he knows he doesn't have to to get re-elected in Tottenham.



Although I've been one of his constituents for as long as he's had a constuency, I'm uncertain of Lammy's future career plans.

But if he were to stand again in Tottenham at the next general election, there's no doubt whatsoever that he would be re-elected


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 12, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> He lives in a gated community in Florida, reputedly one of those "developments full of individual gated "mansions", and where the only black people are the security guards, and the only Hispanics are the pool guys and gardeners.



He also lives in another gated community in Hadley Wood.


----------



## J Ed (Jan 12, 2014)

Balbi said:


> Fucking hell Lammy, that's no way to get the mayoralty.



Interesting, I thought that he was trying reposition himself as a faux-leftist like De Blasio in NYC.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 12, 2014)

http://www.channel4.com/news/police-fatal-shooting-trigger-happy-fact-check

They are below the world average of world cop shootings around the level of sweden  but such low levels makes every case unique.
 The nature of police work involves confrontation with the violent,the pissed or drugged, and or the mentally ill. usually at crisis point when the police turn up.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 12, 2014)

likesfish said:


> The nature of police work involves confrontation with the violent,the pissed or drugged, and or the mentally ill.



And that's before they have any interaction with the rest of the population.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2014)

DaveCinzano said:


> Probably best that you quietly exit the internet, then. Your blood pressure is unlikely to take it.



The Hillsborough inquiry found that 'at least' 164 police statements had been falsified. That the police are capable of conspiring to falsify documents in order to cover up their own wrongdoing is proven. That they do so systematically and routinely would be my contention. The police force is a conspiracy.

So yes, I don't rule out their having systematically falsified evidence here to paint a picture of a gun-running gangster who could reasonably be considered to be dangerous. tbh I think it is foolish to rule that out.


----------



## yield (Jan 12, 2014)

Interesting piece in the Independent a few days ago about how endemic corruption is. 


> The entire criminal justice system was infiltrated by organised crime gangs, according to a secret Scotland Yard report leaked to The Independent.
> 
> In 2003 Operation Tiberius found that men suspected of being Britain’s most notorious criminals had compromised multiple agencies, including HM Revenue & Customs, the Crown Prosecution Service, the City of London Police and the Prison Service, as well as pillars of the criminal justice system including juries and the legal profession.


----------



## Mr Smin (Jan 12, 2014)

[quote="littlebabyjesus, post: 12846012, member: 32628" The first shot almost missed him, after all, suggesting a state of panic. The copper appears to have gathered himself for the second shot, which went right through the heart.[/quote]

'almost missed' is rather like 'hit' so I could equally state the copper did a reasonable job of shooting a moving target.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2014)

Mr Smin said:


> 'almost missed' is rather like 'hit' so I could equally state the copper did a reasonable job of shooting a moving target.


The eyewitness says that he wasn't moving.

And the clown managed to hit his own colleague with that first shot. Sounds like he shouldn't be allowed out with sharp objects let alone to carry a gun.


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 12, 2014)

likesfish said:


> You have armed criminals they exsist
> Stopping them means arming police.
> Armed police meet suspects chances o police shooting someone very high.
> Met police get called out several times a day
> ...



and yet the Rigby pair are still alive


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The Hillsborough inquiry found that 'at least' 164 police statements had been falsified. That the police are capable of conspiring to falsify documents in order to cover up their own wrongdoing is proven. That they do so systematically and routinely would be my contention. The police force is a conspiracy.
> 
> So yes, I don't rule out their having systematically falsified evidence here to paint a picture of a gun-running gangster who could reasonably be considered to be dangerous. tbh I think it is foolish to rule that out.



The Hillsborough fabrications were about shaping a narrative by controlling evidence gathered _after_ the event.

Yet your contention here appears to be that the police did not think that Mark Duggan was a ‘gangster’ of some description. So why do you suppose they performed a hard stop on him with armed officers from CO19 (now SCO19)? Why Duggan on that road on that day?

Are you suggesting that the various pieces of paperwork and corroborating testimony which outlined the intelligence held on and ongoing surveillance of suspected TMD members - which mostly predates the killing of Mark Duggan by some days, weeks or months - were forged in the aftermath of the shooting?

If so, to what end would the Met have done that? Clearly there has to be a reason - however strong or weak - for the operation to have been mounted. To entirely fabricate a paper trail (as you seem to be saying) like this does not sound like the most likely scenario.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jan 12, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> and yet the Rigby pair are still alive


					They were just lucky unfortunately


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 12, 2014)

I think it had to do with the team that arrested them.


The "Duggan Arrest" screams of a bunch of hyped up cops with foreknowledge of how the deal was going to go down


----------



## Open Sauce (Jan 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The eyewitness says that he wasn't moving.
> 
> And the clown managed to hit his own colleague with that first shot. Sounds like he shouldn't be allowed out with sharp objects let alone to carry a gun.



Witness B is the only member of the public to witness this, his testimony is quite confused and changed but he did state

*"*Speaking exclusively to BBC News, "Witness B" said that when armed police stopped Mr Duggan's minicab in August 2011, the suspect got out and tried to run - but then turned back and faced the police officers." so definitely moving, either running or turning. He also said he heard shots and then saw Duggan fall - not that he was kneeling in surrender. He also saw something go flying, which he identified as a phone. But earlier he said he saw Duggan holding a gun, which he later changed to blackberry. 

The other member of the public, the taxi driver said Duggan put the box on the seat next to him, not the boot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2014)

Open Sauce said:


> The other member of the public, the taxi driver said Duggan put the box on the seat next to him, not the boot.


Why he might have put the box in the boot has been one of the many headscratchers.


----------



## Open Sauce (Jan 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why he might have put the box in the boot has been one of the many headscratchers.



Reading more, it was a people carrier, so no boot as such. Testimony of taxi driver is here

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/1183.htm

I think I read somewhere (here??) yesterday that the box was discovered by IPCC in boot a week later after car had been impounded, so probably moved after impounding

The photo here was taken in-situ shows box in the footwell with the lid off

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/Jury_Bundle_pg_19-20.pdf


----------



## Casually Red (Jan 12, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> I think it had to do with the team that arrested them.
> 
> 
> The "Duggan Arrest" screams of a bunch of hyped up cops with foreknowledge of how the deal was going to go down



everything about it points to an execution .


----------



## silverfish (Jan 12, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> and yet the Rigby pair are still alive



Did you watch the video of the shooting!! Coppers pulled up unaware of attacker running towards the vehicle which hadn't stopped moving and the copper reacted in a split second and shot the guy through the car window from a lying position on the back seat!!!   Incredible shooting, the fact that the copper hit him is testament to the level of training and skill he must have had.

Both were shot, threat ceased, shooting ceased, both survived

Got to agree with likefish...Armed operations are high pressure, high stakes situations mostly based on intelligence. Not a fan of coppers but they are statistically very very unlikely to shoot people, especially the wrong person. No system and no person is entirely infallible unfortunately


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 12, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Did you watch the video of the shooting!! Coppers pulled up unaware of attacker running towards the vehicle



sort of what i mean.

I Don't Believe Mark had a chance of walking away once he'd pick up the shoebox...

bad intell/ botched arrest or something more sinister

*shrugs*


----------



## leanderman (Jan 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why he might have put the box in the boot has been one of the many headscratchers.



Yes. Much of this is baffling and inconsistent. 

All a bit Rashomon.


----------



## Open Sauce (Jan 12, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Yes. Much of this is baffling and inconsistent.
> 
> All a bit Rashomon.



He didn't, read the cab-drivers testimony


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2014)

Open Sauce said:


> Reading more, it was a people carrier, so no boot as such. Testimony of taxi driver is here
> 
> http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/1183.htm
> 
> I think I read somewhere (here??) yesterday that the box was discovered by IPCC in boot a week later after car had been impounded, so probably moved after impounding



God that's grim reading. Poor bastard. He's still very angry about the way the police put him in danger and then the way they treated him afterwards. He describes CS387 like this: 

He was in an extreme rage like a mad person.  He was angry, crazy or mad.

  13  Is that correct?

  14  A.  Yes, he looked like in extreme rage and it looked like

  15  someone who had actually lost their senses. 

Going for a 'hard stop' may be designed to disconcert the suspect, but here it appears it may have disconcerted CS387.


----------



## Open Sauce (Jan 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> God that's grim reading. Poor bastard. He's still very angry about the way the police put him in danger and then the way they treated him afterwards. He describes CS387 like this:
> 
> He was in an extreme rage like a mad person.  He was angry, crazy or mad.
> 
> ...




I feel really sorry for him, nothing like that should happen to a man going about his work. He believed Duggan was shot in the back from the cops in the car at the front, because he saw fluff from the back of duggans jacket. What he saw was the exit wound, the shots were from the car behind - the make in a rage was the copper that had just been shot.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 12, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> God that's grim reading. Poor bastard. He's still very angry about the way the police put him in danger and then the way they treated him afterwards. He describes CS387 like this:
> 
> He was in an extreme rage like a mad person.  He was angry, crazy or mad.
> 
> ...



I'd be "disconcerted" if i'd just been shot TBH


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 12, 2014)

Open Sauce said:


> I feel really sorry for him, nothing like that should happen to a man going about his work. He believed Duggan was shot in the back from the cops in the car at the front, because he saw fluff from the back of duggans jacket. What he saw was the exit wound, the shots were from the car behind - the make in a rage was the copper that had just been shot.


Ah ok, he'd just been shot. Hadn't realised that.

However, the taxi driver's testimony is a powerful argument to use to demand the ending of elective 'hard stops' of this kind. Along with demanding the disbanding of Operation Trident and the ending of racial profiling.


----------



## Limerick Red (Jan 12, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> and yet the Rigby pair are still alive



and????


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 12, 2014)

is this a question?


----------



## Limerick Red (Jan 12, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> is this a question?


ya, tis


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 12, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> is this a question?


yes, that is a question


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 12, 2014)

oh ok so if the cops are taken unawares they are less likely to gun you down..


give them time to plan it and get mentally prepared and take the viewpoint that you are nothing but a gangster who has accepted the terms of your own lifestyle then they'll shot to kill.

cool beans


----------



## Ax^ (Jan 12, 2014)

or would you like to expand beyond "and???"


----------



## leanderman (Jan 12, 2014)

Open Sauce said:


> He didn't, read the cab-drivers testimony



I mean generally baffling.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 13, 2014)

Public meeting tonight in the House of Commons
http://us3.campaign-archive2.com/?u=177a4e7292b161e7ecf2dffe8&id=02311b8ede&e=a3b9d3f2e6

(hosted by Diane Abbott)


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 13, 2014)

> *Mark Duggan marksman cleared to return to armed police duties*
> Officer known as V53, who fired the shots that killed Mark Duggan, will return to armed duty if he requests reinstatement.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...arksman-return-armed-police-duties?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

I'm guessing he will be quietly instructed not to make that request.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 13, 2014)

I'd beeven more pissed if I'd been shot by someobody on my own side although circular firing squad springs to mind.
 Littlebabyjesus they had Duggan under survillence the gun was handed over in a crowded place they chose where they stopped him to minimise the risk to the public.
 What other choice did they have?
   Op trident was set up to stop black people shooting other black people racial profiling is kind of hard to avoid in this particular case


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

likesfish said:


> I'd beeven more pissed if I'd been shot by someobody on my own side although circular firing squad springs to mind.
> Littlebabyjesus they had Duggan under survillence the gun was handed over in a crowded place *they chose where they stopped him to minimise the risk to the public.*
> What other choice did they have?


Not according to the taxi driver, they didn't. He says very clearly that he stopped at more than one traffic light before the 'hard stop', where they could easily have pulled him over. They had decided to stop him in that violent way, to up the ante, to escalate the level of confrontation, and put the taxi driver and other road users at risk by doing so. Where exactly do they get their information from telling them that escalating the violence in that way is a good idea? Grand theft auto?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm guessing he will be quietly instructed not to make that request.


Why? The day after the Jean Charles De Menenzes verdict the Met said the two coppers that shot him would now be returned to their normal duties. They don't give a fuck except in keeping their officers happy.


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 13, 2014)

> 11  A.  They dragged me out of my car and they treat me like
> 12  some kind of criminal.  They dragged me with a very
> 
> 13  rough attitude and then they laid me on the floor --
> ...




Violence/force possibly used against the Taxi driver? Would make me think twice about giving a statement if I was treated in a similar manner?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 13, 2014)

> ‏@MattProdger
> Mark #Duggan coroner hints at recommendations: "a number of issues and areas of evidence which may deserve further examination or question."


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 13, 2014)

Presumably David Lammy will refuse to share a platform with the coroner now.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 13, 2014)

> @MattProdger
> #Duggan coroner: "I do not want to be part of justice system which in a case of this nature simply closes the file & moves on to the next."


----------



## Dan U (Jan 13, 2014)

I read the slur story about 'Anarchists' in the Sunday Times yesterday, definitely felt like an attempt to shut this all down. Had the obligatory 'if you thought it was bad last time, wait for these riots' quote from a 'source' which I always think they've just sat and written in the office.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2014)

Of course, Lammy is not above being interviewed/pimped by an _anarchist _when he thinks it will help his career. (Same for the _anarchist_).


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not according to the taxi driver, they didn't. He says very clearly that he stopped at more than one traffic light before the 'hard stop', where they could easily have pulled him over. They had decided to stop him in that violent way, to up the ante, to escalate the level of confrontation, and put the taxi driver and other road users at risk by doing so. Where exactly do they get their information from telling them that escalating the violence in that way is a good idea? Grand theft auto?



A hard stop is a hard stop. Its a black and white decision taken before the event. There is no "lets go easy and if he cuts up rough we'll escalate our response" that way lies disaster and mistakes and more shooting

A hard stop is designed to confuse, petrify and freeze the target. The aim being not to have to shoot the target but gain absolute compliance through an overwhelming display of force and dominance

this isn't the films


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> A hard stop is a hard stop. Its a black and white decision taken before the event. There is no "lets go easy and if he cuts up rough we'll escalate our response" that way lies disaster and mistakes and more shooting
> 
> A hard stop is designed to confuse, petrify and freeze the target. The aim being not to have to shoot the target but gain absolute compliance through an overwhelming display of force and dominance
> 
> this isn't the films


wtf are you talking about? Disaster lay precisely in the predetermination of the decision. 

fuck's sake - it is the coppers who think they're in the fucking films.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> Violence/force possibly used against the Taxi driver? Would make me think twice about giving a statement if I was treated in a similar manner?



In these situations bystander compliance is gained in the same way as target compliance is fast forceful and physical. There is no time to be fucking polite and discuss why "perhaps you should get on the ground for your own safety Mr taxi driver"  people in stress situations do unusual things. They need to be controlled fast and effectively

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about how hard stops work and why they are done


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

20-odd years ago, three young people were killed walking home in Leeds. A driver lost control and ploughed into them. That driver was going at high speed as the car was being chased by the police.

Those three young people were students at Leeds Uni, and there was an outcry. As a result, the police changed policy _not to _engage in high-speed chases through cities. What will it take for a similar decision to be made regarding 'hard stops'?

Fuck me, the police are pitiful cunts.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> wtf are you talking about? Disaster lay precisely in the predetermination of the decision.
> 
> fuck's sake - it is the coppers who think they're in the fucking films.



I can't really be much clearer than I have explained. If you can't see past your outrage and wobbly analysis of what happened I'm wasting my time posting responses


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> In these situations bystander compliance is gained in the same way as target compliance is fast forceful and physical. There is no time to be fucking polite and discuss why "perhaps you should get on the ground for your own safety Mr taxi driver"  people in stress situations do unusual things. They need to be controlled fast and effectively
> 
> There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about how hard stops work and why they are done


You're making excuses here for a police force that is out of fucking control and instigating violent confrontations on the streets.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> I can't really be much clearer than I have explained. If you can't see past your outrage and wobbly analysis of what happened I'm wasting my time posting responses


Right, so the shooting of Mark Duggan wasn't a disaster, then? wtfucking fuck.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 20-odd years ago, three young people were killed walking home in Leeds. A driver lost control and ploughed into them. That driver was going at high speed as the car was being chased by the police.
> 
> Those three young people were students at Leeds Uni, and there was an outcry. As a result, the police changed policy _not to _engage in high-speed chases through cities. What will it take for a similar decision to be made regarding 'hard stops'?
> 
> Fuck me, the police are pitiful cunts.



