The Mark Duggan trial.

old hippy

Mike747 wrote: »

How come you're so concerned with Duggan? You've said before you've been the victim of violent crime. Duggan is the kind of thug who'd stomp you just for looking at him.

It wasn't right the way you were treated on the march I agree, and there are bad cops out there, same with any profession. Ultimately though my sympathies lie with the police not some 'hardcore nigga' who got shot down.

I've been mugged and assaulted. I genuinely wouldn't care if any of those people were killed.

I'm concerned when police officers act above the law. I'm concerned about fatal shootings.

I've been mugged and assaulted too - I'd like to see the perps brought to justice (no matter what side of the law they operate on) but that's not going to happen now.

CuriousG wrote: »

Stating facts about a known criminal is fascism now? That seems strange to me

Does it? I'm calling it fascism when officers of the Met rough you up and gets a round of applause from people here who then accuse you of being a "criminal".

Zambia

So how would you police a demonstration?

old hippy

Zambia wrote: »

So how would you police a demonstration?

I wouldn't inflict violence on members of the public who have done nothing against the law. Kind of obvious, like.

15Pete

It is interesting that Duggan's family claim he was not a "gangster". Illegally transporting an illegal weapon qualifies one as a gangster in any able-minded person's opinion. His boasts about "bussin" shots and related carryon just confirm our suspicions.
In any case, the people who seem to be attacking the police's actions and policies would seem to be of the lesser-educated variety; judging by their poor grasp of the English language; which we can be thankful for in the knowledge that they will not attain any real level of responsibility or power. They can continue to blame the police/system/government for their own failings while the rest of us continue with our lives, thankful that the vast majority of policemen and policewomen do their best every day to keep scum like Duggan away from us.
In my eyes it is very simple, if one does not wish to be shot by police they should not be messing around with guns. If you play with fire, you could get burned. And I am thankful that the police will use any means necessary to keep violent thugs away from the general public to whom they could cause harm. This will also send out a message to prospective gangsters that they will face justice should they choose a life of crime over that of the hard-working man on the street.
I would wager that the silent majority could not care less that there is one more hoodlum who is no longer a threat to society.

Zambia

old hippy wrote: »

I wouldn't inflict violence on members of the public who have done nothing against the law. Kind of obvious, like.

So you don't know, thanks.

old hippy

Zambia wrote: »

So you don't know, thanks.

So you condone the violence that was done to me on the demo, thanks.

end of the road

S0crates wrote: »

the people who seem to be attacking the police's actions and policies would seem to be of the lesser-educated variety; judging by their poor grasp of the English language; which we can be thankful for in the knowledge that they will not attain any real level of responsibility or power. They can continue to blame the police/system/government for their own failings while the rest of us continue with our lives, thankful that the vast majority of policemen and policewomen do their best every day to keep scum like Duggan away from us.

many will be uneducated, others will be educated and will see some things in relation to the police that need dealing with, to make sure that standards are upheld, also, its usually those who are "uneducated" who are the victims of police brutality when it happens, the rest of this little bit sounds to me like the usual "the police are perfect" type of post who makes out that anyone who questions the police must be uneducated and doesn't deserve any responsibility yet your happy that they dare to maybe say that not enough is being done in relation to opportunities for the less educated to improve themselves

S0crates wrote: »

it is very simple, if one does not wish to be shot by police they should not be messing around with guns. If you play with fire, you could get burned.

some were shot even though they didn't have guns so that statement can't be blanket even though i agree to an extent with it.

S0crates wrote: »

I am thankful that the police will use any means necessary to keep violent thugs away from the general public to whom they could cause harm.

any means? we can't have them behaving how they wish, their has to be standards, yes we can all be thankful that many will agree with having a high standard for operations in relation to policeing and will strive to meet them, its those who don't who need to be sacked

S0crates wrote: »

This will also send out a message to prospective gangsters that they will face justice should they choose a life of crime over that of the hard-working man on the street.

oh this crap again, the "this will send out a message" nonsense has been proven to be untrue and delusianel, many people choose different things over the "hard working man on the street" which these days a hard working man on the street is nothing or nobody special

S0crates wrote: »

I would wager that the silent majority could not care less that there is one more hoodlum who is no longer a threat to society.

its not about caring about him, its about saying how the police handled it and then apparently lied afterwords shouldn't be tolerated or allowed as it brings standards down for those working in the police who strive to operate as correct as possible who's names end up being blackened because of those who don't or aren't bothered

Zambia

old hippy wrote: »

So you condone the violence that was done to me on the demo, thanks.

