Ship of Fools: Classes start at 4.20pm

Thread: Classes start at 4.20pm Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026889

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I'm not shocked by much these days, but this was a bit of a jaw dropper, I have to admit.

Mark Duggan was a criminal. He was shot lawfully by the police on his way to deal drugs. A pro-Duggan vigil was held at the weekend in Tottenham, where he was killed. It was attended by the National Union of Teachers. Of Teachers! (Well, the Ealing branch anyway.) What the hell were these guys thinking?!

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

It appears that there is a certain amount of cynicism about the police's view of events. As it appears that the police told a bunch of bare faced lies about Hillsborough and another lot about Plebgate, it appears that some people think they might have lied through their teeth about the death of Mr Duggan. My own view is that the jury were on the money about the verdict but there is a certain amount of evidence to the effect that they were not wholly honest. Hence, I think, the indignation of some members of the population.

Some very good people work for the Metropolitan Police, including the husband of a friend of mine. But they do appear to have acquired a bad habit of sticking the ace of trumps up their sleeves before sitting themselves at the card table. It's not surprising that this engenders a certain amount of cynicism.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

@ Anglican't

Feeling in a helpful mood today, so I will post some of the background that you innocently(I'm sure) negelected to include in your opening evisceration.

I'm not saying who's right or wrong on this issue, but I'm sure you will agree that it's a good thing to provide a bit of background to the controversy before soliciting comments.

[ 12. January 2014, 19:07: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Originally posted by me:

quote:
My own view is that the jury were on the money about the verdict but there is a certain amount of evidence to the effect that they were not wholly honest. Hence, I think, the indignation of some members of the population.

The "they" concerned in this sentence are the police, not the jury, who AFAICS did their duty according to their lights.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by me:

quote:
My own view is that the jury were on the money about the verdict but there is a certain amount of evidence to the effect that they were not wholly honest. Hence, I think, the indignation of some members of the population.
The "they" concerned in this sentence are the police, not the jury, who AFAICS did their duty according to their lights.

The police initially reported that Duggan had fired at them, and the jury found that Duggan hadn't been armed at the time of his killing? You mean things like that?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
@ Anglican't

Feeling in a helpful mood today, so I will post some of the background that you innocently(I'm sure) negelected to include in your opening evisceration.

I'm not saying who's right or wrong on this issue, but I'm sure you will agree that it's a good thing to provide a bit of background to the controversy before soliciting comments.

Your local hosts will certainly agree. Thank you!

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
I'm sure you will agree that it's a good thing to provide a bit of background to the controversy before soliciting comments.

It would indeed. I re-wrote the second paragraph and in doing so it seems I deleted the link to the Wikipedia page that I'd intended to post. Thanks for doing what I should've done properly in the first place.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

So the Metropolitan Police have lied again in an investigation into their activities.

But obviously we should trust them...

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :

While this isn't a very hellish response, I do think we have to be cautious and bear in mind how the media can twist things. Just look to last week with the stories of the changes in the baptism service and how they portrayed that.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

A bit of a pattern is emerging though!

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
So the Metropolitan Police have lied again in an investigation into their activities.

But obviously we should trust them...

Who else are you going to trust? Criminals, gang members and their families?

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
So the Metropolitan Police have lied again in an investigation into their activities.

But obviously we should trust them...

Whether you trust them or not is up to you but I hope you apply the same standard to all organisations which have lied (that's pretty much any substantial organisation that's been around for a few years including governments (local and national), armed services, blue light organisations, charities, churches, businesses other than charities and churches etc. etc.).

FWIW I had substantial dealings over several years with a number of Met employees both uniformed and non-uniformed - they're human beings. Most I would trust with my life, a few I wouldn't trust with the school hamster over a long weekend. Fortunately, as an example, the guys responsible for ensuring our safety at Heathrow are in the former category - just as well since we have no choice but to trust them if we want to fly safely in or out of one of the UK's most vulnerable major targets.

The Met is imperfect but it, at least sometimes, applies very high standards ruthlessly. One of the PCs I worked closely with was fired for misuse of the Police National Computer; his wife left him and the kids and disappeared - he tried to trace her and got found out.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
So the Metropolitan Police have lied again in an investigation into their activities.

But obviously we should trust them...
Who else are you going to trust? Criminals, gang members and their families?

So, the world is police and criminals only? IIRC, you are not a policeman, what crime have you committed?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Oh look. A phantom undistributed middle.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
So the Metropolitan Police have lied again in an investigation into their activities.

But obviously we should trust them...
Who else are you going to trust? Criminals, gang members and their families?

Why don't you ask the same question to the families who lost people at Hillsborough, or Ian Tomlinson's kids, or the parents of Stephen Lawrence? Or Andrew Mitchell?

A lot of police officers see the world exactly as you've said: if you're not a police officer, you're not one of us and are fair game.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

No, see, its what the police only nick them whats guilty anyway. Innit.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I'm puzzled as to why teachers should not go on such a vigil. Presumably, they shared the disquiet felt by some local people. What's wrong with that?

There are so many odd things about this case - the IPCC initially reported that Duggan was firing, then withdrew that; the marksman said that Duggan definitely had a gun, but the jury disagreed; the gun was found on some grass, and it was supposed that Duggan threw it, but nobody actually saw this; the gun had no fingerprints or DNA.

I'm not surprised that locals find all of this peculiar.

PS. I am not a gangster.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm puzzled as to why teachers should not go on such a vigil. Presumably, they shared the disquiet felt by some local people. What's wrong with that?

This was a pro-Duggan vigil (the local MP did not attend because of the sort of people who were there).

Notwithstanding the inconsistencies in the police account (which I believe are serious and hopefully heads will roll in due course) Duggan was a convicted criminal, from a criminal family, who got into a taxi with an illegal firearm on his way to commit a criminal act.

By attending this event, these teachers* are aligning themselves in some way with him. I find that shocking.

(*I presume they were real teachers, rather than Pilgrim-type figures who do full-time Union work.)

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

A Justice of the High Court (now retired, guess who) wanted us to stand at the time an Aust drug trafficker was being hanged in Singapore. I am totally opposed to the death penalty, but refused to stand for a drug trafficker. I was not the only one either.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

The judge leading the inquest into Duggan's death began proceedings by holding a few moments of silence in his memory. I find that utterly bizarre.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Duggan was a convicted criminal, from a criminal family, who got into a taxi with an illegal firearm on his way to commit a criminal act.

Mark Duggan isn't necessarily someone who I'd have wanted as a neighbour, because he had convictions for possession of marijuana and handling stolen goods. Those were his only convictions.

Given that we don't have the death penalty in this country, and that Duggan was unarmed when he was shot and killed, and given that the police systematically lied about events - does that not give you the slightest qualms about the vulnerability of the local population, and the apparent invulnerability of the police?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm puzzled as to why teachers should not go on such a vigil. Presumably, they shared the disquiet felt by some local people. What's wrong with that?
This was a pro-Duggan vigil (the local MP did not attend because of the sort of people who were there).