Chalk and cheese, a disengenous direction to take the discussion in.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Chalk and cheese, a disengenous direction to take the discussion in.


Tell that to the taxi driver, who testified that he could easily have lost control and crashed.

It will take a death, won't it - a death of the _right kind of person_ - to stop this violent policy.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're making excuses here for a police force that is out of fucking control and instigating violent confrontations on the streets.



intelligence led confrontations with criminals known to have weapons in their possession.

What do want them to do?

And how are they out of control?


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Tell that to the taxi driver, who testified that he could easily have lost control and crashed.



you are clutching at straws, they did a text book stop, to the point of precision that despite the taxi driver having to break hard to not hit the front blocking car HE DIDN'T


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> you are clutching at straws, they did a text book stop, to the point of precision that despite the taxi driver having to break hard to not hit the front blocking car HE DIDN'T


The coppers chasing the car in Leeds were also following the rules of the time. Text book stop? _The driver says he feared losing control of his car. _He didn't. This time.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 13, 2014)

Hard stops are done  because they usually work.
 Case in Point Mark Duggen isnt a stat because the met do hard stops most weeks and very rarely end up shooting anyone.
 It wasnt an execution Mr duggen thought he could get away police thought he was attempting  to draw a weapon given intelligence that he was armed and the fact he wasnt surrendering.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

Were you on the jury, by any chance, likefish?


----------



## DrRingDing (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> What do want them to do?



Shoot them all in the face, obvs.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> intelligence led confrontations with criminals known to have weapons in their possession.
> 
> What do want them to do??


 
Telling the truth later in court might be a start.


----------



## peterkro (Jan 13, 2014)

Hard stops, intelligence led policing,millisecond choices and honest cops making hard choices.If you can't see this is bullshit I have an environmentally sound window replacement plan which will pay for its self.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

peterkro said:


> Hard stops, intelligence led policing,millisecond choices and honest cops making hard choices.If you can't see this is bullshit I have an environmentally sound window replacement plan which will pay for its self.


We're naive civilians. _We don't know what it's like out there, man. _


----------



## likesfish (Jan 13, 2014)

So what exactly is the alternative dixon of dock green approach walk up to the armed gangster and ask politely if he would accompany them to the station?

I'm not sure how you get an armed person out of a car without giving them an oppunity to shoot you?
Other than by speed and overwhelmimg force.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2014)

likesfish said:


> So what exactly is the alternative dixon of dock green approach walk up to the armed gangster and ask politely if he would accompany them to the station?


 
I believe in their procedure book they have nice friendly colour pictures showing the difference between a gun and a phone, with nice icons of smiley and frowny for 'shoot' and 'don't shoot' respectively.  Easy even for illiterate gun pigs.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We're naive civilians. _We don't know what it's like out there, man. _



A lame, lazy and predictable direction to take


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

8ball said:


> I believe in their procedure book they have nice friendly colour pictures showing the difference between a gun and a phone, with nice icons of smiley and frowny for 'shoot' and 'don't shoot' respectively.  Easy even for illiterate gun pigs.


You need a third one. A frowny underneath an image of a colleague. Don't shoot your colleagues, chaps.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

8ball said:


> I believe in their procedure book they have nice friendly colour pictures showing the difference between a gun and a phone, with nice icons of smiley and frowny for 'shoot' and 'don't shoot' respectively.  *Easy even for illiterate gun pigs*.



Can't really discuss it when you come at it from that already defined position


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Can't really discuss it when you come at it from that already defined position


The police have lied under oath in court - itself a criminal offence that carries a jail sentence. And yet you believe all the bits of their story of what happened that might excuse them. That makes you a credulous fool.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The police have lied under oath in court - itself a criminal offence that carries a jail sentence. And yet you believe all the bits of their story of what happened that might excuse them. That makes you a credulous fool.



I'm not a credulous fool, I'm disengaging from emotive anti police polemics and analysing 

I'm explaining the reasons for hard stops, using the facts as provided  by a witness's testament in the coroners inquiry to highlight/support the reasons behind hard stops and relate them to this shooting.

The witness provides a "hostile to police testament" which actually shows the stop was carried out in the prescribed manner 

At what point have I even mentioned coppers testimonies in this or any other case


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Can't really discuss it when you come at it from that already defined position


 
No, you can't discuss it because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

8ball said:


> No, you can't discuss it because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.



I'll leave it at that


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 13, 2014)

likesfish said:


> So what exactly is the alternative dixon of dock green approach walk up to the armed gangster and ask politely if he would accompany them to the station?
> 
> I'm not sure how you get an armed person out of a car without giving them an oppunity to shoot you?
> Other than by speed and overwhelmimg force.


If you're starting from the premise that it is highly likely that one suspect who may or may not be armed is likely to initiate a firefight when surrounded by armed police, and that as such you must "deny them the opportunity to shoot you" then I reckon you'll get the conclusion you're looking for.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2014)

Isn't the method of the stop a bit of a red herring?

If they'd done the hard stop and he'd pulled an actual gun out and they'd shot him I wouldn't have had any qualms myself if it was clear the site of the stop was a better place for a confrontation than the place of the pick-up (which I've no reason to doubt).


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 13, 2014)

8ball said:


> Isn't the method of the stop a bit of a ref herring?
> 
> If they'd done the hard stop and he'd pulled an actual gun out and they'd shot him I wouldn't have had any qualms myself if it was clear the site of the stop was a better place for a confrontation than the place of the pick-up (which I've no reason to doubt).


It is a bit. The real issue for me is (a) the utter lack of accountability for the police when they make mistakes (b) the culture of systematically lying, covering their tracks & smearing victims that we see in the wake of every police mistake and (c) the tendency of politicians, press, judges and juries to take police statements as gospel, despite their ample history of lying.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> It is a bit. The real issue for me is (a) the utter lack of accountability for the police when they make mistakes (b) the culture of systematically lying, covering their tracks & smearing victims that we see in the wake of every police mistake and (c) the tendency of politicians, press, judges and juries to take police statements as gospel, despite their ample history of lying.


 
I think if I hadn't read a decent chunk of the court transcripts and seen how it was spun in the media, and especially the questions that _weren't_ asked, then it would be very easy to go along with the 'agreed' narrative.  With all the lying we really don't know what actually happened, all we can conclude is that the jury saw they were lying and either believed they were telling the truth on that one thing, or just decided that they didn't care about another dead gangsta, or had some bizarre collective brainfart.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 13, 2014)

8ball said:


> I think if I hadn't read a decent chunk of the court transcripts and seen how it was spun in the media, and especially the questions that _weren't_ asked, then it would be very easy to go along with the 'agreed' narrative.  With all the lying we really don't know what actually happened, all we can conclude is that the jury saw they were lying and either believed they were telling the truth on that one thing, or just decided that they didn't care about another dead gangsta, or had some bizarre collective brainfart.


If you're sympathetically inclined towards the police I can see how it's plausible that you would think "well, there was no gun in his hand, but it was a high pressure situation and he made an understandable mistake" (that said, seen in even the most flattering light, I don't see how failure to distinguish a gun from a blackberry and taking someone's life because of it isn't some kind of criminal negligence).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> It is a bit. The real issue for me is (a) the utter lack of accountability for the police when they make mistakes (b) the culture of systematically lying, covering their tracks & smearing victims that we see in the wake of every police mistake and (c) the tendency of politicians, press, judges and juries to take police statements as gospel, despite their ample history of lying.


i look forward to you sharing d) to z).


----------



## stowpirate (Jan 13, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> It is a bit. The real issue for me is (a) the utter lack of accountability for the police when they make mistakes (b) the culture of systematically lying, covering their tracks & smearing victims that we see in the wake of every police mistake and (c) the tendency of politicians, press, judges and juries to take police statements as gospel, despite their ample history of lying.



‎Hypothetically if they had also shot/injured the taxi driver because he did not like being restrained, or maybe he had even fought back as he had just witnessed a shooting - he was not convinced a 100% it was the police?  I wonder what web of lies the Police/State would have spun to cover up an innocent victims fate in this or similar situation?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

stowpirate said:


> ‎Hypothetically if they had also shot/injured the taxi driver because he did not like being restrained, or maybe he had even fought back as he had just witnessed a shooting - he was not convinced a 100% it was the police?  I wonder what web of lies the Police/State would have spun to cover up an innocent victims fate in this or similar situation?


Or indeed if idiot-murder-cop had killed his colleague. I would wager that the dead Mark Duggan would have been framed for that somehow.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2014)

Lo Siento. said:


> If you're sympathetically inclined towards the police I can see how it's plausible that you would think "well, there was no gun in his hand, but it was a high pressure situation and he made an understandable mistake" (that said, seen in even the most flattering light, I don't see how failure to distinguish a gun from a blackberry and taking someone's life because of it isn't some kind of criminal negligence).


 
I suppose, if you also felt that all the lying that followed as also something that was 'understandable given the circumstances'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2014)

8ball said:


> I suppose, if you also felt that all the lying that followed as also something that was 'understandable given the circumstances'.


it is understandable given the circumstances: there were police involved. lying is an inevitable consequence of police involvement.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> it is understandable given the circumstances: there were police involved. lying is an inevitable consequence of police involvement.


 
That seems to be the media consensus since they don't seem too bothered by it.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

Out of interest and in light of the published court manuscript can anyone identify where the Police have lied on oath? Was this brought up by the coroner? has it been verified?

I know a copper who described the outcome of the Inquest as I quote

"PGB (Peverse But Good), meaning the police got the right verdict IMHO for shooting Mark Duggan, but nobody seems to understand the process of how they reached it (The verdict)"

So somewhere in there, there has been some head scratching, even from the coppers side as to the process of the inquiry


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Out of interest and in light of the published court manuscript can anyone identify where the Police have lied on oath? Was this brought up by the coroner? has it been verified?
> 
> I know a copper who described the outcome of the Inquest as I quote
> 
> ...


it's the 'one from column a and one from column b' verdict


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Out of interest and in light of the published court manuscript can anyone identify where the Police have lied on oath? Was this brought up by the coroner? has it been verified?


 
Well, there are two coppers describing the gun, how it is being held, even, in the case of V53, how it was burned into his memory, at the point of him shooting Duggan.  Nicely hammed up going for that 'shooting an armed man' ticket which realistically we might think is what everything hinges on.  Then the jury, in their verdict, say that Duggan was unarmed when he was shot <which would seem to imply either unlawful killing or an open verdict - we're so far down the rabbit hole who's to say what really happened>, but are somehow comfortable that this is the same kind of 'lawful killing' that happens when you shoot in self-defence.

Which is weird, but what's weirder is that no one seems to ask any questions about this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2014)

8ball said:


> Well, there are two coppers describing the gun, how it is being held, even, in the case of V53, how it was burned into his memory, at the point of him shooting Duggan.  Nicely hammed up going for that 'shooting an armed man' ticket which realistically we might think is what everything hinges on.  Then the jury, in their verdict, say that Duggan was unarmed when he was shot <which would seem to imply either unlawful killing or an open verdict - we're so far down the rabbit hole who's to say what really happened>, but are somehow comfortable that this is the same kind of 'lawful killing' that happens when you shoot in self-defence.
> 
> Which is weird, but what's weirder is that no one seems to ask any questions about this.


it's like that bit of dr who when he waves a blank card at people and they think its his id and accept it. only these cops are presumably not time lords.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

So the conclusion was, lawful because the coppers "believed" they were about to be shot at by Duggan?

Despite the evidence and acceptance that he wasn't holding a weapon.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> So the conclusion was, lawful because the coppers "believed" they were about to be shot at by Duggan?
> 
> Despite the evidence and acceptance that he wasn't holding a weapon.


because of all the evidence and acceptance that he wasn't holding a weapon.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> because of all the evidence and acceptance that he wasn't holding a weapon.



Have i got my grammar wrong ? Or am I just being dim


----------



## Limerick Red (Jan 13, 2014)

Ax^ said:


> or would you like to expand beyond "and???"


sorry pal, was pissed when I posted, and my tiny drunken brain couldnt understand the context...apologies!


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> So the conclusion was, lawful because the coppers "believed" they were about to be shot at by Duggan?
> 
> Despite the evidence and acceptance that he wasn't holding a weapon.


 
Pretty much.  The current accepted explanation according to the people on Question Time appeared to be that is that after having his aorta blown out he manages to chuck this heavy chunk of metal 30ft away, clearing a wall, without anyone noticing, including the coppers who were incredibly intent on the gun right up until (and very slightly after from the implication of the testimonies, but that wasn't literally stated), firing their weapones.

Also he manages to not leave any DNA on the weapon, unlike the taxi and the shoebox.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> So the conclusion was, lawful because the coppers "believed" they were about to be shot at by Duggan?
> 
> Despite the evidence and acceptance that he wasn't holding a weapon.



And also despite the acceptance that the stories of the coppers could not possibly be true. 

So how did the gun end up where it was? It was put there afterwards by the police - I cannot think how else. Had the gun been in the box Mark Duggan had picked up? We don't know. Had Mark ever handled the gun? Quite probably not, whether it was in the box or not. If the gun had been in the box, was it loaded, or did the police plant the bullet in it afterwards? Well, they had motive and opportunity to do so. 

Was MD on his way to kill someone? We have absolutely no evidence that he was, despite the police's stating that he had. So they have lied at this point about the nature of the intelligence they were using to target MD. Was the gun the same gun that Kevin Hutchinson-Foster used to beat a man a few days earlier? Yes, we can be confident of that - he admitted it, and both his blood and the man's blood were on the gun (careless, possibly, of him to leave the blood on the gun, but perhaps he tried to clean it, or perhaps he's just an idiot). Kevin Hutchinson-Foster is at the very least a violent little shit who has no doubt caused grief to a lot of people in his life. 

But KHF was not convicted in the first trial. The first jury was unconvinced by the police story, and it took a direction from the judge in the second trial to the effect that 'there is enough evidence that he did supply the gun to convict' to convict. At that first trial, copper CO19 clearly perjured himself:



> The jury heard the CO19 officer who shot Mr Duggan said the 29-year-old emerged from the minicab with a gun, took a couple of steps and raised it as if to fire.



From the BBC report of the first trial. How many times has the story been changed since that night, I wonder. The report continues:



> But another officer, the first to reach him as he fell to the ground, said he could find no gun either on or under Mr Duggan's body.
> 
> In a statement after the shooting, he did not say that Mr Duggan was holding a gun, he only mentioned it when he gave a fuller statement later, and when he gave evidence in court.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

Apart from all your "what ifs" i was under the impression that he had tossed the gun as the taxi was stopped before being challenged by the coppers


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Apart from all your "what ifs" i was under the impression that he had tossed the gun as the taxi was stopped before being challenged by the coppers



Seeing as he wasn't wearing gloves, & that no prints or dna were found on the gun, or the sock it was wrapped in, then no, he didn't throw it.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Apart from all your "what ifs" i was under the impression that he had tossed the gun as the taxi was stopped before being challenged by the coppers


 
Kinda possible if it was a botched stop (since hard stops are really sudden), but would still mean substantial lying from the police, some brilliant stealth-chucking under extreme psychological pressure and amazing control of personal DNA depostion, not to mention the champion shot-putting arm.

I think if one of us was trying to get off a charge with such a tall story if we had a documented history of repeated lying, then eyebrows might be raised a little.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Apart from all your "what ifs" i was under the impression that he had tossed the gun as the taxi was stopped before being challenged by the coppers


Yes, that impression has been cultivated by some , despite the fact that nobody saw him do this, not any of the 11 police officers at the scene nor the taxi driver, who testified that he did not see MD open the box at any stage. And his dna was not found on the gun.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Seeing as he wasn't wearing gloves, & that no prints or dna were found on the gun, or the sock it was wrapped in, then no, he didn't throw it.



Does lack of dna on a sock covered gun mean absolutely that he didn't hoik it?  Surely it doesn't prove he didn't touch it. 

