UK police , Mark Duggan and Tottenham riots

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
after reading into this i have to say i don't usually side with police but it seems to me that it could have been an accident, but you still cant rule out the possibility of it being a malicious attack.




posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Here are some pictures of the drug dealing father of 6 violent known to be armed gang member that are circulating the net and MSMs at the moment



Is that a gun pose



The above photo is the one we will remeber him by, this reminds me of the of the George Zimmerman case, all we need now is Doreen Lawrence, to pipe up with "I had a son and he looked like Mark Duggan"



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Not in any way defending Duggan's alleged lifestyle. But he was unarmed when he was shot.

Unarmed. The Jury acknowledged this.

Surrounded by police armed police officers.


Now the first media reports said that he had shot at one officer and the only reason the officer was saved was because the bullet hit his radio.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


A police officer known as W42 was stood behind Mr Duggan at the time and the bullet that went through him hit the officer who was not hurt as the bullet instead became lodged in their police radio.


Ok that's the first lie. Later reports denied this. No police officer was shot.

Next.

They all said he was shot because he was armed.

en.wikipedia.org...


Officers of the Metropolitan Police Service stopped a minicab which was carrying Duggan as a passenger at about 18:15 BST on 4 August 2011.[34] There was no CCTV coverage of the place where they stopped the cab, and some witnesses allege that police chased away onlookers.[35]

According to an unnamed firearms officer at the trial of Kevin Hutchinson-Foster in September 2012, Duggan pivoted out of the cab and pulled a selfloading pistol or handgun from his waistband.[36] According to the taxi driver, Mark Duggan left the car and ran:


and

www.scotsman.com...


[ Officer W70] He told the trial of Kevin Hutchinson-Foster, who is accused of providing Mr Duggan with a handgun minutes before he was killed on 4 August last year, that Mr Duggan started to get out and raised the gun, before he was shot twice.


So again like other reports the first stories told everyone he pulled out a gun and was subsequently shot.


But not long after, the story changes....


www.independent.co.uk...


Half-an-hour later, the 29-year-old was dead, fatally wounded by two police bullets after he got out of the car. The authorities wrongly said that he had been hit in an exchange of fire.


www.bbc.co.uk...


Mark Duggan might have "flicked" a gun it is claimed he was holding over a fence in the seconds after he was shot, an inquest has been told.


So he threw the gun? Seconds after being hit twice at close range in the chest/back and arm. Ok?

www.standard.co.uk...


An unloaded gun was found over a fence on a patch of grass about 10ft-20ft away from where Mr Duggan was shot.


10 - 20 feet away? Over a fence...

Before or after being shot? - Well apparently the pathologist and a witness both claim that he not only didn't throw a gun (as he was shot immediately after leaving the taxi) but after being shot it was 'very unlikely' he could have throw a gun 20ft away after being shot twice.


More evidence came from ‘Witness B’, who said he saw the incident from the open window of his ninth-floor flat across the road. He said that he saw Duggan holding a mobile phone, adding that Duggan had been “trapped” when attempting to leave the taxi and had his hands held up when he was shot by an officer.

The jury also heard an independent pathologist, who found it “very unlikely” that Duggan had thrown the firearm away after being shot, due to the extent of the injuries he would have received. The weapon was found 20 feet away from the taxi behind a set of railings. The jury eventually decided by a majority of nine to one that Duggan had posession of the gun in the taxi but had thrown it before police arrived.



So he didn't throw a gun when he left the cab. No gun was found IN the cab? Then surely the next logical assumption is that if Duggan had a gun, he threw it from the window perhaps?

www.theguardian.com...


One theory the jury may consider is that Duggan – who was travelling in a cab that was stopped at gunpoint by police – tossed the weapon away before police got to him. But W42, an experienced firearms officer, said this could not have happened.

Leslie Thomas, barrister for the Duggan family, asked: "Did you see anything being thrown from the cab?"

"No sir I didn't," W42 said.

Thomas said: "If he had thrown the firearm from the minicab, [would] you get there too late to see it?"

W42 said: "I disagree." He added that, for that to be the case, Duggan would have had to have thrown the gun from the cab while it was still in motion.



So it's changed from an armed Duggan shooting at cops, to an armed Duggan throwing his gun on foot (Either before or after being shot), to an armed Duggan throwing his gun from a vehicle. Even though the gun was found 20 feet away.