Notwithstanding the inconsistencies in the police account (which I believe are serious and hopefully heads will roll in due course) Duggan was a convicted criminal, from a criminal family, who got into a taxi with an illegal firearm on his way to commit a criminal act.

By attending this event, these teachers* are aligning themselves in some way with him. I find that shocking.

(*I presume they were real teachers, rather than Pilgrim-type figures who do full-time Union work.)

That Jesus bloke went and got baptised like all the sinners down at the Jordan. He was aligning himself in some way with them. I find that shocking.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That was a long time ago, Karl. Christians today don't want to be mixing with the riff-raff that you get in Tottenham these days.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

When did the UK opt for a shoot to kill policy? Or am I missing something?

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
This was a pro-Duggan vigil (the local MP did not attend because of the sort of people who were there)

What, like teachers?

And could you explain what classes starting at 4.20 pm have to do with it?

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that ... Duggan was unarmed when he was shot and killed,

Given that Duggan was armed in the vecinity, the gun was found a few yards away, and that the police had no way of knowing that Duggan had disposed of the firearm, Duggan had disguised it by wrapping it in a sock...

I'd say that a police force that correctly had intelligence that Duggan was armed, and had no way of knowing that he had disposed of the gun were correct in dealing with him as if he were armed.

That the police lied about it afterwards does not change that.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
and that Duggan was unarmed when he was shot and killed

He had thrown the gun away a few seconds beforehand. Did the police know that at the time, or were they in genuine fear of their lives?

What would you do if you were trying to arrest someone who you had good reason to believe might be about to shoot you in an attempt to escape? Sure, you might say "wait for him to shoot first", but what if that shot is at you?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Duggan was a convicted criminal, from a criminal family, who got into a taxi with an illegal firearm on his way to commit a criminal act.
Mark Duggan isn't necessarily someone who I'd have wanted as a neighbour, because he had convictions for possession of marijuana and handling stolen goods. Those were his only convictions.

These convictions suggest that he's some kind of small-time crook, which I think gives a rather misleading impression.

In the Wikipedia article linked by Stetson, it is alleged that Duggan:

was a drug dealer;

a possible founder member of North London's 'Star Gang', an offshoot of the Tottenham Mandem gang;

a 'well-known gangster' who was a 'major player and well known to the police in Tottenham';

was under surveillance by Operation Trident officers;

was suspected of planning to commit a crime to avenge the death of his cousin; and

had been arrested before for murder and attempted murder.

quote:
Given that we don't have the death penalty in this country, and that Duggan was unarmed when he was shot and killed, and given that the police systematically lied about events - does that not give you the slightest qualms about the vulnerability of the local population, and the apparent invulnerability of the police?

The Tomlinson and Mitchell incidents give me qualms - serious qualms - about the vulnerability of the local population. This incident doesn't.

[ 13. January 2014, 09:50: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
When did the UK opt for a shoot to kill policy?

Any policy where you open fire is a "shoot to kill policy".

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

This reminds me of the George Herbert poem 'Redemption', in which a man looks for Jesus amongst high and mighty people, but then:

At length I heard a ragged noise and mirth

Of thieves and murderers; there I him espied,
Who straight, Your suit is granted, said, and died.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
When did the UK opt for a shoot to kill policy? Or am I missing something?

IIRC, if there is an immediate threat to either the officer's life, or the life of another, a firearm can be used to kill. This has been the case for a long time, but with varying degrees of judicial and operational constraint.

In the Duggan case, the justification was that the officer who fired the fatal shots 'believed' he was in such a situation, and thus the killing was lawful.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Duggan was a convicted criminal, from a criminal family, who got into a taxi with an illegal firearm on his way to commit a criminal act.
Mark Duggan isn't necessarily someone who I'd have wanted as a neighbour, because he had convictions for possession of marijuana and handling stolen goods. Those were his only convictions.
These convictions suggest that he's some kind of small-time crook, which I think gives a rather misleading impression.

In the Wikipedia article linked by Stetson, it is alleged that Duggan:

was a drug dealer;

a possible founder member of North London's 'Star Gang', an offshoot of the Tottenham Mandem gang;

a 'well-known gangster' who was a 'major player and well known to the police in Tottenham';

was under surveillance by Operation Trident officers;

was suspected of planning to commit a crime to avenge the death of his cousin; and

had been arrested before for murder and attempted murder.

I'm sorry. You appear to have mistaken shit the police made up with actual convictions.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Or be living in a world where suspicion is proof. It's the sort of climate where coppers frame people because "they know they did it."

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I think some local people have also been unhappy with the way the police bigged up Duggan as a top gangster. Well, maybe he was, but the police descriptions are full of 'was believed to be', 'was suspected of being', and so on. I guess some locals don't believe the police - shock, horror.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Which is all irrelevant anyway, unless we believe the police shooting people is fine if they were generall bad eggs. All that's important are the circumstances on the day the guy got shot; armed police are not there to take out people we don't like very much. I'm sure some people would like to live in that sort of world, but I'm not one of them.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
This was a pro-Duggan vigil (the local MP did not attend because of the sort of people who were there)
What, like teachers?

Mr David Lammy, MP said "I will not share a platform with anarchist groups and people that don't accept that a jury laboured and reached a decision."

quote:
And could you explain what classes starting at 4.20 pm have to do with it?

It's a drugs reference. There's a Wikipedia page on '420' which I can't link to (this site doesn't like parentheses in URL codes and I can't do a Tinyurl where I am at the moment).

[ 13. January 2014, 10:08: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

I still don't understand what that has to do with the content of the thread, which is apparently a complaint about what teachers do in their spare time.

If you are not able to link to it, could you perhaps explain?

[ 13. January 2014, 10:17: Message edited by: Arrietty ]

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Which is all irrelevant anyway, unless we believe the police shooting people is fine if they were generall bad eggs. All that's important are the circumstances on the day the guy got shot; armed police are not there to take out people we don't like very much. I'm sure some people would like to live in that sort of world, but I'm not one of them.

Well, quite - can't find the figures offhand but I read on a real bit of paper at the weekend that in the last 5 years the Met have deployed specialist firearms officers over 10,000 times in response to specific operations. They've actually fired their weapons on only four occasions within that.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arrietty:
I still don't understand what that has to do with the content of the thread, which is apparently a complaint about what teachers do in their spare time.

If you are not able to link to it, could you perhaps explain?

Classes start at - reference to teachers.

4.20pm - reference to the supposedly traditional time one smokes cannabis. Duggan was a drug dealer.

Not the greatest example of wit, I appreciate.

[ 13. January 2014, 10:31: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sorry. You appear to have mistaken shit the police made up with actual convictions.

Are you saying that all of these allegations are fabricated? The fact that certain firearms officers have produced misleading and possibly false accounts of an incident doesn't preclude there being some truth to a general body of intelligence, does it?