Caveat I'm not a forensics expert but lack of evidence (dna) doesn't prove a negative ( he didn't touch it) does it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Does lack of dna on a sock covered gun mean absolutely that he didn't hoik it?  Surely it doesn't prove he didn't touch it.
> 
> Caveat I'm not a forensics expert but lack of evidence (dna) doesn't prove a negative ( he didn't touch it) does it?


No it doesn't. Absence of anybody seeing him do this, added to the lack of dna, though, what does that tell you? 11 coppers and one taxi driver. Every single one reported that they did not see him throw anything out of the car. Indeed, the taxi driver further reported that he did not see him open the box at any stage.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Does lack of dna on a sock covered gun mean absolutely that he didn't hoik it?  Surely it doesn't prove he didn't touch it.
> 
> Caveat I'm not a forensics expert but lack of evidence (dna) doesn't prove a negative ( he didn't touch it) does it?


 
I don't think it's 100% proof, but given the other deposits (for example, there were deposits on the inside lip of the shoebox) and the force required to chuck a kilo and a bit of metal any distance (try it with a bag of sugar), and the way skin cells tend to stick on fabrics it's not looking great, unless the sock went through a wash cycle as it arced through the air. 

There are lots of things that aren't 100% proof in this case, obviously.

Lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of them.

Aliens might have had the technoology to transport the gun from one place to another with no one seeing - would be a bitch disproving that one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

How about this, silverfish. Still believe he may have chucked it?



> During the inquest the IPCC's mishandling of the crime scene was revealed, including the fact that it gave permission for the mini-cab to be removed before investigating officers had even looked at it or had it forensically searched for evidence. It further transpired that the IPCC failed to respond to crucial independent witnesses, even those who tried to respond to their own urgent witness appeals. The IPCC has chosen not to explore the possibility that the gun was planted at the spot it was found, even though it was 7m from his body and two independent witness gave the IPCC statements – and later testified – that they had seen an officer remove a gun from the mini-cab some minutes after Duggan had been killed. But the most crucial reason why the family and local community will have no faith in the IPCC's investigation is that its lead investigator, Colin Sparrow, revealed to the inquest that he knew Duggan had not fired any gun long before the IPCC began briefing the media that he had shot at police first. It is one thing for the IPCC to have made the mistake, but it still took three weeks to correct a "fact" it knew to be false; and in those intervening days Tottenham, and many other areas, burned.



Source

The police planted the gun there later. I'd be interested to hear you explain how this is not the only reasonable explanation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

The jury's verdict is worth repeating here in its full perversity:



> - Police did not do enough to gather and react to intelligence suggesting Mr Duggan might be collecting a gun from Kevin Hutchinson-Foster. (Unanimous)
> 
> - Police did carry out the stop in a location and a way that minimised as much as possible the risk of needing ‘lethal force’. (Unanimous)
> 
> ...



The impression people have that he threw the gun away comes from the jury's verdict, a perverse, idiotic verdict.

Note:
The jury voted 9-1 that he threw the gun away, and 8-2 that he did not have a gun in his hand when he was shot. So somebody on that jury voted that he threw a gun away and that he had a gun in his hand when he was shot the second time.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How about this, silverfish. Still believe he may have chucked it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thats a guardian journalists opinion/analysis of the situation. As about as definitive as anyone posting here TBH.

I'm not trying to defend the polices handling/ mishandling/ of information. If the fuckers weren't so slippery and evasive/defensive/proactively offensive about situation they might come out of this type of shit a bit better.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Thats a guardian journalists opinion/analysis of the situation. As about as definitive as anyone posting here TBH.
> 
> I'm not trying to defend the polices handling/ mishandling/ of information. If the fuckers weren't so slippery and evasive/defensive/proactively offensive about situation they might come out of this type of shit a bit better.


He's reported facts in the bit I've quoted, not opinion. I agree that it isn't a court transcript, but it is true that nobody has come forward saying that they saw him throw the gun. The jury decided that he did, nonetheless, as how else could it have got where it was? Well, how else?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2014)

The police planting the gun would seem most likely, but that's just going by the explanation that assumes the minimum amount of lying on their part.
A cynical person might come up with many more possible scenarios.

Those supporting the current verdict are just left with explanations involving fairies, aliens or holographic guns, but it would be silly to entertain such ideas.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

8ball said:


> The police planting the gun would seem most likely, but that's just going by the explanation that assumes the minimum amount of lying on their part.
> A cynical person might come up with many more possible scenarios.


Yep. It is telling that this is the most charitable explanation for the police: that they shot an unarmed man for no good reason - because of a panic, perhaps - and then tried to cover it up by fabricating evidence and lying. That's the _most charitable _explanation.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 13, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. It is telling that this is the most charitable explanation for the police: that they shot an unarmed man for no good reason - because of a panic, perhaps - and then tried to cover it up by fabricating evidence and lying. That's the _most charitable _explanation.



I think he was holding his phone, like a witness stated, and the pumped up police marksman thought it was a gun and shot him. They then realised he wasn't armed and one of them took the gun out of the taxi and placed it on the ground so they could all claim he had a gun that he had managed to chuck away as he was being shot. Then they all lied to protect their colleague. Thinking about it though, why didn't they all just say they saw him chucking the gun away?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I think he was holding his phone, like a witness stated, and the pumped up police marksman *thought it was a gun* and shot him.


Wishful thinking? 

That's where we enter execution territory. They expected him to have a gun. Wanted him to have a gun. And were pumped up to shoot him as soon as they saw it. 

How else do you explain mistaking a phone for a gun at relatively close range in daylight?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 13, 2014)

Maybe we'll find out the truth in 30 years' time and everyone will be shocked at how corrupt the police were, but be thankful that they have cleaned up their act in the intervening years. That's how it seems to work.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 13, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Thinking about it though, why didn't they all just say they saw him chucking the gun away?


They ballsed up. Tricky business, covering up. They couldn't even get that right.

Could just have been trying to keep the lies down a bit. If it might be plausible you didn't see it, you just say that you didn't see it. That's all they tried to do with the taxi driver's testimony, in which they established that there was a moment when he was looking away from Mark Duggan and not watching what he was doing. He was clear that he didn't think he had thrown it, though, and they had not established at all that Duggan would have been able to do it without the taxi driver noticing. They just tried to make it plausible - even if still unlikely - that the gun could have been thrown and this not have been noticed by the taxi driver.


----------



## Open Sauce (Jan 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah ok, he'd just been shot. Hadn't realised that.
> 
> However, the taxi driver's testimony is a powerful argument to use to demand the ending of elective 'hard stops' of this kind. Along with demanding the disbanding of Operation Trident and the ending of racial profiling.







silverfish said:


> intelligence led confrontations with criminals known to have weapons in their possession.
> 
> What do want them to do?
> 
> And how are they out of control?



He wants them to disband trident, he wants more black on black

He's never read this http://www.freelists.org/post/guide.chat/riot-6-street-gang-called-tottenham-mandem

He is the worst conspiracy theorist, clutcihing at anything, like the description of the copper being shot, he only reads between the lines


----------



## Open Sauce (Jan 14, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Seeing as he wasn't wearing gloves, & that no prints or dna were found on the gun, or the sock it was wrapped in, then no, he didn't throw it.



Bit hard to leave prints on a sock. What DNA transfer are you expecting?


----------



## Open Sauce (Jan 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No it doesn't. Absence of anybody seeing him do this, added to the lack of dna, though, what does that tell you? 11 coppers and one taxi driver. Every single one reported that they did not see him throw anything out of the car. Indeed, the taxi driver further reported that he did not see him open the box at any stage.



Witness B in one of his many versions of his testimony describes seeing something go flying.

I think you earlier said he was the only credible witness.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 14, 2014)

Open Sauce said:


> What DNA transfer are you expecting?


 
Same way it got onto the shoebox.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 14, 2014)

Open Sauce said:


> Bit hard to leave prints on a sock.



VMD - vacuum metal deposition. The lifting of finger prints from fabrics.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 14, 2014)

8ball said:


> Same way it got onto the shoebox.



Touch DNA - only requires 7 or 8 skin cells from an object that someone has held.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 14, 2014)

The witness was over. 100 metres away a football pitch.
 Duggan tried to flee armed police never a good idea and will get you shot because the marksmen are primed for target complys you arrest him. Target does  something stupid amd attempts to shoot you so you shoot him first.
  Target attempts to leg it probably wasnt what they were expecting


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I think he was holding his phone, like a witness stated, and the pumped up police marksman thought it was a gun and shot him. They then realised he wasn't armed and one of them took the gun out of the taxi and placed it on the ground so they could all claim he had a gun that he had managed to chuck away as he was being shot. Then they all lied to protect their colleague. Thinking about it though, why didn't they all just say they saw him chucking the gun away?


Why would they not have just taken said gun out of box and dumped it in his lap? Why plant it so far away? It does not make sense.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 14, 2014)

I presume therefore with all this "planting activity" that the gun was covered in coppers finger prints and DNA?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2014)

silverfish said:


> I presume therefore with all this "planting activity" that the gun was covered in coppers finger prints and DNA?


They made no enquiries about any potential police planting of the gun or box. They tested no police, did not test the box or gun and ignored the issue entirely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2014)

Open Sauce said:


> He wants them to disband trident, he wants more black on black


That's it. I want more black on black. That's the only possible alternative to supporting the police's Trident operation.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 14, 2014)

silverfish said:


> I presume therefore with all this "planting activity" that the gun was covered in coppers finger prints and DNA?



They would have been wearing gloves.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

Open Sauce said:


> He wants them to disband trident, he wants more black on black



That's a ludicrous and offensive suggestion - esp when all you needed to do was say that a rise in BoB crime would be the result of disbanding trident (that's not me agreeing with the claim). There was no need for the implication of gleeful hand rubbing racism.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 14, 2014)

silverfish said:


> I'm not trying to defend the polices handling/ mishandling/ of information. If the fuckers weren't so slippery and evasive/defensive/proactively offensive about situation they might come out of this type of shit a bit better.


 
Well, it worked for them this time so I'd say there's plenty more to come.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Why would they not have just taken said gun out of box and dumped it in his lap? Why plant it so far away? It does not make sense.


you clearly don't have the police mentality


----------



## Belushi (Jan 14, 2014)

likesfish said:


> The witness was over. 100 metres away a football pitch.


 
This doesn't make sense if the witness saw the event from the seventh floor; the only two buildings that tall that you can see the crime scene from are much closer than 100 metres.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 14, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> They would have been wearing gloves.



were they?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 14, 2014)

silverfish said:


> were they?


 
They tend to when planting evidence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2014)

Perhaps they did only find the gun 10 minutes after the shooting, as two witnesses testified. In which case, perhaps they couldn't easily place it next to the body.

There are lots of perhapses in this, such is the density of the lies. And perhaps the family is right to think of this as an execution:



> The jury was also told the case has been complicated by an anonymous note sent last year to a number of people including Mr Duggan’s family and the Met Police Commissioner, claiming that a police informant had told his handler that he could persuade Mr Duggan to pick up the gun, allowing officers to arrest him.
> 
> Mr Underwood said: “The letter goes on to say that [the arrest] was bound to lead to Mr Duggan being shot dead because the letter suggests that anything less than that would have led to the informant being exposed.”
> 
> Police have said that there is no evidence to back those claims.



So what was the intelligence that led to the police following him that day? Had MD been set up by the police, who got the informant to persuade him to pick up a gun so that the police could shoot him dead? It clears up a few things if this is true.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So what was the intelligence that led to the police following him that day? Had MD been set up by the police, who got the informant to persuade him to pick up a gun so that the police could shoot him dead? It clears up a few things if this is true.


 
It's far more economical than most explanations.  Wonder if this will get re-visited in a civil case.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps they did only find the gun 10 minutes after the shooting, as two witnesses testified. In which case, perhaps they couldn't easily place it next to the body.
> 
> There are lots of perhapses in this, such is the density of the lies. And perhaps the family is right to think of this as an execution:
> 
> ...



I think more likely is that a confidential informant, under pressure to assist his handlers with better results, told Duggan that he had info that the murderers of his cousin were coming to kill him and that he should protect himself. He then suggests that a weapon can be obtained from Hutchinson and then tells the police all about it. The police then kill Duggan and lie about all of it.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 14, 2014)

http://justice4mark.tumblr.com/post...e-from-carole-duggan-to-all-who-came-to-marks

A message from Carole Duggan to all who came to Mark’s vigil


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2014)

The family's dignity is outstanding.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2014)

TopCat said:


> I think more likely is that a confidential informant, under pressure to assist his handlers with better results, told Duggan that he had info that the murderers of his cousin were coming to kill him and that he should protect himself. He then suggests that a weapon can be obtained from Hutchinson and then tells the police all about it. The police then kill Duggan and lie about all of it.


Yes, that makes sense.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 14, 2014)

Fucking hell, there's some spectacular flights of fancy going on round here.

You need to stop watching Spooks, pull yourselves away from the fiction department of Waterstones  and stop giving the police so much credit as arch manipulators

I'm off to fabricate my alcan titfer


----------



## 8ball (Jan 14, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Fucking hell, there's some spectacular flights of fancy going on round here.


 
I take it you're sticking with the holographic gun story, then.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2014)

silverfish said:


> were they?


They did not test for police DNA or prints. Read the transcripts.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 14, 2014)

Can anyone point me in the direction of a key to the coloured arrows in the video please? The one on the list of evidence.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

Open Sauce said:


> Bit hard to leave prints on a sock. What DNA transfer are you expecting?



Skin fragments, sweat, transmission of any other trace evidence Duggan had on his hands (it doesn't *have* to be DNA, just things with the same chemical signature that can be cross-confirmed between Duggan and the sock), all of which transfer to fabric rather well.  I could cite you many cases where trace evidence found on fabric has secured convictions, but I'm sure you know this anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Fucking hell, there's some spectacular flights of fancy going on round here.
> 
> You need to stop watching Spooks, pull yourselves away from the fiction department of Waterstones  and stop giving the police so much credit as arch manipulators
> 
> I'm off to fabricate my alcan titfer


Are you reading the same thread as me? Two possible versions above involve an informer setting Duggan up or the police getting the informer to set him up, or perhaps it was a combination of the two: informer and police both keen on the idea. That's not particularly 'arch manipulators' and one version has the police themselves being manipulated. 

Such versions have the virtue of fitting with what we know and explaining certain behaviours. It's not so fanciful - we know there has to have been an informer, and who better to put the police onto something than the person who arranged it?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

silverfish said:


> I presume therefore with all this "planting activity" that the gun was covered in coppers finger prints and DNA?



I don't know about these individual coppers, but operational protocol includes wearing gloves, which would be far less likely to leave trace evidence on the sock than bare skin would.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Why would they not have just taken said gun out of box and dumped it in his lap? Why plant it so far away? It does not make sense.



Because doing so gives them two justifications for opening fire "in the heat of the moment" - he had a weapon in his hand and/or was attempting to flee/dispose of the evidence.
There's also an issue as to whether finding the gun on Duggan - given that he was originally maligned as having opened fire - with a single unspent cartridge in it, and no possible way to forensically-imply it had fired a shot already, would have made the deception way too obvious.  As it is, the story that went before the inquest introduced enough doubt that the police skated.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because doing so gives them two justifications for opening fire "in the heat of the moment" - he had a weapon in his hand and/or was attempting to flee/dispose of the evidence.
> There's also an issue as to whether finding the gun on Duggan - given that he was originally maligned as having opened fire - with a single unspent cartridge in it, and no possible way to forensically-imply it had fired a shot already, would have made the deception way too obvious.  As it is, the story that went before the inquest introduced enough doubt that the police skated.


At risk of incurring the ire of silverfish, the police appear to have had every opportunity to plant the bullet in the gun. They had motive to, I think, in their attempt to portray MD as a murderous gangster on his way to do something criminal. I'm certainly not taking it as having been demonstrated that the police did not put the bullet in the gun themselves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> At risk of incurring the ire of silverfish...