Of course not but understand that you can't control a crowd unless you are prepared to physically stop them.

old hippy

Zambia wrote: »

Of course not but understand that you can't control a crowd unless you are prepared to physically stop them.

Ok, this is going off topic a bit. I remain of the opinion that you don't push and shove an ordinary member of the public on a peaceful demo. That you don't throw a citizen to the ground and laugh about it with your mates. That is not something I like to experience at all.

One is not a troublemaker or a criminal if one objects to corruption and officers who act above the law.

Zambia

old hippy wrote: »

Ok, this is going off topic a bit. I remain of the opinion that you don't push and shove an ordinary member of the public on a peaceful demo. That you don't throw a citizen to the ground and laugh about it with your mates. That is not something I like to experience at all.

One is not a troublemaker or a criminal if one objects to corruption and officers who act above the law.

Did you lodge a complaint about the officer?

wicklowstevo

old hippy wrote: »

So you condone the violence that was done to me on the demo, thanks.

I do . you seem like you have no idea what your talking about in general in any thread.

old hippy

Zambia wrote: »

Did you lodge a complaint about the officer?

Officers. No, as I have said, there wasn't much point in doing so. They tend to close ranks.

wicklowstevo wrote: »

I do . you seem like you have no idea what your talking about in general in any thread.

Good for you, stevo. Good for you. Anyways, we're way off topic here, so let's leave aside unprovoked attacks on members of the public and my contributions on other threads. How do you feel about the Duggan shooting? Was it justified?

wicklowstevo

Lets stay on topic . was the behaviour of duggens supporters justified ? after the killing or at the press conference ?
" hey our scumbag friend got killed and its really hot , lets go steal a load of runners and flat screen tvs and kill some people" and please dont start with the under educated young black masses held down by whitie and the pigs bs . i didnt hear of any book shops getting looted did you.
Im not going to engage with you either hippy because you are to ridicules and person to waste time on

old hippy

wicklowstevo wrote: »

Lets stay on topic . was the behaviour of duggens supporters justified ? after the killing or at the press conference ?
" hey our scumbag friend got killed and its really hot , lets go steal a load of runners and flat screen tvs and kill some people" and please dont start with the under educated young black masses held down by whitie and the pigs bs . i didnt hear of any book shops getting looted did you.
Im not going to engage with you either hippy because you are to ridicules and person to waste time on

Well, I don't know about the rest of you but that well thought out essay on the Duggan incident, the riots and the ethnic background of Londoners really swayed me.

As for bookshops, perhaps Kindles are more the rage these days and aren't as heavy as a load of books?

Interesting article here, stevo

http://www.thewire.com/global/2011/08/its-pattern-london-rioters-are-leaving-bookstores-untouched/41142/

Thanks for engaging.

wicklowstevo

o what a stinging come back, thank you for allowing me to use your moral compass to correct my wayward morals i am so fortunate ,

old hippy

wicklowstevo wrote: »

o what a stinging come back, thank you for allowing me to use your moral compass to correct my wayward morals i am so fortunate ,

Did you actually read the article stevo? I ask this because you seem pretty concerned about our reading habits, over in London. What did you think of it, do you agree with any of it?

wicklowstevo

sorry cant see into the bubble of over the top liberalism that your living in. still maybe some day it ll pop and you ll find your self in the real world getting caught in the cross fire between the likes of duggan and his homies ( o wait thats properly racist now isnt it )

Foxhound38

If you choose to live by the sword, you don't get to complain when you die by the sword. If he was carrying around a gun, he was a clear and present danger to everyone around him including police. Would have been nice if he could be disarmed and arrested non-violently but one less armed scumbag walking around is no bad outcome either...

Mike747

Foxhound38 wrote: »

If you choose to live by the sword, you don't get to complain when you die by the sword. If he was carrying around a gun, he was a clear and present danger to everyone around him including police. Would have been nice if he could be disarmed and arrested non-violently but one less armed scumbag walking around is no bad outcome either...

But it's society's fault he went down the path that he did! Seriously though, it's good there's one less degenerate scumbag on the street.

end of the road

Foxhound38 wrote: »

If you choose to live by the sword, you don't get to complain when you die by the sword. If he was carrying around a gun, he was a clear and present danger to everyone around him including police. Would have been nice if he could be disarmed and arrested non-violently but one less armed scumbag walking around is no bad outcome either...

any death is a bad outcome and a failure, specially when the police told lies afterwords

Zambia

end of the road wrote: »

any death is a bad outcome and a failure, specially when the police told lies afterwords

I asked you this before.