Surely the driver may have seen something at least?

www.theguardian.com...


Driver says he saw Duggan holding nothing in his hands when Duggan ran from taxi moments before shooting by police



Ok then, what about the gun itself?

www.express.co.uk...


Police denied suggestions from the family's lawyer that they had planted the gun, which was wrapped in a sock and had no trace of Mr Duggan's DNA or fingerprints.

However, his prints were found on a shoebox police said had been used to carry the gun inside the minicab.


So no DNA on the gun found twenty feet away over the fence in a field, but DNA on a shoebox in the taxi.

www.haringeyindependent.co.uk...


Ms Landais told jurors that neither Mr Duggan’s fingerprints nor his DNA was found on the gun.

She said: “No fingerprints or DNA attributable to Mark Duggan were recovered from the gun or the sock.”

Ms Landais added that because guns are made up of lots of smaller pieces it can sometimes be difficult to recover usable fingerprints.

She also gave evidence about a shoebox which police claim had been used to carry the gun.

The expert said Mr Duggan’s fingerprints were found on the outside of the box but not on the inside.

Lawyer Adam Straw, who represents Mr Duggan’s family, asked Ms Landais if there was any evidence to suggest the 29-year-old had opened the shoebox.

She replied: “No, there is nothing showing Mr Duggan opened the box carrying the gun.”


So fingerprints on a box. NO fingerprints inside and no evidence to suggest he had even opened the box.

Odd.

So... it's changed from Duggan shot an officer, to Duggan pulled out an item gun / phone? To Duggan throwing a gun over the wall, to Duggan having nothing in his hands....

No DNA on the gun or sock which it was concealed in. A fingerprint on a box, but not enough to suggest Duggan had opened it.


So why the various stories and reports?



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

midicon
reply to post by mr-lizard
 


I have always thought our armed police are a scary trigger happy lot.

Even in cases where no firearm or weapon is involved they are always heavy handed.

Nasty people.


Go to the states....... Every cop there seems to be a gun crazy yahoo!



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I predict a summer of discontent.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I can't believe that you people are so defensive of this scumbag. He was a gangster and had a gun in his possession. Whatever you say won't change that fact. And, if you really think that British armed officers are trigger happy, you need your heads examined. If you knew what happened to firearm officers after they shot somebody then you wouldn't think this at all. It really is the final option, unlike in the USA.

I know that you're all going to give me sh*t after reading this but I live in the real world and know reality. Some of you need to join me.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   

iskander683
I can't believe that you people are so defensive of this scumbag. He was a gangster and had a gun in his possession. Whatever you say won't change that fact. And, if you really think that British armed officers are trigger happy, you need your heads examined. If you knew what happened to firearm officers after they shot somebody then you wouldn't think this at all. It really is the final option, unlike in the USA.

I know that you're all going to give me sh*t after reading this but I live in the real world and know reality. Some of you need to join me.


Not gonna give you any **** , just want a discussion / debate.
read my above post please


How do you know he was a gangster? He did have a criminal record for theft and petty drugs, but so do many non-gangsters.

Have you any evidence of his gangster activities?

Also please read my post, then let's debate it. No evidence suggests he had the gun on his person at any point.

Regards,

Mr L
edit on 8-1-2014 by mr-lizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

alldaylong
reply to post by mr-lizard
 



There is an old saying

Live By The Sword Die By The Sword


He didn't have a sword and he was shot.

He didn't have a gun and he was shot.

I would say this is another BS case and the officer involved has got away with, well literally murder.

All those claiming he was a gangster, so what? He wasn't armed, end of story. They found a gun 6 metres away from the scene, his fingerprints weren't on it. Are you all advocating that the police should act as judge and jury and kill all criminals? Seriously? I don't want to live in that kind of society, justice wasn't carried out today, another police officer has got away with murder.

I wonder if this officer has a previous history of criminal activity, just like in the Ian Tomlinson case? I doubt we will ever know.



posted on Jan, 8 2014 @ 06:10 PM
link   

The lead IPCC investigator, Colin Sparrow, said he was unaware of the existence of a crucial piece of evidence - the shoebox - until a week after the shooting. Police officers said it was found in the passenger footwell of the car. The jury heard that when an IPCC investigator finally saw the box, a week later, it was in the boot of the car


www.bbc.co.uk...

odd?