I doubt his experience of the Met is as extensive as most London posters, and his attempt to quantify people as "Spooks"-viewers and fiction-lovers is a tactic often used by people to rubbish others.



> ...the police appear to have had every opportunity to plant the bullet in the gun. They had motive to, I think, in their attempt to portray MD as a murderous gangster on his way to do something criminal. I'm certainly not taking it as having been demonstrated that the police did not put the bullet in the gun themselves.



Of course not. I'm merely making the point that the original "he shot first" story, aside from any other defect, would have been blown apart by Duggan being found with the gun in his posession (no powder residue on Duggan's hands and clothing, no spent cartridge with definitive forensic markings (from the firing pin and barrel of Duggans' gun) found on or near Duggan), whereas the whole "he drew the weapon/he tried to chuck it" _schtick_ gives the OB some licence to claim that they felt under threat and reacted accordingly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2014)

TBh the confusion here seems likely to just be the result of lots of officers all busy covering up, but having different ideas about how that cover up is supposed to happen. They then could not disentangle the thing to make one coherent story, so relied on the general confusion to get away with it. And it has worked so far, to the extent that, in the face of such contradictions, the jury decided to make up its own story for which they had been presented with no evidence at all (that Duggan chucked the gun from the taxi as it came to a stop).


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2014)

That gun weighs nearly two kilos. About the same as a house brick. Could you throw this 20  feet?


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> TBh the confusion here seems likely to just be the result of lots of officers all busy covering up, but having different ideas about how that cover up is supposed to happen. They then could not disentangle the thing to make one coherent story, so relied on the general confusion to get away with it. And it has worked so far, to the extent that, in the face of such contradictions, the jury decided to make up its own story for which they had been presented with no evidence at all (that Duggan chucked the gun from the taxi as it came to a stop).



Why should the police and witnesses initially agree on what happened? Individuals see the same event differently. Various angles. Tricks of memory etc. 

Opposing football fans dispute a penalty - even when they see identical and repeated footage!

How much more difficult in the chaotic heat of the moment - a moment you can't replay.


----------



## mack (Jan 14, 2014)

TopCat said:


> That gun weighs nearly two kilos. About the same as a house brick. Could you throw this 20  feet?



Sorry if this has been discussed - but I've read that the gun was found between 10 and 30 feet away from where he was shot - do they not photograph the scene and the weapons/empty shell casings etc. etc. as they lay on the ground - like in the movies?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Why should the police and witnesses initially agree on what happened? .



There is usually a very good reason why the police agree with one another.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is usually a very good reason why the police agree with one another.



You are not dealing with my point. 

I am fully aware that they probably get together later to 'compare notes'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

TopCat said:


> That gun weighs nearly two kilos. About the same as a house brick. Could you throw this 20  feet?


are you sure? i think a loaded m16 weighs something like 7lb loaded, less than 3.5kg. e2a: 4kg loaded.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> are you sure? i think a loaded m16 weighs something like 7lb loaded, less than 3.5kg.



When I checked it was 750g. But I may have got the wrong gun.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> You are not dealing with my point.
> 
> I am fully aware that they probably get together later to 'compare notes'.


You have yourself missed the point if you think others are arguing that there ought to be some kind of super-consistency about the eyewitness reports.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You have yourself missed the point if you think others are arguing that there ought to be some kind of super-consistency about the eyewitness reports.



I am pointing out that it's difficult to be sure what went on.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I am pointing out that it's difficult to be sure what went on.


long story short: cops shot dead an unarmed man.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> are you sure? i think a loaded m16 weighs something like 7lb loaded, less than 3.5kg. e2a: 4kg loaded.


No i am not sure.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> long story short: cops shot dead an unarmed man.


And lied about why and how...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

TopCat said:


> And lied about why and how...


took that as read


----------



## silverfish (Jan 14, 2014)

TopCat said:


> That gun weighs nearly two kilos. About the same as a house brick. Could you throw this 20  feet?



what was it a desert eagle .50 with depleted uranium rounds and a full magazine!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

silverfish said:


> what was it a desert eagle .50 with depleted uranium rounds and a full magazine!!


a desert eagle .50 weighs 1998.6g with an empty magazine.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 14, 2014)

TopCat said:


> And lied about why and how...



why, they thought he was armed and posed an immediate risk
how, they pointed a loaded made ready weapon at him and pulled the trigger


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2014)

Do you not accept that the police lied during the inquest silverfish?


----------



## silverfish (Jan 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> a desert eagle .50 weighs 1998.6g with an empty magazine.



 I rest my case m'lud


----------



## silverfish (Jan 14, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Do you not accept that the police lied during the inquest silverfish?



I haven't gone either way on that point, other than inferring that if they weren't so evasive, slippery and proactively defensive they may come out of situations like this a bit better

Did they lie, did they have differing perceptions of the same situation as each other, did their witness statements agree with every other witness?

If they lied and it has been proven, they need to go to jail.

If they all compared notes and got their stories straight you would expect their witness statements to be similar rather than contradictory.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

silverfish said:


> I haven't gone either way on that point, other than inferring that if they weren't so evasive, slippery and proactively defensive they may come out of situations like this a bit better
> 
> Did they lie, did they have differing perceptions of the same situation as each other, did their witness statements agree with every other witness?
> 
> ...


you have a very simplistic understanding of lying. there's lying all together and singing from the same hymn sheet, which for obvious reasons is now rare. then there's lying to muddy the waters. and if there is lying in this case, it's here. the divergent accounts make it difficult to establish the truth and thus help support a verdict of lawful killing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

silverfish said:


> I haven't gone either way on that point, other than inferring that if they weren't so evasive, slippery and proactively defensive they may come out of situations like this a bit better
> 
> Did they lie, did they have differing perceptions of the same situation as each other, did their witness statements agree with every other witness?
> 
> ...


Maybe liars - based on experience of lying and getting caught lying - realise the importance of little differences in order to make their lies appear as non-lies.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> long story short: cops shot dead an unarmed man.



If only life were so simple.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> If only life were so simple.


The cops did shoot dead an unarmed man. That bit is really quite simple. And they then lied about what happened in court. That has to be common ground here, surely.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The cops did shoot dead an unarmed man. That bit is really quite simple. And they then lied about what happened in court. That has to be common ground here, surely.



It's a starting-point certainly.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 14, 2014)

silverfish said:


> I haven't gone either way on that point, other than inferring that if they weren't so evasive, slippery and proactively defensive they may come out of situations like this a bit better
> 
> Did they lie, did they have differing perceptions of the same situation as each other, did their witness statements agree with every other witness?
> 
> ...


It's important though

How can V53 have given such a detailed explanation of the gun in Mark Duggan's hand if it hadn't been there? The gun that 'caused' MD to get shot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 14, 2014)

sojourner said:


> It's important though
> 
> How can V53 have given such a detailed explanation of the gun in Mark Duggan's hand if it hadn't been there? The gun that 'caused' MD to get shot.


he said what he should have seen instead of what he had in fact seen.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

This is how they done it - he had an_ honest belief_ that he saw it. _Whether he had or not is irrelevant._ And a reason why we're spiraling to police being able to do what they want to who they want when they want.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2014)

sojourner said:


> It's important though
> 
> How can V53 have given such a detailed explanation of the gun in Mark Duggan's hand if it hadn't been there? The gun that 'caused' MD to get shot.


He described the gun as being in a sock with the barrel poking out of a hole at the end. This assertion is more than curious. If he had not in fact seen the gun as it was still in a shoebox, how did he know about the sock?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This is how they done it - he had an_ honest belief_ that he saw it. _Whether he had or not is irrelevant._ And a reason why we're spiraling to police being able to do what they want to who they want when they want.



Aye, that just about sums it up.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This is how they done it - he had an_ honest belief_ that he saw it. _Whether he had or not is irrelevant._ And a reason why we're spiraling to police being able to do what they want to who they want when they want.


But to be able to describe it so well, on his 'lovely view' of it. It's not saying 'it looked like a gun', it's describing the gun and the sock.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> This is how they done it - he had an_ honest belief_ that he saw it. _Whether he had or not is irrelevant._ And a reason why we're spiraling to police being able to do what they want to who they want when they want.


The form itself (the determination and conc) uses a discourse which makes it impossible to say anything other than what they did say, imo. It confines, and entraps.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

sojourner said:


> But to be able to describe it so well, on his 'lovely view' of it. It's not saying 'it looked like a gun', it's describing the gun and the sock.


Doesn't matter, they have the defence of honest belief - how they can have a belief about something they couldn't have seen and how it fits with other copper explanations doesn't matter anymore. All that counts is saying in court that you had an honest belief. It's perfect. It's law around this boiled down to a great big _fuck off._


----------



## silverfish (Jan 14, 2014)

sojourner said:


> The form itself (the determination and conc) uses a discourse which makes it impossible to say anything other than what they did say, imo. It confines, and entraps.



Are you saying there is no position the copper can put forward other than "I saw a gun"  because he opened fire theoretically because he "saw a gun"

what would the outcome be if the copper said, I thought I saw a gun and reacted and shot him, I made a mistake

If you weren't 100% sure he had a gun why did you shoot him?

The process paints the copper into a corner


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

silverfish said:


> Are you saying there is no position the copper can put forward other than "I saw a gun"  because he opened fire theoretically because he "saw a gun"
> 
> what would the outcome be if the copper said, I thought I saw a gun and reacted and shot him, I made a mistake
> 
> ...



It seems the verdict hinged on the copper convincing the jury of his good faith.


----------



## tarannau (Jan 14, 2014)

What, a corner that he's got into by conspiring with his fellow officers? Seems a bit self inflicted to me - he could have given an honest account rather than the mysteriously detailed description of a gun barrel clearly showing in sock and the subsequent shootout cobblers, a gun that proved invisible to all others present (and an item which flew unseen 20ft away)

Plausible?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Why should the police and witnesses initially agree on what happened? Individuals see the same event differently. Various angles. Tricks of memory etc.
> 
> Opposing football fans dispute a penalty - even when they see identical and repeated footage!
> 
> *How much more difficult in the chaotic heat of the moment* - a moment you can't replay.



Well, one of the issues with memories processed under trauma is that they're often very deeply imprinted - so deeply that stress can cause replay.
Of course, replay is contextual and a matter of perspective, but I wouldn't assume that reasonably-accurate memories are likely to be "more difficult"  to achieve just because they're produced in "the heat of the moment"/under stress.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> You are not dealing with my point.
> 
> I am fully aware that they probably get together later to 'compare notes'.



Nothing "probable" about it. They were put in a room together 3 days after Duggan's death, and given a full working day to write their statements/get their story straight/invent a narrative.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nothing "probable" about it. They were put in a room together 3 days after Duggan's death, and given a full working day to write their statements/get their story straight/invent a narrative.



I'd do the same.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I'd do the same.


I don't doubt it for a second.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

tarannau said:


> What, a corner that he's got into by conspiring with his fellow officers? Seems a bit self inflicted to me - he could have given an honest account rather than the mysteriously detailed description of a gun barrel clearly showing in sock and the subsequent shootout cobblers, a gun that proved invisible to all others present (and an item which flew unseen 20ft away)
> 
> Plausible?



Is it not described as 3 to 6m? Which is not necessarily 20ft.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I don't doubt it for a second.



Is it illegal?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Is it illegal?


No, you have an honest belief that it's best for you to do this.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> No, you have an honest belief that it's best for you to do this.



No, it was just a tragic mistake


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I'd do the same.



because you're a dick, obviously. 

It's very poor practice if you're at all interested in preserving a semblance of probity as a police service, though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 14, 2014)

were the witnesses given a day to discuss things together pre-trial and work out who saw what?

no? No I didn't think so.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> No, it was just a tragic mistake


What?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What?


Translate: Cock.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> because you're a dick, obviously.
> 
> It's very poor practice if you're at all interested in preserving a semblance of probity as a police service, though.



It seems highly suspicious to me. 

I'd have thought there was an embargo of some sort against it.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What?



The shooting: it's either a tragic mistake - or an execution. Take your pick


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The shooting: it's either a tragic mistake - or an execution. Take your pick


It's not either or.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The shooting: it's either a tragic mistake - or an execution. Take your pick


What's that got to do with the post of mine that you replied to?


----------



## leanderman (Jan 14, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What's that got to do with the post of mine that you replied to?



Human error


----------



## TopCat (Jan 14, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Human error


His mums error.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 15, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Doesn't matter, they have the defence of honest belief - how they can have a belief about something they couldn't have seen and how it fits with other copper explanations doesn't matter anymore. All that counts is saying in court that you had an honest belief. It's perfect. It's law around this boiled down to a great big _fuck off._



Yep - which is why I followed it with this:



sojourner said:


> The form itself (the determination and conc) uses a discourse which makes it impossible to say anything other than what they did say, imo. It confines, and entraps.



8 of them are sure he did not have a gun in his hand when he was stopped. At this point they can still consider unlawful killing.

They only 'think' he threw the gun out of the window on the basis of probability.  

The discourse used in the determination paper completely leads, entraps, and confines their final decision. "If V53 *may* have been defending himself...".  Then "Did V53 *honestly believe or may he honestly have believed, even if that belief is mistaken*, that at the time he fired the fatal shot, that he needed to use force to defend himself or another; if your answer is NO then he cannot have been acting in lawful self-defence..."

^^ and _that's_ what it rests on.  

So the jury hear V53 insisting that he honestly believed he had a gun.  The jury then cannot say no, for some reason, even though they have the knowledge that the gun and the sock have none of MD's DNA on it, no-one saw him throw the gun, V53 describes the gun and sock in detail - items which he could not have actually seen in his hand.  

Sorry to repeat the wording on the conclusion but it's this that it rests on, isn't it?   The document itself is worded in such a way that it is nigh on impossible to reach a conclusion of unlawful killing. And that fucking stinks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

leanderman said:


> It's a starting-point certainly.


It's an ending point, I think, in that it is something that everyone can agree on. Once we go beyond that, you get to what looks to me at least like a strange compulsion among some to provide excuses and mitigation for the police that the evidence gives no reason to give. You, silverfish and open sauce all fall into this category - I simply do not recognise your idea of what the police force is and how it operates.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

sojourner said:


> The discourse used in the determination paper completely leads, entraps, and confines their final decision. "If V53 *may* have been defending himself...".  Then "Did V53 *honestly believe or may he honestly have believed, even if that belief is mistaken*, that at the time he fired the fatal shot, that he needed to use force to defend himself or another; if your answer is NO then he cannot have been acting in lawful self-defence..."


The thing about this is that I'm pretty sure that it doesn't apply to us. The police have a special rule all to themselves. Someone might correct me here, but I'm pretty sure that if you or I were in this situation, the test would not be 'Did we have an honest belief, even if it was mistaken?', but 'Was such a belief reasonable, even if it turned out to be mistaken?' The so-called 'reasonable man' test.

The police literally have their own laws, just for them. Pretty much a definition of a police state.

For instance, if we take V53 at his word, he was experiencing a full-on hallucination, and killed a man on the basis of that hallucination. Manslaughter with the mitigation of temporary insanity would be the charge for you or me, I think, at the very least. It certainly wouldn't be called lawful.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's an ending point, I think, in that it is something that everyone can agree on. Once we go beyond that, you get to what looks to me at least like a strange compulsion among some to provide excuses and mitigation for the police that the evidence gives no reason to give. You, silverfish and open sauce all fall into this category - I simply do not recognise your idea of what the police force is and how it operates.



Pour 'discourager les autres', at least, an open verdict or even lawful killing would have been a better result. 

But the fact the Met rarely shoots people in cold blood, the weight of the jury's verdict and the evidence I have read on the inquest website all still make me think this was a tragic fuck-up.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 15, 2014)

leanderman said:


> the Met rarely shoots people in cold blood



They seem to prefer strangulation, blunt force trauma and starvation and stuff like that instead, don't they?


----------



## leanderman (Jan 15, 2014)

TruXta said:


> They seem to prefer strangulation, blunt force trauma and starvation and stuff like that instead, don't they?



I think this point has been made already!


----------



## TruXta (Jan 15, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I think this point has been made already!


Seems it needs some more making.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> For instance, if we take V53 at his word, he was experiencing a full-on hallucination, and killed a man on the basis of that hallucination.