What officer is lying ? You ignored it i do not recall any mention in the judges summation regarding lies. There would have been if their was proof.

You clearly have some anti police agenda. The ruling was, given all the circumstances the shooting was a reasonable action.

Do you believe if Duggan remained in the car and did not act like a ****ing pork chop he would have been shot?

end of the road

Zambia wrote: »

You clearly have some anti police agenda.

lol, exactly why i can't be bothered engaging with some on this thread

Zambia wrote: »

Do you believe if Duggan remained in the car and did not act like a ****ing pork chop he would have been shot?

maybe, maybe not

Zambia

end of the road wrote: »

lol, exactly why i can't be bothered engaging with some on this thread

maybe, maybe not

Whatever answer the question, which officer is lying?

old hippy

wicklowstevo wrote: »

sorry cant see into the bubble of over the top liberalism that your living in. still maybe some day it ll pop and you ll find your self in the real world getting caught in the cross fire between the likes of duggan and his homies ( o wait thats properly racist now isnt it )

Sounds like you're wishing ill on me, stevo. And why do you keep bringing race up? Does it irk you?

Anyways, did you actually read the article stevo? I ask this because you seem pretty concerned about our reading habits, over in London. What did you think of it, do you agree with any of it?

R P McMurphy

Zambia wrote: »

Whatever answer the question, which officer is lying?

officer V53

Zambia

R P McMurphy wrote: »

officer V53

That's the officer who fired the shots, how did he lie?

He believed Duggan had a firearm and his belief was accepted by the jury.

R P McMurphy

Zambia wrote: »

That's the officer who fired the shots, how did he lie?

He believed Duggan had a firearm and his belief was accepted by the jury.

He said that duggan had pointed a gun at him in a threatening manner. The jury did not accept this only that the officer may have believed him to have a gun not that he was pointing it at the police.

The met even initially contended that Duggan had been firing shots at the police. This was definitely proven to be false. If you are asking what officers made up this lie, I don't know but was passed by whatever section deals with the independent police complaints commission.

It is likely that the police officers present may have believed him to be in possession of a firearm as they probably didn't witness him discarding it but does that justify them opening fire when he could not have been firing at them or indeed pointing a gun at them

Zambia

R P McMurphy wrote: »

He said that duggan had pointed a gun at him in a threatening manner. The jury did not accept this only that the officer may have believed him to have a gun not that he was pointing it at the police.

So where is the lie?

Do you have a link to when and where v53 said that?

Here is his account

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19732298

While. It's unlikely Duggan had a firearm at that moment, it's well within the bounds of possibility a firearm was in his hands.

R P McMurphy

Zambia wrote: »

So where is the lie?

Do you have a link to when and where v53 said that?

Here is his account

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19732298

While. It's unlikely Duggan had a firearm at that moment, it's well within the bounds of possibility a firearm was in his hands.

Just Google it, practically any link will deal with the initial claim that he pulled a gun and pointed it in a threatening manner as well as the initial lies from the met that he was firing shots at the officers.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25321711

Gatling

R P McMurphy wrote: »

Just Google it, practically any link will deal with the initial claim that he pulled a gun and pointed it in a threatening manner as well as the initial lies from the met that he was firing shots at the officers.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25321711

Sorry but the witness statement is bull****

Across the road and 9 stories up in an apartment block looking through an open window clearly claims to have witnessed a police execution ,

I'd love to see that account independently tested and verified that a witness several hundred feet away could 100% identify a gun ,phone or dildo being waved around

end of the road

Gatling wrote: »

Sorry but the witness statement is bull****

Across the road and 9 stories up in an apartment block looking through an open window clearly claims to have witnessed a police execution ,

I'd love to see that account independently tested and verified that a witness several hundred feet away could 100% identify a gun ,phone or dildo being waved around

your right the accounts were bull, nobody saw a gun on him yet an officer claimed he did when he didn't, that to me, is a lier

R P McMurphy

Gatling wrote: »

Sorry but the witness statement is bull****

Across the road and 9 stories up in an apartment block looking through an open window clearly claims to have witnessed a police execution ,

I'd love to see that account independently tested and verified that a witness several hundred feet away could 100% identify a gun ,phone or dildo being waved around

There is not need to be obtuse regarding the article, it does the discussion no good.