[ 13. January 2014, 10:34: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sorry. You appear to have mistaken shit the police made up with actual convictions.
Are you saying that all of these allegations are fabricated? The fact that certain firearms officers have produced misleading and possibly false accounts of an incident doesn't preclude there being some truth to a general body of intelligence, does it?

And what difference does it make? It's somehow more OK to gun someone down if they're not a very pleasant person?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sorry. You appear to have mistaken shit the police made up with actual convictions.
Are you saying that all of these allegations are fabricated? The fact that certain firearms officers have produced misleading and possibly false accounts of an incident doesn't preclude there being some truth to a general body of intelligence, does it?

"Misleading and possibly false accounts"? Two and a half years of lies and back-tracking would be more accurate. Give it another twenty years and it will be as hollow as the stories concocted by the West Yorkshire Plod after Hillsborough.

There may be some truth in there, but who can tell?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sorry. You appear to have mistaken shit the police made up with actual convictions.
Are you saying that all of these allegations are fabricated? The fact that certain firearms officers have produced misleading and possibly false accounts of an incident doesn't preclude there being some truth to a general body of intelligence, does it?
And what difference does it make? It's somehow more OK to gun someone down if they're not a very pleasant person?

No, of course not. But police marksmen can and do open fire if they believe that they are in danger (I do not know the precise terms of engagement). A jury decided that Duggan had been lawfully killed. I presume (but do not know for sure) that they reached that verdict on the basis that they agreed there were reasonable grounds for believing there was such danger, notwithstanding the contradictory evidence presented by the police.

Posted by Arrietty (# 45) on :

Of course, the fact that an officer in the Met has just admitted to lying about a senior politician doesn't help.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm sorry. You appear to have mistaken shit the police made up with actual convictions.
Are you saying that all of these allegations are fabricated? The fact that certain firearms officers have produced misleading and possibly false accounts of an incident doesn't preclude there being some truth to a general body of intelligence, does it?

I'm saying you have no way of knowing one way or another, especially in this case where you've already acknowledge the police have lied, whether Mark Duggan was a hardened criminal bent on shooting another man dead in a revenge attack, or just some poor schmuck whose face fitted the wanted posters.

When the police make shit up about you, plant evidence on you and stitch you up like a joint of meat, will all your neighbours say "well, there were all these allegations, some of them must be true"?

Yes, of course they will. We know that's the case because it's happened time and time again. Police screw up. Police close ranks. Police blame the victim(s).

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We know that's the case because it's happened time and time again. Police screw up. Police close ranks. Police blame the victim(s).

Police retire.

Truth comes out.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Not the greatest example of wit, I appreciate.

Ah yes, the perils of trying to come up with the great, memorable thread title instead of the boringly helpful factual one.

*whacks Anglican't across the nose with a rolled-up newspaper*

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We know that's the case because it's happened time and time again. Police screw up. Police close ranks. Police blame the victim(s).
Police retire.

Truth comes out.

To add to that: Right-wing media and right-wing idiots follow police line. Police gets MBE/OBE. Police gets very good pension.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The judge leading the inquest into Duggan's death began proceedings by holding a few moments of silence in his memory. I find that utterly bizarre.

I find it rather scary that you think its OK to kill people just because they are drug dealers.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The judge leading the inquest into Duggan's death began proceedings by holding a few moments of silence in his memory. I find that utterly bizarre.
I find it rather scary that you think its OK to kill people just because they are drug dealers.

I don't and I haven't said that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

But you have accepted the police account. Which is more than a bit dodgy.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But you have accepted the police account. Which is more than a bit dodgy.

I've written:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Notwithstanding the inconsistencies in the police account (which I believe are serious and hopefully heads will roll in due course)

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
[C]ertain firearms officers have produced misleading and possibly false accounts of an incident[.]

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I presume [the Inquest jury] reached [its] verdict ... notwithstanding the contradictory evidence presented by the police.

How does that amount to 'accepting the police account'?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

You also said:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Are you saying that all of these allegations are fabricated?

When someone is a known liar, why would you believe anything he says?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, good point. When the police keep saying, 'well, we said he was shooting, but that's now inoperative, and we said that he had a gun, but the jury said he didn't, and we said he threw the gun away, but nobody saw him do it, and in any case, if he threw it away, how did the marksman see it in his hand, and we said ...' people do become a little skeptical. Come on guys, get the story straight at least.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Anglican't,

You opened a very non-nuanced OP complaining about union involvement in the vigil.
What you've posted since amounts to saying the police were sloppy, but right.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What you've posted since amounts to saying the police were sloppy, but right.

What do you mean by 'right' here?

[ 13. January 2014, 15:18: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

And saying "the jury found the shooting was justified, after all" means nothing. The jury can only base their decisions on the information they are fed, and if that information is faulty or intentionally deceptive, their decision means squat as to what really happened or whether the shooting was in fact justified. Thus one can agree the jury reached a decision, and still disagree with the decision, due to believing they were fed lies. Which in this case one would have to be a drooling idiot not to at least consider.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Thus one can agree the jury reached a decision, and still disagree with the decision, due to believing they were fed lies. Which in this case one would have to be a drooling idiot not to at least consider.

It appears the jury were fed some kind of lies, as you put it, given the inconsistent and contradictory nature of the police evidence. But the jury found the shooting of Duggan to be lawful in spite of that.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Thus one can agree the jury reached a decision, and still disagree with the decision, due to believing they were fed lies. Which in this case one would have to be a drooling idiot not to at least consider.
It appears the jury were fed some kind of lies, as you put it, given the inconsistent and contradictory nature of the police evidence. But the jury found the shooting of Duggan to be lawful in spite of that.

Or because of that. As all right-thinking people will at least consider the possibility of.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Thus one can agree the jury reached a decision, and still disagree with the decision, due to believing they were fed lies. Which in this case one would have to be a drooling idiot not to at least consider.
It appears the jury were fed some kind of lies, as you put it, given the inconsistent and contradictory nature of the police evidence. But the jury found the shooting of Duggan to be lawful in spite of that.

Juries are sometimes directed to disregard or pay particular attention to crucial pieces of evidence. It takes a brave jury to go against such direction.

[ 13. January 2014, 15:33: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

I'm not aware of any suggestion that the jury was improperly directed.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It is a legal fiction, the disregard bit. Doesn't erase what has been said.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by me:

quote:
My own view is that the jury were on the money about the verdict but there is a certain amount of evidence to the effect that they were not wholly honest. Hence, I think, the indignation of some members of the population.
The "they" concerned in this sentence are the police, not the jury, who AFAICS did their duty according to their lights.
The police initially reported that Duggan had fired at them, and the jury found that Duggan hadn't been armed at the time of his killing? You mean things like that?