 The issue with this is that the "hallucination" was an accurate one in that the gun was described accurately and according to the accepted evidence he had not seen the weapon at all at this time and had no knowledge of what type of weapon it was nor that it was contained within a sock.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

TopCat said:


> The issue with this is that the "hallucination" was an accurate one in that the gun was described accurately and according to the accepted evidence he had not seen the weapon at all at this time and had no knowledge of what type of weapon it was nor that it was contained within a sock.


That's true. Maybe he's psychic.

That's the thing, isn't it - any approach that isn't 'the coppers were lying their fucking heads off' bumps up against these problems. 

If you or I attempted such a defence, we'd be up on a charge of murder.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

leanderman said:


> But the fact *the Met rarely shoots people in cold blood*, the weight of the jury's verdict and the evidence I have read on the inquest website all still make me think this was a tragic fuck-up.


Do you not think this attitude is weird? The police only rarely execute people and then conspire to lie about it afterwards. That _should never happen_.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2014)

I guess some people think all the stuff that happens afterwards is a formality so the police should be able to say whatever they like.  I imagine the police find it a tedious waste of time that they have to go into a room for a whole day in order to cook up a story.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

8ball said:


> I guess some people think all the stuff that happens afterwards is a formality so the police should be able to say whatever they like.


Defining 'what the police do' as lawful, essentially. Butchersapron is right about this - the whole inquest boils down to a simple 'fuck you'. The pretence that it is anything else is patently absurd.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Defining 'what the police do' as lawful, essentially. Butchersapron is right about this - the whole inquest boils down to a simple 'fuck you'. The pretence that it is anything else is patently absurd.


 
Not sure about the inquest, but definitely the verdict.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The thing about this is that I'm pretty sure that it doesn't apply to us. The police have a special rule all to themselves. Someone might correct me here, but I'm pretty sure that if you or I were in this situation, the test would not be 'Did we have an honest belief, even if it was mistaken?', but 'Was such a belief reasonable, even if it turned out to be mistaken?' The so-called 'reasonable man' test.
> 
> The police literally have their own laws, just for them. Pretty much a definition of a police state.
> 
> For instance, if we take V53 at his word, he was experiencing a full-on hallucination, and killed a man on the basis of that hallucination. Manslaughter with the mitigation of temporary insanity would be the charge for you or me, I think, at the very least. It certainly wouldn't be called lawful.


Interesting.

So there may be a document with different wording on? Can anyone lay their hands on one? Any legal people here?


----------



## laptop (Jan 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The thing about this is that I'm pretty sure that it doesn't apply to us. The police have a special rule all to themselves. Someone might correct me here, but I'm pretty sure that if you or I were in this situation, the test would not be 'Did we have an honest belief, even if it was mistaken?', but 'Was such a belief reasonable, even if it turned out to be mistaken?' The so-called 'reasonable man' test.
> 
> The police literally have their own laws, just for them. Pretty much a definition of a police state.
> 
> For instance, if we take V53 at his word, he was experiencing a full-on hallucination, and killed a man on the basis of that hallucination. Manslaughter with the mitigation of temporary insanity would be the charge for you or me, I think, at the very least. It certainly wouldn't be called lawful.



Hmm. I find a wonderfully tangled case:



> In _R v Williams (Gladstone)_ (1984), a man named Mason had seen a youth trying to rob a woman in the street, and had chased him, knocking him to the ground. Williams, who had not witnessed the robbery, then came onto the scene and was told by Mason that he was a police officer (which was untrue). W asked M to produce his warrant card, which he was of course unable to do, and a struggle ensued. W was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and at his trial raised the defence that he had mistakenly believed that M was unlawfully assaulting the youth and had intervened to prevent any further harm. The trial judge directed the jury that his mistake would only be a defence if it was both honest and reasonable. The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and held that the defendant's mistaken but honest belief that he was using reasonable force to prevent the commission of an offence, was sufficient to afford him a defence.
> 
> Law Teacher http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/self-defence.php



That relates to the "prevention of the commission of a crime" aspect, not fear of immediate harm to self.

But it seems that Williams had to show that he *did* have a reasonable belief (even if mistaken) - not just that he *may* have done so (as the jury were instructed in the immediate harm context.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

sojourner said:


> Interesting.
> 
> So there may be a document with different wording on? Can anyone lay their hands on one? Any legal people here?


There does appear to be an 'honest belief' defence, in fact:



> D saw a man assaulting a youth. The youth was calling for help. The man was in fact affecting a lawful arrest of the youth, albeit falsely claiming to be a police officer. D intervened
> *
> Held:* D was not guilty of assault. He honestly believed that he was preventing an unlawful assault. If the belief was in fact held, its unreasonableness is neither here nor there. It is irrelevant.



So we just come down to whether or not the police officer's statement that he honestly held the belief is credible. You or I cannot just say that our belief is honest - we also have to be believed, as in:



> Defendant invited several companions to have sexual intercourse with his wife. Told them that her resistance would not constitute lack of consent but rather enhanced her satisfaction.
> *
> Held: *  D was guilty of aiding and abetting rape. The companions were guilty of rape. Mistake as to V's consent must be honest but need not be reasonable. No room for either a 'defence' of honest belief or mistake.
> 
> (The House of Lords upheld the convictions on the basis that the accused had not actually held any mistaken belief.)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

laptop said:


> Hmm. I find a wonderfully tangled case:
> 
> That relates to the "prevention of the commission of a crime" aspect, not fear of immediate harm to self.
> 
> But it seems that Williams had to show that he *did* have a reasonable belief (even if mistaken) - not just that he *may* have done so (as the jury were instructed in the immediate harm context.


That's the same case as the first one I quote above.

I think we're at a bit of an impasse here now. If you think the copper had an honest belief that Duggan was pointing a gun at him, his actions become lawful, perhaps. If you think the copper is lying his head off about that honest belief, which I think is provably the case given what TC pointed out above, his actions become unlawful.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 15, 2014)

Either V53 is lying regarding seeing the gun or his colleagues are lying as to the location they found the gun in contained in the shoebox or both, or they are all liars.


----------



## laptop (Jan 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's the same case as the first one I quote above.



I know. But I think I captured more of the confusing complexity of that case, before you posted 



> I think we're at a bit of an impasse here now. If you think the copper had an honest belief that Duggan was pointing a gun at him, his actions become lawful, perhaps. If you think the copper is lying his head off about that honest belief, which I think is provably the case given what TC pointed out above, his actions become unlawful.



Eh? I'm pointing out ways in which the test suggested in the coroner's instructions gave the cop *more* leeway than Williams appears to have had.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

laptop said:


> Eh? I'm pointing out ways in which the test suggested in the coroner's instructions gave the cop *more* leeway than Williams appears to have had.


Did they, though? In the Williams case, the reasonableness or not of the belief was judged irrelevant. All that mattered was that the court believed that his belief was honestly held. That's the same, isn't it? Here, the case again hinged only on whether or not the jury believed that the copper had an honest belief.


----------



## laptop (Jan 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did they, though? In the Williams case, the reasonableness or not of the belief was judged irrelevant. All that mattered was that the court believed that his belief was honestly held. That's the same, isn't it? Here, the case again hinged only on whether or not the jury believed that the copper had an honest belief.



As I understand it:


Williams appeal: *did have* an honestly-held belief
Duggan inquest:  *may have had* the same.


----------



## Chrispeptide (Jan 15, 2014)

Interesting piece from Paul Embery regional secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (London region) on the shooting of Duggan. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-embery/mark-duggan-killing_b_4600351.html


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2014)

> hard evidence that Duggan, a convicted criminal with gangster connections, took possession, on that fateful day, of a gun (for the supply of which an associate was later jailed); plainly harboured malevolent intentions of one sort or another, possibly involving taking another life, when he travelled with it in a taxi; and was holding the weapon when he alighted the vehicle after it was stopped (albeit that he tossed it aside a micro-second before the first bullet struck him).



yeah


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

Chrispeptide said:


> Interesting piece from Paul Embery regional secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (London region) on the shooting of Duggan. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-embery/mark-duggan-killing_b_4600351.html


He was the wrong sort of victim. Fuck's sake.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah


Good grief. He actually believes the verdict.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 15, 2014)

Chrispeptide said:
			
		

> Interesting piece from Paul Embery regional secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (London region) on the shooting of Duggan. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-embery/mark-duggan-killing_b_4600351.html



You only seem to post on this subject.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

Chrispeptide said:


> Interesting piece from Paul Embery regional secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (London region) on the shooting of Duggan. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-embery/mark-duggan-killing_b_4600351.html


That has really pissed me off. He's a credulous fool who's swallowed the police smears whole without even chewing. What a total cunt.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That has really pissed me off. He's a credulous fool who's swallowed the police smears whole without even chewing. What a total cunt.


 
Tbf unless you look into it properly what can you do - it's been a united front of police and media on this with nary an awkward question asked.

edit:  Oh, I see he seems to think Duggan actually started the riots.   Ignore me, fuck him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

8ball said:


> Tbf unless you look into it properly what can you do .


Refrain from writing articles about it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Good grief. He actually believes the verdict.




and gets his 'if you disagree you are a soft-liberal dreamer' digs in early.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

Mark Duggan was no Steve Biko.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 15, 2014)

8ball said:


> Tbf unless you look into it properly what can you do - it's been a united front of police and media on this with nary an awkward question asked.
> 
> edit:  Oh, I see he seems to think Duggan actually started the riots.   Ignore me, fuck him.


 
he did start the riots - by being shot  or rather, the police started them


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

frogwoman said:


> he did start the riots - by being shot  or rather, the police started them


His mum started them.


----------



## IC3D (Jan 15, 2014)

The riots started when the Duggan family went to the police station to peacefully protest and a group of police attacked a 16yr old girl


----------



## Balbi (Jan 15, 2014)

You know this image, of scowly hardened criminal Mark Duggan?

 

Look at that face. Grim, angry, criminal.

Oh, it's taken as he visited his daughters grave.

 

Fucking hell


----------



## Tankus (Jan 15, 2014)

Changed my life ...

I left London from a growing disenchantment ,and a concern for what was coming next . I honestly did not expect the lid to be replaced and screwed back on tight ........at the time .


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 15, 2014)

IC3D said:


> The riots started when the Duggan family went to the police station to peacefully protest and a group of police attacked a 16yr old girl





iirc at this point they hadn't even been allowed to identify the body


----------



## IC3D (Jan 15, 2014)

I've searched the thread but has this statement from the IPCC investigation been posted.


> PCC DOCUMENT RE: DUGGAN INQUEST:
> This document, written by someone from the IPCC [the useless 'independent body' charged with punishing errant coppers] appears to suggest that a police officer stated another officer threw the Duggan gun which would suggest the crime scene had been altered to fit in with the officers' version of events. These are now all publicly available documents and a link to them is posted below - peruse them for yourselves.
> 
> Link to inquest documents:
> ...


----------



## TopCat (Jan 15, 2014)

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/CD027297.pdf


----------



## sojourner (Jan 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There does appear to be an 'honest belief' defence, in fact:
> 
> So we just come down to whether or not the police officer's statement that he honestly held the belief is credible. You or I cannot just say that our belief is honest - we also have to be believed, as in:


Is that from a trial though?

Are they not different to an inquest by jury?


----------



## sojourner (Jan 15, 2014)

Chrispeptide said:


> Interesting piece from Paul Embery regional secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (London region) on the shooting of Duggan. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-embery/mark-duggan-killing_b_4600351.html


Where to begin with 'so much fucking wrong with that'?

First, I don't believe anyone 'took at face value the glib claim' etc. 

Second, the writer is saying he is stating 'truths'. He's not. There IS no hard evidence he took possession of a gun, save the 'intelligence'.  The guy who supplied the gun was convicted on perjury by police. MD 'plainly harboured malevolent intentions' - he did?! Fuck off! He 'was holding the weapon when he alighted the vehicle'?  Jesus. 

I'm not going on with that - the Huffington is usually okay, but that's an arse-wipe of an article.  How insulting too.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 15, 2014)

TopCat said:


> View attachment 46539
> 
> http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/CD027297.pdf


 the fuck?!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

sojourner said:


> Is that from a trial though?
> 
> Are they not different to an inquest by jury?


Not so different. In a criminal  trial, conviction has to pass the test 'beyond reasonable doubt'. In this inquest, the verdict 'unlawful killing' also had to pass that test. But failing that, there were two other verdicts available - lawful killing and open verdict, both of which needed only to pass the lower 'balance of probabilities' test. The jury decided that the balance of probabilities was that it was more likely than not that the copper had an honest belief that Duggan was pointing a gun at him.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 15, 2014)

I wish I had the time to lay out all the documentation from the inquest. 


sojourner said:


> Where to begin with 'so much fucking wrong with that'?
> 
> First, I don't believe anyone 'took at face value the glib claim' etc.
> 
> ...


It's not suprising. The fire brigade work hand in hand with the police and share a lot of similar attitudes.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 15, 2014)

The evidence at the link http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/evidence.htm is fascinating. I did not realise it is a matter of public record. I have been going thus far on the transcripts only. Probably a good idea to download the lot quick.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not so different. *In a criminal  trial, conviction has to pass the test 'beyond reasonable doubt*'. In this inquest, the verdict 'unlawful killing' also had to pass that test. But failing that, there were two other verdicts available - lawful killing and open verdict, both of which needed only to pass the lower 'balance of probabilities' test. The jury decided that the balance of probabilities was that it was more likely than not that the copper had an honest belief that Duggan was pointing a gun at him.


Mmm...still think that the specific wording makes it so much more difficult in the inquest situation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 15, 2014)

sojourner said:


> Mmm...still think that the specific wording makes it so much more difficult in the inquest situation.


It seems that it did.  I'm not sure why, though. If the jury thought it more likely than not that the copper was lying, but wasn't sure what had really happened to make him lie, they could have returned an open verdict. They in fact decided that it was more likely than not that the copper had thought he had seen a gun as he had described, despite also deciding that it was more likely than not that Duggan had thrown the gun away before that moment.

I can't think of any adequate way to describe that. Whatever the difficulties of the procedure, it is absurd, perverse, nonsensical.


----------



## sojourner (Jan 15, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It seems that it did.  I'm not sure why, though. If the jury thought it more likely than not that the copper was lying, but wasn't sure what had really happened to make him lie, they could have returned an open verdict. They in fact decided that it was more likely than not that the copper had thought he had seen a gun as he had described, despite also deciding that it was more likely than not that Duggan had thrown the gun away before that moment.
> 
> I can't think of any adequate way to describe that. Whatever the difficulties of the procedure, it is *absurd, perverse, nonsensical*.


Yep. Every way you turn it over to examine it, that's how it comes  out.

Despite having all that knowledge...


----------



## leanderman (Jan 15, 2014)

TopCat said:


> The evidence at the link http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/evidence.htm is fascinating. I did not realise it is a matter of public record. I have been going thus far on the transcripts only. Probably a good idea to download the lot quick.



It's a treasure trove. Fascinating stuff


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2014)

Chrispeptide said:


> Interesting piece from Paul Embery regional secretary of the Fire Brigades Union (London region) on the shooting of Duggan. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/paul-embery/mark-duggan-killing_b_4600351.html



Interesting in that Embery spends most of his "article" puffing the police line (Duggan a "convicted criminal with gangster connections" etc).  One wonders of he's looking for a Labour seat some time in the near future.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2014)

TopCat said:


> View attachment 46539
> 
> http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/docs/CD027297.pdf


no need for further conversation on the matter. case closed.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 15, 2014)

> *Scriptonite Daily*
> This is SO important! @halfabear: The media cropped an image of Mark Duggan to create a visual that fit the narrative. Here's the true version. http://t.co/hmDMlx5Hqc


----------



## leanderman (Jan 15, 2014)

Newspapers usually crop photos. Full-length pix rarely used, other than for models, actresses etc


----------



## ddraig (Jan 15, 2014)

oh come on!
totally and obviously changes the content


----------



## leanderman (Jan 15, 2014)

ddraig said:


> oh come on!
> totally and obviously changes the content



Maybe. But head and shoulders are generally preferred, for space reasons


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

ddraig said:


> oh come on!
> totally and obviously changes the content



The sensitive may want to look away now, but, as an example, this is yesterday's Mail using the picture cropped.