The claim that he was not brandishing a firearm does not hinge on that witness testimony, more so on the probability of him not being able to dispose of the weapon once he was shot

Gatling

end of the road wrote: »

your right the accounts were bull, nobody saw a gun on him yet an officer claimed he did when he didn't, that to me, is a lier

R P McMurphy wrote: »

There is not need to be obtuse regarding the article, it does the discussion no good.

The claim that he was not brandishing a firearm does not hinge on that witness testimony, more so on the probability of him not being able to dispose of the weapon once he was shot

You stand several hundred feet away and 9 stories up and tell me you could clearly identify a firearm consealed in a sock in a persons hand

end of the road seriously your view and claims of events are on different intergalactic plain to the real worlds

B_Rabbit

wicklowstevo wrote: »

sorry cant see into the bubble of over the top liberalism that your living in. still maybe some day it ll pop and you ll find your self in the real world getting caught in the cross fire between the likes of duggan and his homies ( o wait thats properly racist now isnt it )

stevo you have a bad attitude and I think a chat with yourself is in order.

Santa Cruz

R P McMurphy wrote: »

There is not need to be obtuse regarding the article, it does the discussion no good.

The claim that he was not brandishing a firearm does not hinge on that witness testimony, more so on the probability of him not being able to dispose of the weapon once he was shot

Did they consider the man on the grassy knoll?

Zambia

end of the road wrote: »

your right the accounts were bull, nobody saw a gun on him yet an officer claimed he did when he didn't, that to me, is a lier

You can't prove what v53 saw in front of him. So if you see something (possible not a unicorn) and nobody else saw it then you are lying.

Jonny7

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The jury did not accept this only that the officer may have believed him to have a gun not that he was pointing it at the police.

I would expect the jury to have a far better picture than any commentators here on the issue. The specifics are not black and white, however they deemed the killing was lawful.

R P McMurphy

Jonny7 wrote: »

I would expect the jury to have a far better picture than any commentators here on the issue. The specifics are not black and white, however they deemed the killing was lawful.

I think that within the narrow confines of what the jury were told to deliberate on, they made the correct decision. This is pretty far from exonerationing the met though in this particular shooting. The fact that he did not have a gun on him when he was shot is bad news but the lies told in the aftermath were damning.

Zambia

R P McMurphy wrote: »

He said that duggan had pointed a gun at him in a threatening manner. The jury did not accept this only that the officer may have believed him to have a gun not that he was pointing it at the police.

The met even initially contended that Duggan had been firing shots at the police. This was definitely proven to be false. If you are asking what officers made up this lie, I don't know but was passed by whatever section deals with the independent police complaints commission.

It is likely that the police officers present may have believed him to be in possession of a firearm as they probably didn't witness him discarding it but does that justify them opening fire when he could not have been firing at them or indeed pointing a gun at them

Oh and the IPCC said he was shooting at police not the met.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-25776826

old hippy

Another interesting article on corruption in the Met

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-police-corruption-cannot-be-eliminated-admits-head-of-specialmet-unit-following-independent-stories-9070682.html

"When asked about some of the inexplicable features of the Met’s repeated investigations into the murder of Daniel Morgan, a private detective found in a south London car park with an axe embedded in his skull in 1987 amid claims he was about to blow the whistle on links between the Met and organised crime, Mr Bonthron is sensitive."

Zambia

old hippy wrote: »

Another interesting article on corruption in the Met

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-police-corruption-cannot-be-eliminated-admits-head-of-specialmet-unit-following-independent-stories-9070682.html

"When asked about some of the inexplicable features of the Met’s repeated investigations into the murder of Daniel Morgan, a private detective found in a south London car park with an axe embedded in his skull in 1987 amid claims he was about to blow the whistle on links between the Met and organised crime, Mr Bonthron is sensitive."

Seriously some copper pushed you once in a protest, get over it move on.

The met is a huge police force no doubt some of it apples are bad. On the flip side more spend their days doing a thankless job very well.

old hippy

Zambia wrote: »

Seriously some copper pushed you once in a protest, get over it move on.

The met is a huge police force no doubt some of it apples are bad. On the flip side more spend their days doing a thankless job very well.

Seriously, you weren't there and you clearly haven't read my post detailing it. I'll hilight the corruption in the Met whenever I see fit, thanks. Hypocritical folk operating above the law should not be swept under the carpet. Once you start to make excuses for the bad apples, we get worse stuff happening because they feel they can get away with it.