That sort of thing, yes. Based on my own brief career in law enforcement my reading of the situation is thus. The police had intel that Mr Duggan was a bad hat and was armed. When he emerged from his car one of the officers had, what a coroners jury thought to be, reasonable cause to open fire and shot Mr Duggan. Upon shooting Mr Duggan they found that he had, in fact, discarded the gun and attempted to create a narrative whereby he had had the gun all the time. This disintegrated under interrogation thus leaving us with the worst of all worlds where the police have lost further confidence of the public.

I am mildly amused when the Telegraph, say, runs pieces along the lines of "oh noes, the police lie!" when it was a staple of Rumpole of the Bailey that the fuzz would produce statements to the effect that the accused had said, upon being arrested, "it's a fair cop, you've got me bang to rights" and Rumpole would have to unpick it without accusing Plod of being a bare faced liar. Confidence in the police was rather more emphatic in the 1970s.

Essentially SOP for the police ought to be "we will back you to the hilt for an honest mistake but lie like a weasel and we will throw you to the wolves". It ought to be better for a police officer to tell a board of enquiry that he sincerely believed that the suspect was armed but that in fact he had ditched the gun shortly before the arrest than to engage in the farrago of fibbing they did, in fact, engage in. Oh, and the Met really isn't fit for purpose and ought to be reformed.

As far as the moment of silence is concerned, at the time it hadn't been established that it was a lawful killing and even if it had the death of a comparatively young man followed by nationwide riots is cause for morning even if Mr Duggan had been Jack the Ripper, Professor Moriarty and Al Capone rolled into one.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The judge leading the inquest into Duggan's death began proceedings by holding a few moments of silence in his memory. I find that utterly bizarre.
I find it rather scary that you think its OK to kill people just because they are drug dealers.
I don't and I haven't said that.

Yes you did. Or if you weren;t saying htat what else was the point of this otherwise irrelevant post:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Duggan was a convicted criminal, from a criminal family, who got into a taxi with an illegal firearm on his way to commit a criminal act.
Mark Duggan isn't necessarily someone who I'd have wanted as a neighbour, because he had convictions for possession of marijuana and handling stolen goods. Those were his only convictions.
These convictions suggest that he's some kind of small-time crook, which I think gives a rather misleading impression.

In the Wikipedia article linked by Stetson, it is alleged that Duggan:
was a drug dealer;
a possible founder member of North London's 'Star Gang', an offshoot of the Tottenham Mandem gang;
a 'well-known gangster' who was a 'major player and well known to the police in Tottenham';
was under surveillance by Operation Trident officers;
was suspected of planning to commit a crime to avenge the death of his cousin; and
had been arrested before for murder and attempted murder.

quote:
Given that we don't have the death penalty in this country, and that Duggan was unarmed when he was shot and killed, and given that the police systematically lied about events - does that not give you the slightest qualms about the vulnerability of the local population, and the apparent invulnerability of the police?
The Tomlinson and Mitchell incidents give me qualms - serious qualms - about the vulnerability of the local population. This incident doesn't.

You explicitly said that you have no "qualms" - your choice of word - about the police shooting him, because he had been accused of the various crimes you listed (or somone posting on wikipedia said he had been accused of those crimes)

Well, not actually crimes, most of them, even if true Being arrested for attenpted murder and not being charged or convicted is not a crime. Being a member of a gang is not a crime. Not even wanting revenge for your cousin's murder isn;t a crime, until you actually do anything about it.

As for "a 'well-known gangster' who was a 'major player and well known to the police in Tottenham'" and "under surveillance by Operation Trident officers", you are saying that the police have the right or duty to kill those they suspect of serious crimes, even if they have no evidence to take to court. Like the Brazilian and Argentinian "death squads" of the 1970s. Why bother with courts and trials at all, the poklcie know it all already.

That really is a very scary attitude. I mean, very, very scary. Much scarier than what Mark Duggan was accused of, even if he did do it all.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:

... even if it had the death of a comparatively young man followed by nationwide riots is cause for morning...

A young man who had a mother, a girlfriend, five children, and sisters and cousins and aunts, many of them in the court at the time. I think a little respect for the dead and the bereaved was quite in order.

I can;t claim to know much about what hapopened, but from what we were told on the news the really worrying thing was the gun he was supposed to have had. You'd think the police would be searching all over for it. But it took then over two months - OVER TWO MONTHS - to find the gun that they said they had seen in the mans hand.

Think about that. Bloke jumps out of car. Waves gun. Is shot and killed. and it takes months to find the gun. How the fuck does that work?

Its almost the best evidence that its NOT a polcie stitch-up, because would they be that stupid? But how can they fail to find a gun lying on the ground by the side of a street in London for months? How many other guns are theyre lying around on the street? I mean really, what is all that about?

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I'm no fan of the police in general and the Met in particular, and because of their recent form I always rather tend to assume that they are lying until proved to be otherwise.
However, I wasn't there and I haven't heard what the jury heard, so as a matter of principle I accept their verdict until given good reason to doubt it. I am concerned by the BBC's uncritical acceptance of the terms in which the Duggan family couched their reaction- 'fighting for justice' and so on. Of course that is how the family see it: but the onus is now on them to try to show that due process was not properly followed and that the jury's verdict was not a reasonable one.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You explicitly said that you have no "qualms" - your choice of word - about the police shooting him, because he had been accused of the various crimes you listed (or somone posting on wikipedia said he had been accused of those crimes)

I said no such thing.

'Qualm' wasn't, originally, my choice of word. Doc Tor used it and I then used it as I responded to him. Doc Tor asked, in light of the inconsistencies of the police accounts, whether I have:

quote:
slightest qualms about the vulnerability of the local population.

And generally speaking, I don't. I don't think the people of Tottenham are any more in danger following the shooting of Duggan than they were before.* But I believe that it's entirely possible that Duggan was shot because the policemen believed that he posed a danger when he was apprehended. That is also presumably the verdict of the jury when they decided that Duggan was lawfully killed.

So no, I don't believe that Duggan was shot 'just because he was a drug dealer'.

quote:
As for "a 'well-known gangster' who was a 'major player and well known to the police in Tottenham'" and "under surveillance by Operation Trident officers", you are saying that the police have the right or duty to kill those they suspect of serious crimes, even if they have no evidence to take to court.

I didn't claim this. Doc Tor said:

quote:
Mark Duggan isn't necessarily someone who I'd have wanted as a neighbour, because he had convictions for possession of marijuana and handling stolen goods. Those were his only convictions.

I responded by saying that these convictions give the misleading impression that he was some kind of small-time crook and I then gave a number of reasons why I don't think he was. I didn't say that these were good reasons to shoot him.

I think you may have read two responses to distinct points (albeit in the same post) and rolled them together.

*They're probably in less danger now that he's off the streets, but that's a different matter.

Posted by Chocoholic (# 4655) on :

Should anyone be interest/have time or inclination there is a transcript of the court proceedings online. If you want to know what was actually said in court, not just what the paper said, it's all there.

Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :

And in answer to Anglican't's question in the OP (which in case anyone has forgotten is "What the hell were these guys thinking?")
The answer is that no doubt a large number of the teachers who decided to stand in support that day, did so considering the number of their previous pupils who could have been shot instead of the one ex pupil who was shot.

Teachers care for their pupils, teachers feel sorrow, teachers feel pain, teachers are human....believe it or not.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The problem with your responses on this thread, Anglican't, is your underlying assumption that all the suppositions of the police are correct. Your every statement implies such a bias.
It has been shown time and again that this is not a reasonable outlook.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem with your responses on this thread, Anglican't, is your underlying assumption that all the suppositions of the police are correct.

You said something similar at the top of this page and I then produced severals examples of where I hadn't. Or by 'bias' do you mean 'believe this man to be a serious criminal'?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem with your responses on this thread, Anglican't, is your underlying assumption that all the suppositions of the police are correct. Your every statement implies such a bias.
It has been shown time and again that this is not a reasonable outlook.

... nor is the opposite point of view that everyone BAR the police are to be believed.

This man Duggan lived his life in a very dangerous way. He was involved with drug-dealing, gangs and carried a gun.

Are those reasons to shoot him, or indeed, anyone? No. Are those factors that lead you to be noticed by the police, considered a threat to the police or public? Yes.

Are the police justified in killing if they believe their lives or the lives of member of the public are in immediate danger? Yes.

If this Duggan chap had done better in school, got a job, kept out of trouble and became a decent, honest fellow, would he be alive today? Yes. People like that don’t attract the attention of armed response police, and will not be considered by them to be an immediate threat to the lives of innocent people or police officers.

But all that aside, the criminal fraternity is full of liars and cheats and nobody expects anything other. There are always going to be some liars and cheats in any organisation, even the police, but they get a media spotlight turned on them (quite rightly), but it does lead some of the more hard-of-thinking to believe the problem is bigger than it is.

If someone disbelieves anything and everything that the police say, then that person is in the company of paranoid conspiracy theorists and the tinfoil trilby brigade.

But there will always be disingenuous radicals shedding crocodile-tears over events like this to further their own anti-western agenda.

Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

If this Duggan chap had done better in school, got a job, kept out of trouble and became a decent, honest fellow, would he be alive today? Yes. People like that don’t attract the attention of armed response police, and will not be considered by them to be an immediate threat to the lives of innocent people or police officers.

Better tell that to Jean de Menezes

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

If this Duggan chap had done better in school, got a job, kept out of trouble and became a decent, honest fellow, would he be alive today? Yes. People like that don’t attract the attention of armed response police, and will not be considered by them to be an immediate threat to the lives of innocent people or police officers.
Better tell that to Jean de Menezes

Oh, you mean the fuckwit who thought it would be a good idea to jump over a tube turnstyle when the underground had just been targeted by suicide bombers.

That was just evolution in action I'm afraid. He deserverd a Darwin award.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh, you mean the fuckwit who thought it would be a good idea to jump over a tube turnstyle when the underground had just been targeted by suicide bombers.

De Menezes used his Oyster card and walked through the barriers.

The 'jumping over the turnstiles' bit was police fabrication that they eventually had to retract when the evidence showed they were all lying bastards.

So what do you call someone who repeats a lie? A fuckwit, I believe.

[ 15. January 2014, 10:23: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The problem with your responses on this thread, Anglican't, is your underlying assumption that all the suppositions of the police are correct.
You said something similar at the top of this page and I then produced severals examples of where I hadn't. Or by 'bias' do you mean 'believe this man to be a serious criminal'?

There you go again. You are saying that he was a serious criminal and therefore its OK to kill him. Or if you aren't sayi g that why do you keep on repeating such irrelevant nonsense again and again and again?

The history of the last two centuries has shown us pretty decisively that people who think that the star and its police should have a free hand in killing undesirables are far far more dangerous than drug dealers and thieves.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You are saying that he was a serious criminal and therefore its OK to kill him.

I have not said that it's acceptable for the police to kill someone only because he is a serious criminal.

[ 15. January 2014, 10:38: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh, you mean the fuckwit who thought it would be a good idea to jump over a tube turnstyle when the underground had just been targeted by suicide bombers.
De Menezes used his Oyster card and walked through the barriers.

The 'jumping over the turnstiles' bit was police fabrication that they eventually had to retract when the evidence showed they were all lying bastards.

So what do you call someone who repeats a lie? A fuckwit, I believe.

Okay then...

C12 said Mr de Menezes then got up and started walking towards him. The officer said he shouted "armed police" and pointed his gun at the suspect's face but Mr de Menezes kept moving towards him.

Once more, evolution in action.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh, you mean the fuckwit who thought it would be a good idea to jump over a tube turnstyle when the underground had just been targeted by suicide bombers.
De Menezes used his Oyster card and walked through the barriers.

The 'jumping over the turnstiles' bit was police fabrication that they eventually had to retract when the evidence showed they were all lying bastards.

So what do you call someone who repeats a lie? A fuckwit, I believe.

But notice how some people keep repeating the police lies, even though they have been discredited. It's an interesting demonstration of how propaganda and lies can become established as truth. The police become untouchable in this way, I guess.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Okay then...

C12 said Mr de Menezes then got up and started walking towards him. The officer said he shouted "armed police" and pointed his gun at the suspect's face but Mr de Menezes kept moving towards him.

Once more, evolution in action.

Dear Lord, what is this? Some sort of Gish gallop except it's not creationist canards, it's discredited police statements?

The jury at the inquest found that no officer shouted 'armed police' at any point. They also found that De Menezes did not move towards C12 at any point.

If you want to smear a dead person's reputation, there are easier targets than someone who's death was so thoroughly investigated that all the actual answers are a single mouse-click away. You are of course a fuckwit for not realising this.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Yeah, well. In wartime, some non-combatants die. It's inevitable.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

Are we still at war, deano? I take the Underground to work every day. Should I be taking my steel helmet with me?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think deano is doing his trip trap trip trap routine; but it does seem unpleasant to keep smearing a completely innocent person (de Menezes), by repeating all the police lies. Ah well, trip trap, trip trap.

[ 15. January 2014, 11:23: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Yeah, well. In wartime, some non-combatants die. It's inevitable.

I think we have a volunteer!

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

I’m not going to backtrack on the Menezez case. I wasn’t there. I don’t believe the police decided to kill Jean de Menezez because he was Jean de Menezez. I believe the decided to kill him for a whole other set of reasons, mainly to do with the fact that they thought he was about to kill a whole lot of people.

This was the day after the 7/7 bombings and yes tensions were high and communications were problematic. But if you want me to attack the police for what they did in good faith then that ain’t going to happen. Menezez died. It’s all terribly sad. I didn’t care then, when it was headline news, and frankly I don’t care now.