The fuller-length image would not work in that space.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2014)

are we to assume there were no happy smiling images of Duggan available that would fit the space?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The sensitive may want to look away now, but, as an example, this is yesterday's Mail using the picture cropped.
> 
> The fuller-length image would not work in that space.



The full pic would not fit the narrative either, the full pic doesn't fit the narrative and image that has been created of MD. You know full well what the point is.

ETA: I've just scrolled back to previous pages and I see balbi already posted these pics. I'll leave it there.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> The full pic would not fit the narrative either, the full pic doesn't fit the narrative and image that has been created of MD. You know full well what the point is.



The full pic doesn't fit this particular page layout. It is as simple as that.

I'll check out the other newspapers if I have time.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The full pic doesn't fit this particular page layout. _*It is as simple as that.*_


Yeah okay. 

As I have never seen the full pics before I take it they have never fitted the layout of any paper ever? Not even those that had quarter/half page pics of MD in them over the last two years. NEVER once has the full pic fitted the layouts. Must be about space as you say.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2014)

of course the use of negative images of black people in the mail has been well documented in Flat Earth News.

like it was news to anyone.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah okay.



The full pic is used here on the Mail website.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...shot-dead-marksman-did-not-gun-hand-time.html


----------



## newbie (Jan 16, 2014)

laptop said:


> As I understand it:
> 
> 
> Williams appeal: *did have* an honestly-held belief
> Duggan inquest:  *may have had* the same.


W
(appeal about) Trial: focus of law and jury deliberation is action of individual and whether or not (BRD) specific law was broken by that individual

D
Inquest: focus on a death and circumstances around it. Verdict of unlawful killing, though BRD, cannot attribute criminal responsibility.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> of course the use of negative images of black people in the mail has been well documented in Flat Earth News.
> 
> like it was news to anyone.



Terrifyingly accurate book.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The sensitive may want to look away now, but, as an example, this is yesterday's Mail using the picture cropped.
> 
> The fuller-length image would not work in that space.


do you or have you ever worked on a news paper or publication?
i know what you are saying but if they wanted to they could fit the portrait pic on there.
the headline could be knocked down a few points, and the text in the last 2 paragraphs under the picture would fit in the other 4 columns leaving the final column for the full sized pic.
if it was a heart wrenching story they would have put it in as that is what they want to portray.
it really isn't difficult.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 16, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah okay.
> 
> As I have never seen the full pics before I take it they have never fitted the layout of any paper ever? Not even those that had quarter/half page pics of MD in them over the last two years. NEVER once has the full pic fitted the layouts. Must be about space as you say.


init! not like typesetters, layout or design people can change proportions or move them around to fit in easy to use computer packages, no way


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

ddraig said:


> do you or have you ever worked on a news paper or publication?.



Yes. I am in my 20th year working in newspapers, the last 12 at nationals.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2014)

They will crop to give head shots. That's not the point, imo. The choice of image was made for a reason - because it makes him look like a 'gangster'-type. They could, for instance, have chosen this image:






But didn't. 

And there is a reason they didn't.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The full pic is used here on the Mail website.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...shot-dead-marksman-did-not-gun-hand-time.html


 ...after the verdict. Job done.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Yes. I am in my 20th year working in newspapers, the last 12 at nationals.


well then you should know that if they wanted that pic in full they could and would have fitted it in


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The full pic doesn't fit this particular page layout. It is as simple as that.



Let's be crystal clear about this. 

They chose to crop in on an image of him at his daughter's grave rather than him smiling at some happy event. 

Anyone making that editorial choice is a total cunt. 

Why you didn't see this with your 20 years' experience in papers is beyond me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Let's be crystal clear about this.
> 
> They chose to crop in on an image of him at his daughter's grave rather than him smiling at some happy event.
> 
> ...


the culture has become inherent within leanderman and her/his critical faculties have perhaps withered


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the culture has become inherent within leanderman and her/his critical faculties have perhaps withered


Or he may just be a rotten apple.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

I think posters here may want to have a look at this thread and todays updates.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> The sensitive may want to look away now, but, as an example, this is yesterday's Mail using the picture cropped.
> 
> The fuller-length image would not work in that space.



Which paper did you learn layout at?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah okay.
> 
> As I have never seen the full pics before I take it they have never fitted the layout of any paper ever? Not even those that had quarter/half page pics of MD in them over the last two years. NEVER once has the full pic fitted the layouts. Must be about space as you say.



Nah.  Most layout programs allow you dozens of options that don't compromise a headline's point size, and even back in the days when I learned layout at the _Daily Express_, when we were still using scalpels and cow gum, you were taught that layout depended on what point the editor wanted to make, not on "ooh, it won't fit if we use a full-length photo".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

ddraig said:


> init! not like typesetters, layout or design people can change proportions or move them around to fit in easy to use computer packages, no way



Even in the days before software, it still wasn't exactly difficult to set up half a dozen different layouts of the same story. Boring, though!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Let's be crystal clear about this.
> 
> They chose to crop in on an image of him at his daughter's grave rather than him smiling at some happy event.
> 
> ...



I'm sure he *does* see this.
It's just that it doesn't accord with the angle he's chosen to take (or his paper has chosen to take) on the story.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

ddraig said:


> well then you should know that if they wanted that pic in full they could and would have fitted it in



Why fit it in? The story is not about the death of his daughter. 

Among other problems, it would require a longer caption.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Why fit it in? The story is not about the death of his daughter.
> 
> Among other problems, it would require a longer caption.


Drawing on your two decades of experience, can you speculate as to why this particular image was chosen ahead of the others available?


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

And, as I have pointed out, the inquest story on the Mail website gives the full-length picture.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Drawing on your two decades of experience, can you speculate as to why this particular image was chosen ahead of the others available?



I suspect it was lifted from
Facebook.

Other than that it is often a question of trying to get one from the family. 

That is a job (the 'death knock') I always found to be the toughest as a reporter. 

Other pictures of Duggan are worse: notably that of him with arms around two men jailed for life over a murder-shooting in Streatham.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> I suspect it was lifted from
> Facebook.
> 
> Other than that it is often a question of trying to get one from the family.
> ...


I'm not trying to be funny here, but are you being deliberately thick?


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Which paper did you learn layout at?



Express & Echo in Exeter.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not trying to be funny here, but are you being deliberately thick?



No


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> No


Look at the image the DM used and the one I found after one single google search. Compare them side-by-side. And have a little think.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Look at the image the DM used and the one I found after one single google search. Compare them side-by-side. And have a little think.



Looks like a school-age photo to me, as a child. 

There are many better points to be made on the Duggan case than this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Looks like a school-age photo to me, as a child.
> 
> There are many better points to be made on the Duggan case than this.



The demonisation of their victims is central to the process of police cover-ups.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The demonisation of their victims is central to the process of police cover-ups.


 
As far as the available pics of Duggan go, that was far from the worst that was used (and is Googleable).

I wonder whether the media has some kind of compact over which images they settle on.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah.  Most layout programs allow you dozens of options that don't compromise a headline's point size, and even back in the days when I learned layout at the _Daily Express_, when we were still using scalpels and cow gum, you were taught that layout depended on what point the editor wanted to make, not on "ooh, it won't fit if we use a full-length photo".



I know.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

8ball said:


> As far as the available pics of Duggan go, that was far from the worst that was used (and is Googleable).
> 
> I wonder whether the media has some kind of compact over which images they settle on.



Not that I know of. 

But the choices are informed by the same editorial considerations - and prejudices. 

Also rival reporters and snappers tend  to work in packs and agree a line or angle on a story so they do not get a bollocking for getting it wrong.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Also rival reporters and snappers tend  to work in packs and agree a line or angle on a story so they do not get a bollocking for getting it wrong.



What would 'getting it wrong' consist of?


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> What would 'getting it wrong' consist of?



Missing an angle that the other papers have picked up on.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Missing an angle that the other papers have picked up on.
> 
> For exam



The _BadBwoy Gangster_ angle which has consistently been propagated and exploited to justify the killing of MD.

For example.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2014)

lets not forget that the very first reportage of this was a brief sun piece that had Duggan emerging like rambo from the taxi, 'blasting' away. Then inconvenient facts started to pile up- it was a police issue bullet. Nobody saw a gun. etc

but by that point the gangster gangster narrative was set


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Missing an angle that the other papers have picked up on.


I thought that they were all actively trying to present the same angle?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> lets not forget that the very first reportage of this was a brief sun piece that had Duggan emerging like rambo from the taxi, 'blasting' away. Then inconvenient facts started to pile up- it was a police issue bullet. Nobody saw a gun. etc
> 
> but by that point the gangster gangster narrative was set


Are you sure of this?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 16, 2014)

Rutita1 said:


> The _BadBwoy Gangster_ angle which has consistently been propagated and exploited to justify the killing of MD.
> 
> For example.


 
I think that has only been used as background noise rather than a justification, though I don't doubt a lot of people would be happy to leave it at that, and it probably explains the lack of awkward questions to some degree.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> I thought that they were all actively trying to present the same angle?



Exactly. Strength in numbers. But if a rival has another angle you are in trouble.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Are you sure of this?




might have the paper wrong, but I'm pretty sure yes.

e2a obviously google is useless atm


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> lets not forget that the very first reportage of this was a brief sun piece that had Duggan emerging like rambo from the taxi, 'blasting' away. Then inconvenient facts started to pile up- it was a police issue bullet. Nobody saw a gun. etc
> 
> but by that point the gangster gangster narrative was set





The Daily Telegraph (London)
August 5, 2011 Friday 
Edition 2; 
National Edition
Officer saved by a radio as 'gangster fires'

*BYLINE:* Mark Hughes; Murray Wardrop

*SECTION:* NEWS; Pg. 11

*LENGTH:* 299 words

A POLICEMAN was saved by his radio last night after a gunman fired at him and the bullet hit the device.

Armed police immediately took aim and Mark Duggan, 29, who was under surveillance, was shot dead in the street in north London.

The policeman, who has not been named, was wounded in the shooting and taken to hospital. But last night he was discharged.

Police sources said the dead man was a "well known gangster" being tracked by officers investigating gun crime in Tottenham.

A witness said a police officer shouted to the man to stop "a couple of times" but he had not heeded the warning.

Atouch Bella, 20, who owns a nearby storage facility, said he heard two gunshots in quick succession at 6.10pm while he walked to the local petrol station to buy cigarettes.

"When I heard the gunshots I ran to the petrol station, I was scared," he said.

"The shots were one after the other. After that there weren't any more."

A waitress at a nearby café, who did not wish to be named, said the incident happened a short walk from Tottenham Hale Tube station.

She said: "One man came in and he said he saw police trying to pull some clothes off a man who was bleeding."

Friends of Mr Duggan said his mother Pamela, 52, and younger brother Marlon, 26, with whom he lived, were "in a terrible state" after hearing of his death.

Dozens of mourners gathered last night outside the family's semi-detached house in Tottenham - just two miles from where he was shot dead.

A female family friend, who refused to give her name, said: "His family are still in a complete state of denial, they don't want to believe that he's dead.

"I don't know what he had got mixed up in but it has brought a great deal of pain to the family now."

The incident has been referred to the Metropolitan Police professional standards department.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Exactly. Strength in numbers. But if a rival has another angle you are in trouble.


Where does the truth feature in all this?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Exactly. Strength in num. But if a rival has another angle you are in troub


So they're all trying to do the same thing but secretly do something very different from each other? Not sure that this explains very much at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> So they're all trying to do the same thing but secretly do something very different from each other? Not sure that this explains very much at all.


it explains a lot. they all want to sing from the same hymn sheet in different keys


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> The Daily Telegraph (London)
> August 5, 2011 Friday
> Edition 2;
> National Edition
> ...



cheers


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where does the truth feature in all this?



A distant second.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> lets not forget that the very first reportage of this was a brief sun piece that had Duggan emerging like rambo from the taxi, 'blasting' away. Then inconvenient facts started to pile up- it was a police issue bullet. Nobody saw a gun. etc
> 
> but by that point the gangster gangster narrative was set



It would be intresting to see who said what first and what the media just made up
In de menzes case a bloke in a heavy coat did jump the gates as seen by a witness unfortunatly it was one of the cops


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> A distant second.


You must be very proud.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2014)

likesfish said:


> It would be intresting to see who said what first and what the media just made up
> In de menzes case a bloke in a heavy coat did jump the gates as seen by a witness unfortunatly it was one of the cops


irrc the police themselves were originally putting out the story that Duggan had fired first.

One might almost think that that is what was _supposed_ to have happened.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You must be very proud.



It's grim at times, I admit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

The IPCC was first out the gate with the suggestion that duggan had fired.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 16, 2014)

I need to index the evidence but the first suggestion that Duggan had fired was in the police notes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The IPCC was first out the gate with the suggestion that duggan had fired.


Morning Star
August 5, 2011 Friday
IPCC asks for shooting witnesses

*BYLINE:* Rory MacKinnon

*SECTION:* BRITAIN

*LENGTH:* 214 words

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said it was launching an inquiry into the killing, which took place at around 6.15pm on Tottenham Hale's Ferry Lane Bridge on Wednesday - reportedly the site of a police surveillance operation. An IPCC spokesman confirmed that an adult male was fatally shot and a firearm was also recovered.

He did not say who shot first. An officer had also been taken to hospital and discharged, but the extent of their injuries was not known, he added. Neither the Metropolitan Police nor the IPCC have released the victim's name, but locals identified him as 29-year-old Mark Duggan, a father of four. Local resident Jay Crowned described Mr Duggan as "a good daddy" and loved by the community. "He's not a troublemaker but he's been down since his friend was stabbed in Mile End in around April this year. "His friend was like a brother and he lost him brutally, since then he's been really down. "He's never had trouble with the police before," Ms Crowned said. Mr Duggan's partner Simone Wilson said she was shocked to hear he may have been carrying a gun. "Maybe he needed it for protection because he was worried," she told reporters. "It is such a shock. They say he shot at police first but I just can't believe it." rorym@peoples-press.com


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The IPCC was first out the gate with the suggestion that duggan had fired.




ah right- I was talking in the context of newspaper reportage, not IPCC. No excuse for why I thought it was the Sun rather than the Tgraph though!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> The IPCC was first out the gate with the suggestion that duggan had fired.



The Express
August 6, 2011 Saturday 
U.K. 1st Edition
Gangster in a cab killed by police in gunfight on street

*BYLINE:* By John Twomey

*SECTION:* NEWS; 34

*LENGTH:* 220 words

A SUSPECTED gangster shot in a gunfight with police was being driven in a minicab, it emerged yesterday.

Mark Duggan opened fire as officers cornered the cab in a busy street - and one police marksman was saved by his radio as the 29-year-old shot at him at close range.

As he fell, a fellow firearms officer fired two shots from his Heckler & Koch MP5 rifle. It is understood Duggan was hit in the head and died instantly.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission was trying to piece together exactly what happened during the incident in Tottenham, north London, at 6.15pm on Thursday.

Duggan, who had never been to prison, was being followed by detectives from Scotland Yard's Operation Trident squad, which targets serious crime in London's black community.

His girlfriend Semone Wilson, 29, said: "Mark was in a cab on his way to mine and on his own. I spoke to him at about 5pm. He asked me if I would cook dinner and I said yes.

"He said he spotted a police car following him. At about 6pm, he sent out a message on his Blackberry sayin g 'the Feds [underworld slang for police] are following me', and that's it, that's the last time anyone heard from him."

An IPCC spokesman said: "A nonpolice issue handgun was recovered at the scene. An officer's radio which appears to have a bullet lodged in it was also recovered."


----------



## likesfish (Jan 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> irrc the police themselves were originally putting out the story that Duggan had fired first.
> 
> One might almost think that that is what was _supposed_ to have happened.


 i wonder if the police spokesman had actually been at the scene or was told by somebody involved with the shooting or just  got a report one wounded cop one dead person and asumed thats what happened.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 16, 2014)

Not just the plod have memories issues eh dotty?