Here's that post again #333

I was on an anti war march, I stepped to the side of the march so I could use my mobile. An officer grabbed me and said "are you on the march or not" and pushed me back into the road. A few people saw this and said I should get his number but I couldn't be bothered. It was just a shove. Later, we were kettled into an alleyway and people started running. I was grabbed by a couple of officers and shook up, before being thrown into a load of refuse sacks. They were all laughing.

Zambia

old hippy wrote: »

Seriously, you weren't there and you clearly haven't read my post detailing it. I'll hilight the corruption in the Met whenever I see fit, thanks. Hypocritical folk operating above the law should not be swept under the carpet. Once you start to make excuses for the bad apples, we get worse stuff happening because they feel they can get away with it.

Here's that post again #333

I was on an anti war march, I stepped to the side of the march so I could use my mobile. An officer grabbed me and said "are you on the march or not" and pushed me back into the road. A few people saw this and said I should get his number but I couldn't be bothered. It was just a shove. Later, we were kettled into an alleyway and people started running. I was grabbed by a couple of officers and shook up, before being thrown into a load of refuse sacks. They were all laughing.

Best of luck with that then.

Canis Lupus

old hippy wrote: »

Seriously, you weren't there and you clearly haven't read my post detailing it. I'll hilight the corruption in the Met whenever I see fit, thanks. Hypocritical folk operating above the law should not be swept under the carpet. Once you start to make excuses for the bad apples, we get worse stuff happening because they feel they can get away with it.

Here's that post again #333

I was on an anti war march, I stepped to the side of the march so I could use my mobile. An officer grabbed me and said "are you on the march or not" and pushed me back into the road. A few people saw this and said I should get his number but I couldn't be bothered. It was just a shove. Later, we were kettled into an alleyway and people started running. I was grabbed by a couple of officers and shook up, before being thrown into a load of refuse sacks. They were all laughing.

And like you also stated rather than report it and give the met a chance to do anything about it you didn't because they're all mean and stuff.

WilyCoyote

old hippy wrote: »

...............................................................
......................................................................................................
...................................... .

Here's that post again #333

I was on an anti war march, I stepped to the side of the march so I could use my mobile. An officer grabbed me and said "are you on the march or not" and pushed me back into the road. A few people saw this and said I should get his number but I couldn't be bothered. It was just a shove. Later, we were kettled into an alleyway and people started running. I was grabbed by a couple of officers and shook up, before being thrown into a load of refuse sacks. They were all laughing.

Can you not walk and talk at the same time? I mean, a cop shoving you! Jesus, assault. If this is not a case of persecution complex or attention seeking then I'm Inspector Knacker of The Yard.
As in your post a few days ago, scumbags, muggers, sexual deviants - all have it in for you. And now the cops. Have you ever ........ just for a moment ..... thought, "why is all this stuff happening to me?"
The Man In The Mirror has a lot to answer to IMO.

old hippy

Canis Lupus wrote: »

And like you also stated rather than report it and give the met a chance to do anything about it you didn't because they're all mean and stuff.

Yep. Exactly like that. Considering all the factors and other experiences, friends, situations and people I know in the force and out of the force. That's precisely it.

I should have reported it but I didn't. I didn't get their numbers as I was still dazed and the mood was real unpleasant. Maybe I should have tried to ask them politely to give me their names and all that but I didn't. Mea culpa.

old hippy

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Can you not walk and talk at the same time? I mean, a cop shoving you! Jesus, assault. If this is not a case of persecution complex or attention seeking then I'm Inspector Knacker of The Yard.
As in your post a few days ago, scumbags, muggers, sexual deviants - all have it in for you. And now the cops. Have you ever ........ just for a moment ..... thought, "why is all this stuff happening to me?"
The Man In The Mirror has a lot to answer to IMO.

Ah, Wily, Wily. This is not the first time you've had a dig at me, isn't it?

The jibe about my sexuality the other day and now the "you must be asking for it" old chestnut.

Weak. Very weak.

end of the road

Zambia wrote: »

Seriously some copper pushed you once in a protest, get over it move on.

The met is a huge police force no doubt some of it apples are bad. On the flip side more spend their days doing a thankless job very well.

yet that police force seems to have and have had a hell of a lot of bad apples

mathepac

What is Mark Duggan being charged with?

old hippy

mathepac wrote: »

What is Mark Duggan being charged with?

What do you think?