But this is a tangent raised by someone, away from the Duggan story. But again, my attitude is just about the same. Indifference. The guy lived his life in such a way that the police were vindicated in believeing him to be armed and capable of using deadly force, and therefore an immediate threat to the lives of other officers and the public. He died.

The moral of the Duggan saga is don’t get a reputation and place yourself in situations where the police consider you to be a threat to other people’s lives.

The Menezez saga is different and yes I accept that my initial understanding was wrong and based on the immediate facts at the time. But my reaction to being informed thusly hasn’t changed one bit other than to say he shouldn’t be given a Darwin award. He died because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but given the events of the preceding day, c’est la vie I’m afraid. I’m certainly not going to criticise any individual police officers over it.

Are we still at war? You tell me. Certainly some believe they are. So I'm happy to carry that war to them. No bother at all.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
He died because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but given the events of the preceding day, c’est la vie I’m afraid. I’m certainly not going to criticise any individual police officers over it.

You're too stupid to breathe. Seriously. It's not so much your sociopathic lack of empathy, as you approving of the sheer lunacy of letting people with guns run around on the street shooting anyone who looks a bit funny.

Of course, it'll never happen to anyone you know or care about, vanishingly small as that circle might be. Fuckwit.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Does "not criticising any individual police officers over it" extend to not criticising the lying cunts amongst them who made false claims after the fact to justify their actions?

Or is that acceptable as well?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Does "not criticising any individual police officers over it" extend to not criticising the lying cunts amongst them who made false claims after the fact to justify their actions?

Or is that acceptable as well?

Well, had I been the office who shot him (I assume we are talking about Menezez), then I would also have lied my head off to try to cover it up. Of course I would. I would have tried to justify it as much as possible, given the context. Of course.

If you mean the Duggan shooting, I’d have lied there also. He was scum. He didn't deserve to die like that, but he did, so why fuck up a decent career for a crook like him. He would probably have been killed by one of his own kind sooner or later anyway.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
This was the day after the 7/7 bombings and yes tensions were high and communications were problematic.

De Menezes (note spelling) was killed the day after the failed 21 July 2005 terrorist attacks.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's not so much your sociopathic lack of empathy, as you approving of the sheer lunacy of letting people with guns run around on the street shooting anyone who looks a bit funny.

Because that's what happened right? They were all tooled up and encouraged to blow away anyone who looked like them might be a terrorist.

Twat.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Does "not criticising any individual police officers over it" extend to not criticising the lying cunts amongst them who made false claims after the fact to justify their actions?

Or is that acceptable as well?
Well, had I been the office who shot him (I assume we are talking about Menezez), then I would also have lied my head off to try to cover it up. Of course I would. I would have tried to justify it as much as possible, given the context. Of course.

If you mean the Duggan shooting, I’d have lied there also. He was scum. He didn't deserve to die like that, but he did, so why fuck up a decent career for a crook like him. He would probably have been killed by one of his own kind sooner or later anyway.

How about not killing people in circumstances that will afterwards require you to lie about it in the first place? If it was justified under the circumstances, shouldn't the circumstances speak for themselves without the need to lie? If you need to lie afterwards, you shouldn't have fucking done it.

If police thought processes are anything like yours, I feel totally justified in not trusting them an inch.

[ 15. January 2014, 14:00: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Weird how deano-speak sounds quite like al-quaeda-speak, the same acceptance of lying, the same indifference to collateral damage, the same talk of war. I suppose it's a kind of mirror-image.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
This was the day after the 7/7 bombings and yes tensions were high and communications were problematic.
De Menezes (note spelling) was killed the day after the failed 21 July 2005 terrorist attacks.

Whatever. Like it makes a real difference. I refer to the terrorist events of course, but you take take the same answer for the spelling issue you raised.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How about not killing people in circumstances that will afterwards require you to lie about it in the first place?

Two reasons...

1. If he had been a suicide bomber then I might have been dead myself along with scores of others.

2. With anti-police crusaders such as are found round these parts, I wouldn't be believed anyway. Tinfoil tribly wearers and hard-of-thinking lefties wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise. They would crucify me simply because I wore a police uniform.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's not so much your sociopathic lack of empathy, as you approving of the sheer lunacy of letting people with guns run around on the street shooting anyone who looks a bit funny.
Because that's what happened right? They were all tooled up and encouraged to blow away anyone who looked like them might be a terrorist.

Twat.

While that wasn't the intention, wasn't that kind of what happened in this case?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's not so much your sociopathic lack of empathy, as you approving of the sheer lunacy of letting people with guns run around on the street shooting anyone who looks a bit funny.
Because that's what happened right? They were all tooled up and encouraged to blow away anyone who looked like them might be a terrorist.

Twat.

What you singularly fail to realise, probably due to your weapons-grade idiocy, is that you look like a terrorist. Your wife probably looks like a terrorist too, and your kids. Hell, for all I know your dog looks like it's wearing an explosive vest.

When you get shot for accessing public transport in a calm and orderly way, the difference between you and me will be stark. I'll be sorry you're dead, and you'll be dead.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
1. If he had been a suicide bomber then I might have been dead myself along with scores of others.

Nah, can't imagine you living in Stockwell really.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
How about not killing people in circumstances that will afterwards require you to lie about it in the first place?
Two reasons...

1. If he had been a suicide bomber then I might have been dead myself along with scores of others.

2. With anti-police crusaders such as are found round these parts, I wouldn't be believed anyway. Tinfoil tribly wearers and hard-of-thinking lefties wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise. They would crucify me simply because I wore a police uniform.

If the circumstances justify the actions, tell us the the circumstances. If they don't, you shouldn't have done it. Obviously. The problem with making up a pack of lies is that sooner or later you get found out. Contrary to your fuckwitted assumptions, I only disbelieved the bit about jumping the barrier when witnesses started saying they'd seen what happened and it wasn't true. Not just because a copper said it.

We don't all have the utter despising for anyone who doesn't think like us that you consistently demonstrate, because unlike you, we're not all fuckwitted cunts.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's not so much your sociopathic lack of empathy, as you approving of the sheer lunacy of letting people with guns run around on the street shooting anyone who looks a bit funny.
Because that's what happened right? They were all tooled up and encouraged to blow away anyone who looked like them might be a terrorist.

Twat.
While that wasn't the intention, wasn't that kind of what happened in this case?

Oh, so there was an order from within the police chain of command that ran along the lines...

quote:
Okay, hand out as many guns as you can to as many officers as you can and tell them it's okay to shoot anyone they want if they think they might be a terrorist.

Is that the order the police received form their commanders? Direct me to a reference to it please.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

No, of course not, but they were i) tooled up and ii) blew someone away who looked to them like (but in fact wasn't) a terrorist.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
No, of course not, but they were i) tooled up and ii) blew someone away who looked to them like (but in fact wasn't) a terrorist.

And even then had to make shit up to explain why he "looked like a terrorist"

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh, so there was an order from within the police chain of command that ran along the lines...

quote:
Okay, hand out as many guns as you can to as many officers as you can and tell them it's okay to shoot anyone they want if they think they might be a terrorist.
Is that the order the police received form their commanders? Direct me to a reference to it please.