----------



## likesfish (Jan 16, 2014)

The Independent Police Complaints Commission was trying to piece together exactly what happened during the incident in Tottenham, north London, at 6.15pm on Thursday.

They didnt actually appear to have all the facts and just assumed  thats what had happened. Assumation makes an arse out of you amd me


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

There was very little activity the night of the shooting - it was the next day (the 5th) that the smear operation kicked into gear - publicly at least. The telegraph had been told by the IPCC on the 4th that Duggan had shot and they ran with that that same day - two hours after the shooting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2014)

likesfish said:


> Assumation makes an arse out of you amd me


that's 'assumption' i think you'll find.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Not just the plod have memories issues eh dotty?




I'll keep notes next time rather than relying on my shonky memory


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I'll keep notes next time rather than relying on my shonky memory


No need. You can write up the notes later.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> I'll keep notes next time rather than relying on my shonky memory


We can all help you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2014)

TopCat said:


> We can all help you.


he'll need that help


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2014)

urg, just realized I typed 'next time' without doubting for a minute that it will.

anyway, less on my failures, more on the case.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> urg, just realized I typed 'next time' without doubting for a minute that it will.
> 
> anyway, less on my failures, more on the case.


yes: let's move on.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 16, 2014)

Has people seen this yet? News to me.

"The Mark Duggan photograph used by most of the tabloid newspapers – which supposedly shows him as a hard-faced gangster – was actually cropped from a photograph taken of him mourning his dead daughter."

Makes you wonder if there's anything iffy about other photos of him that the MSM have published


----------



## DotCommunist (Jan 16, 2014)

the last three pages were the discussion of that


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 16, 2014)

DotCommunist said:


> the last three pages were the discussion of that


Oops. Apols. Only checked the current page (51)


----------



## TopCat (Jan 16, 2014)

Yeah lots of discussion about this on the thread.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 16, 2014)

TopCat said:


> Yeah lots of discussion about this on the thread.


Makes me wonder if that other pic of Mark Duggan either side of two fellers who had both allegedly been done for murder was cropped as well. Who else was in the photo? Could have just been a family event?



Pickman's model said:


> The Express
> August 6, 2011 Saturday
> U.K. 1st Edition
> Gangster in a cab killed by police in gunfight on street
> ...



Fairly certain I've read a different version of this Blackberry message, something like "Trident have jammed me." 
Unless there were several Blackberry messages.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 16, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Makes me wonder if that other pic of Mark Duggan either side of two fellers who had both allegedly been done for murder was cropped as well. Who else was in the photo? Could have just been a family event?
> .


I'm pretty sure there are pics of me with a few Jamaican mates who used to be regarded as thugs and gangsters.I grew up with them, they are good boys now. The pics could paint a picture though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 16, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Fairly certain I've read a different version of this Blackberry message, something like "Trident have jammed me."


Yes, there are definitely two versions kicking about. Be interested to see the actual records, rather than relying on what the police say the records are.


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Makes me wonder if that other pic of Mark Duggan either side of two fellers who had both allegedly been done for murder was cropped as well. Who else was in the photo? Could have just been a family event?
> .



Quite possibly. 

It's not allegedly though. They are serving life for murder and attempted murder.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Quite possibly.
> 
> It's not allegedly though. They are serving life for murder and attempted murder.


OK, cheers, fair enough. I couldn't recall the exact details.

Anyway I think there are two issues here:

a) Was background information about Duggan made available to the jury and, if so, did it sway their decision ? They would presumably have read news reports from 2011 onwards, detailing his underworld links, did this affect their decision as to whether he was lawfully killed?
Personally I don't find the fact of his having not been convicted of any violent crimes very significant; he might have just been good at it/lucky. Brings to mind one of a noted North London crime family who was done for tax in the end, despite being supposedly responsible for numerous murders - he was apparently very good at not getting caught/lucky/no-one would testify against him

BUT

b) Even if Duggan were proved to be a violent criminal, that wouldn't make his being shot dead whilst unarmed OK...we're not living in Brazil FFS


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 16, 2014)

It seems to me that the general public accept the police version of this incident, or, if not, accept the jury's decision, on the basis that even if he didn't have the gun in his hand then he had one in his possession and was a violent crim so good riddance. The broader issue of whether we want to live in a society where our public servants shoot people dead when they are not presenting a threat...

Also - and it's sad to say - it's only by examining the case and its contradictory evidence *in depth* (as people have been doing on this thread) that alternative versions of what happened may come to light...the general public won't have the time, patience or interest in doing so. (I personally have only been following the story with such interest because of this thread, and because I've had some time off work to do so. If it wasn't for this, I would most likely have fallen into the "well he had a gun and he was a gangster so what is the problem" line of thought)

I have felt some of the theorizing on this thread has veered into conspiracy talk, it's only when you examine the _whole thing in detail_ that facts like the anonymous call claiming Duggan had been set up emerge. And details like that won't - I guess - have appeared in the Daily Mail 

Does anyone have any more info on that anonymous call BTW? If it hadn't been for that, I would bhave thought it likely that the reason for the police pursuit of Duggan that day was because they had been tapping his phone, and had heard him discussing - for example - a forthcoming 'hit' (SOCA personnel gave evidence at the inquest IIRC).


----------



## laptop (Jan 16, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Makes me wonder if that other pic of Mark Duggan either side of two fellers who had both allegedly been done for murder was cropped as well. Who else was in the photo? Could have just been a family event?



I thought I remembered it being taken somewhere - but now I can find only the _Fail_ - reusing it here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...les-lawfully-shot-dead-urges-no-violence.html - with no provenance mentioned


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Let's be crystal clear about this.
> 
> They chose to crop in on an image of him at his daughter's grave rather than him smiling at some happy event.
> 
> Anyone making that editorial choice is a total cunt.



Anyone making that editorial choice is undoubtedly an arse, but will also be working to their paper's editorial line, which is invariably right-wing, reactionary, and demonising of minorities, especially if they happen to be black, male and working class.



> Why you didn't see this with your 20 years' experience in papers is beyond me.



He sees it.  A cub on their first fortnight on a local can see it.
Still, "there are none so blind, as those who will not see", as the old saw goes...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> the culture has become inherent within leanderman and her/his critical faculties have perhaps withered



Or perhaps he's no longer a journo, but rather (hawk, spit!) a manager.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Why fit it in? The story is not about the death of his daughter.
> 
> Among other problems, it would require a longer caption.



No it wouldn't. All it'd require is an explanatory line under the pic.
You know, as usually happens with pics?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or perhaps he's no longer a journo, but rather (hawk, spit!) a manager.


the worst of both worlds


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No it wouldn't. All it'd require is an explanatory line under the pic.
> You know, as usually happens with pics?



If the story is about his daughter makes sense to use it full length. Otherwise, in that space, not. 

The daughter is irrelevant to the story.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 16, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Anyone making that editorial choice is undoubtedly an arse, but will also be working to their paper's editorial line, which is invariably right-wing, reactionary, and demonising of minorities, especially if they happen to be black, male and working class..


Makes me think of that famous photo of Steven Lawrence where he is smiling for the camera and posing with a clenched fist. It's quite innocous looking, but was that one selected rather than others, because it might make Middle England subliminally think of Black Power militants?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> If the story is about his daughter makes sense to use it full length. Otherwise, in that space, not.
> 
> The daughter is irrelevant to the story.



do you feel good doing their bidding outside of work as well as in?


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> If the story is about his daughter makes sense to use it full length. Otherwise, in that space, not.
> 
> The daughter is irrelevant to the story.


Wouldn't it have been good background material though? Imagine his death had been reported as a tragic loss of life to his family and friends (rather than as a precursor to the riots), the complete photo would have been a powerful visual image showing him as a family man?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Makes me think of that famous photo of Steven Lawrence where he is smiling for the camera and posing with a clenched fist. It's quite innocous looking, but was that one selected rather than others, because it might make Middle England subliminally think of Black Power militants?


where's Jazzz when you want him?


----------



## ddraig (Jan 16, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> Wouldn't it have been good background material though? Imagine his death had been reported as a tragic loss of life to his family and friends (rather than as a precursor to the riots), the complete photo would have been a powerful visual image showing him as a family man?


black people with families being responsible? 
doesn't fit the story


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Looks like a school-age photo to me, as a child.
> 
> There are many better points to be made on the Duggan case than this.



If you're a journo then you know that one of the things a story turns on is how it's presented - you can turn a hero into a villain, and a villain into an everyday Joe, depending on how you present the story, and that includes pictures.
Now, I'm not going to contradict your "got it from facebook" possibility, but we both know that you can often accumulate *many* pictures of someone involved in a case, and that *choosing* the picture to use is dependant on how your editor wants the story played, and most pic eds develop a feel for what their boss wants.

You say that there are better points to be made, but the presentation of the story in the papers and the broadcast media is probably the primary point that needs to be taken account of. How the story was presented - and how the police were able set the media agenda several times in succession with little media questioning of what was being fed to them - is extremely important.  How "the establishment" set the media discourse around the Duggan shooting is extremely important.


----------



## Belushi (Jan 16, 2014)

Imagine if Duggan was a police officer who had been gunned down. Would they use the cropped version of the picture or the full version of the picture of him at his daughters grave - despite the fact 'the daughter is irrelevant to the story'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The demonisation of their victims is central to the process of police cover-ups.



And the (to me) annoying thing is that the police (or at least the Met's press office) are way ahead of the curve in terms of using the media to their advantage, and the media either don't see it for some reason connected to professional arrogance (plausible 30 years ago, not so much now), or because they don't *want* to see it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Imagine if Duggan was a police officer who had been gunned down. Would they use the cropped version of the picture or the full version of the picture of him at his daughters grave - despite the fact 'the daughter is irrelevant to the story'.



Of course not.  If the editorial decision was "push the heartbreak", then the full-lengther would have gone in, because it'd have bolstered the angle of the story.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 16, 2014)

Belushi said:


> Imagine if Duggan was a police officer who had been gunned down. Would they use the cropped version of the picture or the full version of the picture of him at his daughters grave - despite the fact 'the daughter is irrelevant to the story'.


nail on head!!


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 16, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> where's Jazzz when you want him?


I am Jazzzz


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

leanderman said:


> Missing an angle that the other papers have picked up on.



In my day (30 years ago) you'd have been crucified if your editor thought you were agreeing a line with other journos on a major story.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 16, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And the (to me) annoying thing is that the police (or at least the Met's press office) are way ahead of the curve in terms of using the media to their advantage, and the media either don't see it for some reason connected to professional arrogance (plausible 30 years ago, not so much now), or because they don't *want* to see it.


It's because for two years they are the same thing. Tied together.


----------



## silverfish (Jan 16, 2014)

similar line ?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...police-health-safety-unarmed-anthony-grainger


----------



## leanderman (Jan 16, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Of course not.  If the editorial decision was "push the heartbreak", then the full-lengther would have gone in, because it'd have bolstered the angle of the story.



Absolutely.

I'll again point out the same company used the full length on its website.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 16, 2014)

scalyboy said:


> I am Jazzzz


you're not as 'loony as jazzz...


----------



## miktheword (Jan 16, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> If you're a journo then you know that one of the things a story turns on is how it's presented - you can turn a hero into a villain, and a villain into an everyday Joe, depending on how you present the story, and that includes pictures.
> you can often accumulate *many* pictures of someone involved in a case, and that *choosing* the picture to use is dependant on how your editor wants the story played, and most pic eds develop a feel for what their boss wants.
> 
> .




sunday  times interviewed and photographed me at home after a violent  incident. whilst thinking,and being  told I was very  careful  on what I said, I let my guard  down and naively lay down  on couch when asked  by photographer and also stupidly tightened  my hand lying by my head when asked. obviously article  appears  as me upright along with  threatening fist.( jouro did say his editor  hated my profession and wanted me to look bad; I hated it too, so wasn't  arsed)  

I'm sure the OB raised  Sillcott's arms above his head before his mug shot Tottenham  '85, making them rise again by his side, threateningly,  when photo  for press was taken.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 17, 2014)

IPCC issues apology to Duggan family .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25776826


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 17, 2014)

Keep your eyes on the progress of this:



> It plans to ban the practice under which officers are allowed to confer before making statements about police shootings and deaths in custody


----------



## leanderman (Jan 17, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Keep your eyes on the progress of this:



Very good point. 

Clearly it was allowed, and it should not have been.


----------



## scalyboy (Jan 17, 2014)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, there are definitely two versions kicking about. Be interested to see the actual records, rather than relying on what the police say the records are.


Seems like there have been reports of two separate Blackberry messages, one to his friends, "Trident have jammed me" and one to his fiance, "The Feds are following me".


----------



## likesfish (Jan 17, 2014)

So the charity single isnt going to be I fought the law and the law won


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 17, 2014)

likesfish said:


> So the charity single isnt going to be I fought the law and the law won


don't give up your day job


----------



## ddraig (Jan 17, 2014)

likesfish said:


> So the charity single isnt going to be I fought the law and the law won


absolute lickspittle shithead


----------



## brogdale (Jan 17, 2014)

Looks like Newsnight have been following this thread. Piece tonight about the IPCC's false news briefings in the immediate aftermath of the killing and their failure to correct the false impression of a gunfight for many days afterwards.

No link yet becasue it's still being aired.


----------



## shygirl (Jan 23, 2014)

*Lambeth Community Police Consultative Group meeting tonight at Karibou Centre to discuss community confidence in the police following the Mark Duggan case. 6 - 9 pm.*


----------



## MrSki (Apr 8, 2014)

Duggan family win judicial review challenging coroner's directions to jury on lawful killing.

In ruling appeal court say "arguable" lawful killing verdict "cannot stand". Other ground rejected.

http://t.co/RZZjJcWV00


----------



## laptop (Apr 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Duggan family win judicial review challenging coroner's directions to jury on lawful killing.
> 
> In ruling appeal court say "arguable" lawful killing verdict "cannot stand". Other ground rejected.
> 
> http://t.co/RZZjJcWV00



Moderately good... I don't understand the technicalities of the ruling on the directions, but it seems now that they have at least an important line of argument that it was not reasonable for the cop to hold a (mistaken) belief that Duggan had a gun.

I was rather disappointed to discover that "Order of Mitting" referred to the name of the judge and wasn't a new and exotic piece of legal nomenclature... like "re-mitting" but the other way?


----------



## Tankus (Apr 8, 2014)

That PDF looks like hieroglyphics


----------



## laptop (Apr 8, 2014)

Tankus said:


> That PDF looks like hieroglyphics



Shouldn't do - it's a scan, so there's no "wrong font" issue.


----------



## MrSki (May 20, 2014)

Judicial Review date set for 9th & 10th July


----------



## MrSki (Jun 4, 2014)

Coroner's report can be found here.


----------



## MrSki (Jun 4, 2014)

Met statement in response can be found here.


----------



## laptop (Jun 4, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Coroner's report can be found here.



The tone, it seems to me, is "I must accept that the jury accepted the MPS account _but..._"

For example:


> 41. There was no contemporaneous video or audio coverage of the incident. The police cars had incident data recorders but the MPS says that no data from
> them is available. No relevant police radio transmission was recorded.


Am I alone in reading a subtly implied "O RLY?"?


----------



## MrSki (Jun 4, 2014)

It makes the IPCC come across as not fit for purpose. An interesting read though.


----------



## teqniq (Jun 4, 2014)

laptop said:


> ..Am I alone in reading a subtly implied "O RLY?"?



No, you are not.


----------



## MrSki (Jul 8, 2014)

Judicial review starts tomorrow. Expected to last for two days Inquest press release here.


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jul 8, 2014)

> The family will argue that the Coroner ought to have directed the jury that if they were sure Mr Duggan was not holding a gun, then they could not return a lawful killing conclusion.


I doubt this is a runner. You can kill in self-defence even if you are in fact wrong about the threat posed (e.g. stabbing a burglar because you thought the turned-off torch was a gun). It isn't legally inconsistent to find that Duggan wasn't holding a gun but that his killing was lawful because the shooter believed he was acting in self-defence.