How fantastically naive of you to think there might have been an order.

The Met had missed the boat twice that month, and it was only piss-poor engineering that meant no one was killed on the 21st. Of course armed police were going to take a pop at anyone they thought might be a terrorist, no matter how mistaken they might have been. It was an assumption, not an order.

The orders only started happening after the Met realised they'd slotted an entirely innocent man.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You are saying that he was a serious criminal and therefore its OK to kill him.
I have not said that it's acceptable for the police to kill someone only because he is a serious criminal.

So why keep on repeating the irrelevant allegation?

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You are saying that he was a serious criminal and therefore its OK to kill him.
I have not said that it's acceptable for the police to kill someone only because he is a serious criminal.
So why keep on repeating the irrelevant allegation?

What do you mean by 'irrelevant allegation'? That he was a serious criminal?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Fits the bill. It's an allegation because he'd never been convicted of a serious crime, and it's irrelevant because firearms officers are not meant to open fire "because he was a bad 'un"

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Fits the bill. It's an allegation because he'd never been convicted of a serious crime...

If this is what ken is on about, then I think the allegations are well-founded, particularly in light of the fact that someone has been convicted of supplying Duggan with a gun (not the actions of a small-time crook). Does anyone (apart from Duggan's family) seriously contend that he wasn't engaged in serious criminal activity?

quote:
...and it's irrelevant because firearms officers are not meant to open fire "because he was a bad 'un"

I agree, firearms officers aren't meant to do that and, for the avoidance of any lingering doubt, I haven't claimed they ought to. But my OP focused on the type of people attending a pro-Duggan vigil. I think these allegations are relevant to that.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Allegation it remains however well founded.

What sort of people attend such a vigil? I don't know, but I still contend that concern and care about someone even if they are the sort of person we might think who doesn't deserve concern and care is actually profoundly Christian.

[ 15. January 2014, 15:38: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

How fantastically naive of you to think there might have been an order.
.

These things don't generate orders. Not when done as a matter of policy. And certainly nothing in writing. There are hits, suggestions, nodded agreements. That's how it was in most of the Tsarist pogroms, that's how it was in Kansas and Missouri and Kentucky and West Virginia around the American Civil War, and later for the lynch mobs and Klan, that 's how it was in the Irish Civil War (on all sides) and the Russian Civil War (which killed more people than the American one, and 200 times as many as the Irish), and for the Nazis (mostly, some of them left a paper trail), and for the Soviets trying to control Spanish Civil War by assasinating those of their own side who wouldn't lick Stalin's arse, and in Brazil and Argentina, and in just about every Central American state fucked up by right-wing dictators forced on them by the US between the 1920s and 1990s. Death squads don't do paperwork.

But not, oddly, the Khmer Rouge. They left a paper trail. (As did some, but not most, of the Nazi murderers) Either they really thought they were doing right, or they assumed they were invulnerable, or they just didn't care. Interahamwe in Rwanda sort of did as well, though they also obscured it by destroying many government buildings, courts, and archives.

So the very fact that the Met could produce the paperwork for their murder of Jean Charles de Menezes implies that it ws a cock up rather than a plot.

Though losing that gun in Tottenham for three months still seems bloody odd.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

Deano, it is one of the unfortunate facts of life that if we have armed policemen then, occasionally, they will put a cap in someone's ass when it could, with better luck and judgement, have been avoided. It is not in anyone's interest for the police, in those circumstances, to shrug their shoulders mutter "whatever, shit happens" and move on. We do not want armed police who are blase about the death of people who could have lived.

As it happens I once heard the recording of an arrest by Customs and Excise of a bunch of drug dealers. What happened was that the firearms boys secured the area and then Customs went in and made the arrests. Two things were clear from the recording. Firstly the arresting officer was completely hyped with adrenalin. Secondly there was an innocent person on the premises. He was a salesman for an insurance company and you could hear him wailing with terror. So there are two things going on. Firstly any law enforcement officer who is dealing with firearms has to be sufficiently well disciplined so as not to let the adrenalin surge overwhelm his judgement. Secondly that when this sort of thing happens there is a game plan so that the drug dealers can be processed and the chap from the Bristol and West can be sent on his way. It is not acceptable to treat innocent people as collateral damage. For that matter it is not acceptable to treat guilty people as collateral damage. Every good cop knows that.

There is a technical term for people who do not accept that point (although I have no quarrel with such vulgar idioms as idiot, twat and tosser). You may not realise this so I give you a clue. It begins with 'f' and rhymes with 'ascism'.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

What do you mean by 'irrelevant allegation'? That he was a serious criminal?

Yes. The man was shot and killed. If it is wrong to kill innocent people and also wrong to kill criminals, then whether or not he was a criminal is irrelevant to whether or not it was wrong to shoot him. So why keep on going on about it?

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
There is a technical term for people who do not accept that point (although I have no quarrel with such vulgar idioms as idiot, twat and tosser). You may not realise this so I give you a clue. It begins with 'f' and rhymes with 'ascism'.

Yadda fucking yadda.

Imagine that, me being called a fascist. How original. Did you think of that yourself or were you PM'd.

Tell you what, the next time there is a big terrorist incident on the tube and a copper points a gun at you, PUT YOUR FUCKING HANDS UP, WHERE HE CAN SEE THEM, KEEP THEM THERE AND DO EXACTLY AS HE SAYS.

STAY VERY STILL; DON'T GET ARSEY AND "INDEPENDANT OF THOUGHT".

Let them arrest you and then you can avail yourself of the whole legal system to prove your innocence.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

What do you mean by 'irrelevant allegation'? That he was a serious criminal?
Yes. The man was shot and killed. If it is wrong to kill innocent people and also wrong to kill criminals, then whether or not he was a criminal is irrelevant to whether or not it was wrong to shoot him. So why keep on going on about it?

But his shooting wasn't wrong in so much as a jury found that he had been killed lawfully.

His criminality is presumably central to the reason why he was targeted in this sort of operation in the first place (as opposed to, say, de Menezes or Ian Tomlinson who were caught up in events entirely innocently)?

And if a controversial vigil is to be held, the criminality of the person at the centre of that vigil is presumably an important consideration for the people who will go there? (Though Karl appears to disagree on this point.)

[ 15. January 2014, 16:23: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Tell you what, the next time there is a big terrorist incident on the tube and a copper points a gun at you, PUT YOUR FUCKING HANDS UP, WHERE HE CAN SEE THEM, KEEP THEM THERE AND DO EXACTLY AS HE SAYS.

STAY VERY STILL; DON'T GET ARSEY AND "INDEPENDANT OF THOUGHT".

Let them arrest you and then you can avail yourself of the whole legal system to prove your innocence.

Unfortunately, at least some of the coppers in question were plain clothes, and de Menezes was prevented from putting his arms up by being held, and then by being dead.

I appreciate that you're a fuckwit who doesn't think it could ever happen to him, but the de Menezes shooting proves just how fuckwitted you are. This is aside from your additional and exemplary fuckwittery in trying to defend it.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
There is a technical term for people who do not accept that point (although I have no quarrel with such vulgar idioms as idiot, twat and tosser). You may not realise this so I give you a clue. It begins with 'f' and rhymes with 'ascism'.
Yadda fucking yadda.

Imagine that, me being called a fascist. How original. Did you think of that yourself or were you PM'd.

Tell you what, the next time there is a big terrorist incident on the tube and a copper points a gun at you, PUT YOUR FUCKING HANDS UP, WHERE HE CAN SEE THEM, KEEP THEM THERE AND DO EXACTLY AS HE SAYS.

STAY VERY STILL; DON'T GET ARSEY AND "INDEPENDANT OF THOUGHT".

Let them arrest you and then you can avail yourself of the whole legal system to prove your innocence.

Firstly, there is no point shouting at me. It's a somewhat over-rated tactic in the real world. On an Internet Bulletin Board you come across less as BRIAN BLESSED! and more as the sort of person who thinks that homosexuals and Romanians are stealing your bodily fluids. Secondly you need to learn how to spell "independent". Thirdly if you want to link to an accurate account of the shooting in question and, on the basis of the known facts, discuss how the Metropolitan Police were justified in shooting an innocent man and lying about it after the fact knock yourself out. But if you are just going to pull random bullshit out of your arse whilst doing the whole "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH BIT", the rest of us will be justified, I think, in concluding that you are a bit of a dick.

Let me know if you need me to explain any of the long words. Ta-ta now.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

But his shooting wasn't wrong in so much as a jury found that he had been killed lawfully.

It seems odd to me to conflate "lawful" and "right".

quote:

And if a controversial vigil is to be held, the criminality of the person at the centre of that vigil is presumably an important consideration for the people who will go there? (Though Karl appears to disagree on this point.)

Not just Karl. It doesn't seem at all controversial to me and I'm not sure why anybody should think it is. I could imagine going to such a thing myself if it happened to someone I knew or a neighbour of mine.

Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

But his shooting wasn't wrong in so much as a jury found that he had been killed lawfully.
It seems odd to me to conflate "lawful" and "right".

quote:

If you're not conflating the two, then what do you mean by 'wrong'? It seems to me that there were justifiable reasons for shooting Duggan given the threat he posed - or the threat the police thought he posed - and the jury at his inquest presumably thought along the same lines?

quote:
And if a controversial vigil is to be held, the criminality of the person at the centre of that vigil is presumably an important consideration for the people who will go there? (Though Karl appears to disagree on this point.)

Not just Karl. It doesn't seem at all controversial to me and I'm not sure why anybody should think it is. I could imagine going to such a thing myself if it happened to someone I knew or a neighbour of mine.

But presumably the Ealing Branch of the NUT is wholly unconnected to the events in Tottenham?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

And the first casualty of war is?

And that's whose fault?

No one's.

It's ALL inevitable. It cannot be improved, except incrementally, with head cams all round. And even that won't work.

Imagine the identical situation with everyone, and I mean everyone, including Mark Duggan, wearing head cams. Would the outcome have been any different?

Yes if the feeds were all monitored and integrated in real time. Not for years yet. Someone might see that he isn't armed at the crucial point.

We live and kill and therefore must die by the sword.

[ 15. January 2014, 20:39: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Yeah, well. In wartime, some non-combatants die. It's inevitable.

One of the first Guantanamo Bay cases, the government lawyer's opening address started with a statement that America was at war. One of the judges immediately snapped at him to produce the formal declaration.

'War' has become a word devoid of formal meaning. Instead it means 'there are some people we're opposed to and we want to justify suspending the normal rules so we can use any means necessary to defeat them'.

The whole point of a declaration of war is to authorise things that are not normally authorised. Throwing the word 'war' around the way it's used now to mean 'business as usual' flips the entire concept on its head.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by deano:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Does "not criticising any individual police officers over it" extend to not criticising the lying cunts amongst them who made false claims after the fact to justify their actions?

Or is that acceptable as well?
Well, had I been the office who shot him (I assume we are talking about Menezez), then I would also have lied my head off to try to cover it up. Of course I would. I would have tried to justify it as much as possible, given the context. Of course.

If you mean the Duggan shooting, I’d have lied there also. He was scum. He didn't deserve to die like that, but he did, so why fuck up a decent career for a crook like him. He would probably have been killed by one of his own kind sooner or later anyway.

It's ironic, isn't it? I'm pretty sure I've got the impression from deano that he thinks that people should take responsibility for their own lives. Go out there, get an education, get a job, work hard.

But apparently, taking responsibility for your own life doesn't include taking responsibility for your actions when you fuck up. No, in THAT situation the skill you need to have learnt is how to successfully look after yourself by lying.

Other people of course, when they fuck up by breaking the law, should face the consequences of their actions and be roundly punished. Because they're worthless people. Only people judged 'good' in terms of their overall worth are entitled to lie and dissemble to avoid punishment.

[Roll Eyes]

All of which completely ignores the role played in sentencing by (1) admitting your guilt and (2) your overall character/pattern of behaviour.

Nope, if you're a 'good' person, the correct pattern of behaviour is 'good until caught out'.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Less than a week after the jury decision the IPCC issues an apology to the Duggan family for the "wrong" shooting details the police gave to the media. The IPCC is also to speak to key witnesses and it looks like it is going to do, after the inquest, what should have been done at the inquest, if not before.

It really looks like officaldom feels that a few deaths don't matter, especially if the dead have had their collars felt a few times and are on the list of the "usual suspects".

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

But his shooting wasn't wrong in so much as a jury found that he had been killed lawfully.
It seems odd to me to conflate "lawful" and "right".

quote:

If you're not conflating the two, then what do you mean by 'wrong'? It seems to me that there were justifiable reasons for shooting Duggan given the threat he posed - or the threat the police thought he posed - and the jury at his inquest presumably thought along the same lines?

quote:
And if a controversial vigil is to be held, the criminality of the person at the centre of that vigil is presumably an important consideration for the people who will go there? (Though Karl appears to disagree on this point.)

Not just Karl. It doesn't seem at all controversial to me and I'm not sure why anybody should think it is. I could imagine going to such a thing myself if it happened to someone I knew or a neighbour of mine.
But presumably the Ealing Branch of the NUT is wholly unconnected to the events in Tottenham?

I'm flummoxed by the idea that it's strange to care for people not known to us personally. Surely teachers are the most likely to care about the death of a young person?

Genuinely interested as to what you think Jesus would have done in this circumstance. I realise that WWJD is not always relevant or helpful, but discussions about authorities abusing their power and criminals not deserving grace and mercy seems to be a case where it is relevant.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0