> Another ground of challenge is that the jury should have been told that if the shooter (officer V53) made a mistake of fact, he could rely on that fact only if the mistake was a reasonable one for him to have made. The jury should not have concluded the killing was lawful if it was justified only by an unreasonable mistaken belief.


That sounds like a much more solid basis for seeking a new inquest. Your belief that you were acting in self-defence has to be reasonable and the jury needs to know how the law operates before applying it.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 8, 2014)

Damarr said:


> I doubt this is a runner. You can kill in self-defence even if you are in fact wrong about the threat posed (e.g. stabbing a burglar because you thought the turned-off torch was a gun). It isn't legally inconsistent to find that Duggan wasn't holding a gun but that his killing was lawful because the shooter believed he was acting in self-defence.
> 
> 
> That sounds like a much more solid basis for seeking a new inquest. Your belief that you were acting in self-defence has to be reasonable and the jury needs to know how the law operates before applying it.



"I genuinely thought my life was in danger"  Are the words you are looking for.
  Classic case being the SAS in Gibraltar being told the IRA bombers were carrying radio controlled detonators. Which turned out to be bollocks.
Though have done judgement training and your mind does play tricks on you and you see weapons where there are none.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 8, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> "I genuinely thought my life was in danger"  Are the words you are looking for.
> Classic case being the SAS in Gibraltar being told the IRA bombers were carrying radio controlled detonators. Which turned out to be bollocks.
> Though have done judgement training and your mind does play tricks on you and you see weapons where there are none.


Would you say that judgement training leads you to see guns everywhere?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2014)

Judgement training?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 8, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Judgement training?



It is where you are presented with a scenario and have to make a decision to shoot or not. Either with a sort of video game or on a shooting range with some targets being bad guys and others being innocent. And with debrief afterwards. Where you have to justify your actions. 



butchersapron said:


> Would you say that judgement training leads you to see guns everywhere?



  No normal infantry training is normally done with a battlefield scenario so you expect everyone out there is a target. So being trained to shoot to kill 
your looking for targets ,and, of course the no shoot targets are set up so they have things in their hands that might look like weapons at a glance.
tools , torches etc. Judgement training is supposed to make you think twice before pulling the trigger. It works on several occasions I nearly shot people
who under the rules of engagement I could have. I thought it better to risk being blown up than shoot someone who wasn't obeying the rules.
  We had a big sign in Arabic and English slow down and approach base slowly barb wire and guns everywhere. Still people drove up everyday like maniacs
either cos they were late, or too important for the rules to apply to them.
		 Though when we trained with the police it was interesting. While they would see someone with a weapon enough reason to open fire. We wouldn't unless he did something threatening with it. Though we would then shoot him lots and lots of times.


----------



## MrSki (Jul 8, 2014)

How was it with mobile phones?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 8, 2014)

Ah right, was never called that when I was in. Thankfully we never shot the kids in NI who'd pop up over walls pointing sticks that looked like weapons.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> How was it with mobile phones?



Depends  where they are sometimes you can shoot them. As ieds detonated via mobile phones were a thing or they are obviously spying on you.


----------



## MrSki (Jul 8, 2014)

In this case do you think IEDs came into it?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 8, 2014)

MrSki said:


> In this case do you think IEDs came into it?



 No of course not  cops are supposed to be trained better than us. The whole point of them turning up dressed in black mob handed is the crim gives up
knowing they have no chance.


----------



## MrSki (Jul 8, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> No of course not  cops are supposed to be trained better than us. The whole point of them turning up dressed in black mob handed is the crim gives up
> knowing they have no chance.


Shame one of them could not use a camera or the cars they drive that have fitted cameras could not be made to work.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2014)

dylanredefined said:


> Depends  where they are sometimes you can shoot them. As ieds detonated via mobile phones were a thing or they are obviously spying on you.


i was quite impressed by the ieds which could be detonated by a camera flash


----------



## laptop (Jul 8, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> i was quite impressed by the ieds which could be detonated by a camera flash



That's showing off.





Is muzzle flash bright enough?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 8, 2014)

laptop said:


> That's showing off.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i don't think so. i'll have to try it.


----------



## TopCat (Jul 9, 2014)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/09/mark-duggan-verdict-should-be-quashed-court-told


----------



## MrSki (Jul 14, 2014)

Ruling from judicial review not expected till October.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

MrSki said:


> Ruling from judicial review not expected till October.


fairly quick for a jr


----------



## MAD-T-REX (Jul 14, 2014)

Particularly when considering that the higher courts take August and September off.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 14, 2014)

Damarr said:


> Particularly when considering that the higher courts take August and September off.


and october if they think no one's looking


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jul 14, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Judgement training?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 4, 2014)

The 3rd anniversary vigil of Duggan's death tonight was more sparsely attended than the one in January, which is hardly surprising as that one was a Saturday afternoon and this one was Monday evening. Probably about 100 people. 

The speakers included Carol Duggan, the mother of Joy Gardner, a relative of Kingsley Burrell, the mother of Christoper Alder, local trade union members (one of whom was also SWP), Winston Silcott, and a preacher from Broadwater Farm.

The traffic on Ferry Lane (a major thoroughfare) was stopped by police throughout most of the vigil.

There was a van full of cops parked up in Tottenham retail park afterwards - and a man standing in the doorway of Carphone Warehouse looking all determined. But they needn't have bothered.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Aug 20, 2014)

Spotted in an _Economist_ article:



> ...The shooting of Mark Duggan, a known gangster...



The same piece also remarks:



> ...the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian...



I guess the lesson is, the unsubstantiated claims of the Met Press Bureau _are_ acceptable so long as they support your argument; but if they don't, then best not repeat the whole ‘overstaying, cokeheaded rapist in an unseasonably heavy coat jumping the ticket barriers and generally looking well suspicious and swarthy’ line.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 21, 2014)

The heavy coat jumping came from an eyewitness describing the met police
Proving eyewitnesses can be pretty ropy


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2014)

likesfish said:


> The heavy coat jumping came from an eyewitness describing the met police
> Proving eyewitnesses can be pretty ropy


Not true - it/they came from the police - specifically C2 in the case of the bulky jacket. This is why the IPCC said that the police had deliberately misled the public by lying.


----------



## MrSki (Sep 23, 2014)




----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 14, 2014)

Request for judicial review into coroner's ‘lawful killing’ finding rejected:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29611987


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 14, 2014)

Statement by solicitor Marcia Willis Stewart on behalf of Carole Duggan:

_I am unable to be at the High Court today. My client, Mark's mother, Pamela Duggan, has nevertheless asked me say on her behalf that she is extremely disappointed at the judgment that has just been handed down._

_She remains deeply distressed about the death of her son and the circumstances in which it occurred and has instructed the legal team to lodge an appeal. To this end the application may be made before the court today._

_As there is another matter related to the death of Mark Duggan being heard in the Court of Appeal today and tomorrow, which is the case in relation to ‘conferring’, it would not be appropriate for me to comment any further at this stage._​
http://www.inquest.org.uk/media/pr/...decision-to-dismiss-claim-for-judicial-review


----------



## krink (Oct 14, 2014)

The rejection today is what the phrase 'depressing inevitability' seems to have been created for. Where is the justice?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 19, 2014)

Judgment in R (Delezuch) -v- Chief Constable and R (Duggan) -v- ACPO: both applications for judicial review turned down.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-cont...elezuch-v-chief-constable-r-duggan-v-acpo.pdf

Trivia fans will be excited to know that representing ACPO in this was John Beggs, the _reformed animal rights spokesman-turned-well-remunerated pro-police silk_ who has been doing such good work insulting the Hillsborough dead of late.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 29, 2015)

_Mark Duggan documents lost in the post, ministers admit_
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...cuments-lost-in-the-post-ministers-admit.html

Presumably as they are computer discs, there are copies.

Still stinks though.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 29, 2015)

thought they had their own courier service?


----------



## brogdale (Jan 29, 2015)

ddraig said:


> thought they had their own courier service?


privatised?


----------



## quiquaquo (Jan 29, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> _Mark Duggan documents lost in the post, ministers admit_
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...cuments-lost-in-the-post-ministers-admit.html
> 
> Presumably as they are computer discs, there are copies.
> ...



Copies?

No point losing them in the post if there are copies surely.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 29, 2015)

brogdale said:


> privatised?


ah! that figures then
ta


----------



## laptop (Jan 29, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Presumably as they are computer discs, there are copies.



I had to read the BBC story twice to work out that the concern is not loss of data. 

It's privacy: specifically, the names and addresses of witnesses  Including police


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jan 29, 2015)

laptop said:


> I had to read the BBC story twice to work out that the concern is not loss of data.
> 
> It's privacy: specifically, the names and addresses of witnesses  Including police


Especially in the light of the disclosures in the Azelle Rodney case, or rather, the naming of Tony Long.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jan 31, 2015)

The Daily Mail is going with a photo of Duggan and "Police gunmen and jurors at risk after data is lost in the post"

Data also relates to the murder of [edited, see below] Robert Hamill, which I'd guess is more of an issue.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 1, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> The Daily Mail is going with a photo of Duggan and "Police gunmen and jurors at risk after data is lost in the post"
> 
> Data also relates to the murder of Loyalist Robert Hamill, which I'd guess is more of an issue.



Hamill was a Catholic murdered by a loyalist mob (while police sat in their van and watched). I remember the Shinners doing murals of him on the Ormeau road when I was living there.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 1, 2015)

Idris2002 said:


> Hamill was a Catholic murdered by a loyalist mob (while police sat in their van and watched). I remember the Shinners doing murals of him on the Ormeau road when I was living there.



Apologies. Was furtively reading a relative's copy of the paper.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 1, 2015)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Apologies. Was furtively reading a relative's copy of the paper.


No worries. That furtive reading will get you every time.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 1, 2015)

MrSki said:


>



The jury were told plenty about the teleporting gun and swallowed it whole. 
I don't see that 'facts' were the problem, really.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 24, 2015)

Well, well well...


> Mark Duggan was probably throwing a handgun away when he was shot by officers, the police watchdog has said.
> 
> He was under Metropolitan Police surveillance when he was shot in Tottenham in August 2011, sparking England-wide riots.
> 
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32041119


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 24, 2015)

jimmy hill


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 24, 2015)

> According to the IPCC's report, the "most plausible explanation" was that Mr Duggan was in the process of throwing the weapon away when a police officer fired two shots at him.



It's only the most plausible scenario if you discount the possibility of coppers fudging both their statements and the physical evidence.


----------



## Dowie (Mar 24, 2015)

given how cheap they are these days I'd hope that body cameras and dashboard cameras will be required as standard going forward


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 24, 2015)

Dowie said:


> given how cheap they are these days I'd hope that body cameras and dashboard cameras will be required as standard going forward



Doesn't mean jack shit sadly. Evidence can be lost or erased as seen fit to protect themselves.


----------



## BlackArab (Mar 24, 2015)

What's the point in wasting money on trials & inquiries? Why not just find them innocent before they even got the guns back in the holsters and save everyones fucking time and money.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Well, well well...
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-32041119



There was I thinking that it wasn't the IPCC's job to establish the most plausible explanation for Mark Duggan being killed, but to establish what actually happened.
The IPCC has just shat away the last few ounces of credibility they might have had.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> There was I thinking that it wasn't the IPCC's job to establish the most plausible explanation for Mark Duggan being killed, but to establish what actually happened.
> The IPCC has just shat away the last few ounces of credibility they might have had.


just the auld pca under another name.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 25, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> just the auld pca under another name.



Pretty much. The names might be different, but the pig-succouring is just the same.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> Pretty much. The names might be different, but the pig-succouring is just the same.


that's not how you spell 'sucking'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 25, 2015)

ViolentPanda said:


> There was I thinking that it wasn't the IPCC's job to establish the most plausible explanation for Mark Duggan being killed, but to establish what actually happened.
> The IPCC has just shat away the last few ounces of credibility they might have had.


They did that years ago. There is nothing 'I' about the IPCC.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 25, 2015)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They did that years ago. There is nothing 'I' about the IPCC.


yer man's brother was on today and said that while they'd expected this result they'd hoped the ipcc might do something to salvage their lamentable reputation.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 25, 2015)

Perhaps IPCC should stand for Infintesimal Possibility of Convicting a Copper


----------



## brogdale (Mar 25, 2015)

Stafford Scott's Guardian piece concludes....



> The IPCC wishes to close this episode with a clean bill of health to all parties, themselves included. However, it should be noted that Justice Keith Cutler, who presided over the inquest, later wrote in a report: “I am concerned that fatal police shootings are not as rigorously examined as they could be.” And talking of the collection of evidence at the scene of the shooting, he said:: “I was left with an impression of some uncertainty about precisely what was being investigated, on whose behalf, for what purpose, and by what means.”





> It seems the IPCC does not consider this significant. But in Tottenham *we believe these words are particularly damning, and exemplify what the Duggan family, and many other families unfortunate enough to have to depend on the independence of an IPCC investigation, think of the IPCC. That is, that it is unfit for purpose. Anyone serious about justice and impartiality for those killed by the police should demand the body’s abolition.*


----------



## MrSki (Mar 25, 2015)

They still don't seem to try & explain how a gun he threw whilst being shot had no DNA or fingerprints from Mark Duggan. It has taken 3 1/2 years to come out with this shit. It didn't take an IPCC spokesman long to say that Duggan had shot at the officer during the killing on Ferry Lane. This untrue statement was partially to blame for the riots that followed. The IPCC should be held to account or preferably disbanded & replaced by something with teeth.


----------



## DaveCinzano (Jun 9, 2015)

FYI:

FOIA request reaps draft Met press releases prepared in readiness for different Duggan inquest verdicts

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mark_duggan_inquest_press_releas#incoming-660001


----------



## brogdale (Oct 27, 2015)

Family 'granted right to appeal'


> Family of Mark Duggan, whose shooting sparked England riots, win right to appeal over finding he was lawfully killed.


----------



## laptop (Dec 6, 2015)

DaveCinzano said:


> Avon & Somerset Chief Constable Nick Gargan wants to set up a force of volunteer part-time PCSOs!



Don't think this individual merits a thread of his own. 

Since then:



> he was suspended in May 2014 amid allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards female staff.
> 
> The ensuing IPCC investigation found those allegations "unproven" but separate data protection allegations emerged.
> 
> Last July, an independent QC-led panel found him guilty of eight charges of misconduct - largely relating to "inappropriate disclosure of information" by forwarding emails and "inappropriate use of police-issued iPhone" by storing "intimate" images and text messages.



And now he:



> will join G4S as a "programme director", seven weeks after resigning as Avon and Somerset chief.
> 
> BBC last week


----------



## GarveyLives (Dec 3, 2016)

Documentary on the shooting of Mark Duggan sparks riot fears (click for nonsense)

_Lawful Killing: Mark Duggan will be televised on BBC One on Monday December 5 2016 at 8.30pm._


----------



## extra dry (Dec 4, 2016)

Well that will be interesting. I wonder how they will portray the victim and police.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 5, 2016)

Had to switch it off after literally 10 seconds. Lawful killing my fuckin' arse!

Fuck the BBC an all


----------



## GarveyLives (Mar 12, 2017)

Update:

Mark Duggan shooting: court considers appeal against inquest verdict


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 29, 2017)

Mark Duggan's family lose inquest appeal - BBC News

Refused.

Good day to bury bad news.


----------



## MrSki (Oct 10, 2019)

Duggan's family agree settlement with Met. Here


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Jun 10, 2020)

Nice graphics for a review of the evidence here: Mark Duggan shooting: can forensic tech cast doubt on official report?

Problem is, nice graphics isn't evidence, but the opinion of the biomechanics expert that has been submitted to the IPCC is interesting.  In another era, I would have said that this won't go anywhere, but the timing could change things.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jun 13, 2020)

Good stuff from Stafford Scott








						The police say they support Black Lives Matter. Tell that to people in Tottenham | Stafford Scott
					

The investigation into Mark Duggan’s death may reopen, thanks to new research into deaths in custody, says the activist Stafford Scott




					www.theguardian.com


----------