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 04:41 AM
link   
The verdict came back as LAWFUL KILLING which was decided by a jury of 10 people who voted overwhelmingly in favor of their verdict. Mark Duggan DID have a gun with him at the time of the incident, he WAS carrying a gun in his possession when he was inside the taxi. For those of you who do not understand UK law S117 PACE and common law are the 'use of force' laws which the officer who shot Mark Duggan would of had to of justify the shooting under. These laws would have also applied to EVERY single officer who was on that armed operation and who used force. Whether the gun Duggan was carrying was in his hand at the time he was shot is unknown and I do understand the questions and concern surrounding this. However if the officers were certain that Duggan had a firearm in his hand and he ignored specific instructions from the highly trained firearms officers about what to do with the 'weapon' then the use of force can be justified. The officer made a split-second decision and it was the right decision because they felt Duggan had a gun in his hand.
edit on 9-1-2014 by ProfessorT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Cobaltic1978

alldaylong
reply to post by mr-lizard
 



There is an old saying

Live By The Sword Die By The Sword


He didn't have a sword and he was shot.

He didn't have a gun and he was shot.

I would say this is another BS case and the officer involved has got away with, well literally murder.

All those claiming he was a gangster, so what? He wasn't armed, end of story. They found a gun 6 metres away from the scene, his fingerprints weren't on it. Are you all advocating that the police should act as judge and jury and kill all criminals? Seriously? I don't want to live in that kind of society, justice wasn't carried out today, another police officer has got away with murder.

I wonder if this officer has a previous history of criminal activity, just like in the Ian Tomlinson case? I doubt we will ever know.


He did have a gun. It was supplied to him 15 minutes before the incident:-

www.theguardian.com...

No fingerprints were on the gun because it was covered with a sock.

Duggan had a gun ILLEGALLY. He tossed it away.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 05:55 AM
link   
90% of Tottenham is much much more focused on being irritated about football right now than have any interest in rioting, trust me. If there's a riot it'll be if we don't get three points on Saturday, because that's about the level of problem almost everyone's at when it comes to dealing with human nonsense on this planet right now. And next time the cops kill a guy it'll be just a bit less shocking, until it becomes normal.

We've done things a bit sideways to each other. You got the slow blanket security cameras first because if any American, anywhere, ever heard a disembodied voice ordering us to pick up that wrapper we just dropped we would go for the speaker with the first handy crowbar. It's just a thing. Lib, con, refusing to play the only game in town because it's crooked, we all just have this natural response to the very idea that brings us together in a collective "oh HELL no".

But turn the peace-keepers into a loose organization of largely gang-run mercs for hire who have the most guns and let them run wild on the people, and half of us will staunchly defend pre-emptive vigilantism, and the rest of us won't do much of anything at all. So far.
edit on 9-1-2014 by sepermeru because: HOW ARE THE SMILEYS EVEN WORSE NOW



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   
It can't be murder as a lot of people are suggesting as it's not premeditated,it never was.None of the officers involved would have gone out that morning with the sole intention of "bringing him back dead or alive".This is England in the 21st century,not Chicago in the roaring 20s or Tombstone Arizona in the days of the wild west.They would have wanted to bring him back alive to face trial and to be punished for his crimes.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Fact is he was a known gangbanger with a massive rap sheet and a ton of suspected crimes. And the police knew that day he was doing something with a gun. It was hardly killing a defencless inocent man going about his everyday business. Maybe it was over use of force that day? O well crap happens.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   
Ok, there seems to be some confusion as to why the jury come to the conclusion that he was lawfully killed, if he was unarmed.

This is because he did have a gun, this is fact. Intelligence suggested he was on his way to attack a member of a rival gang, this is fact. Now, put yourself in an armed police officer's position. You know the guy has a gun, you haven't seen him throw the gun, but you know he is armed. He hasn't given himself up, he turns towards you and raises his arm towards you, now in a split second you have to react. This is why he was lawfully killed, because he had a gun in the taxi, he was armed with a gun when police arrived and he did not give himself up.

Now the fact when he was shot he was unarmed makes no difference, what he should've done is comply with officers at the start, but he didn't, he thought he was smarter, better and it cost him his life. Good f***ing job!

Had he not had a gun on him in the taxi, yes, then there is an issue and in my mind it would've been unlawfully killed as a result of failed intelligence, but still unlawfully killed.

The family can say what they like and so too his supporters most of which are of the same way of life as him. Also, disgusting hypocrites such as MP and racist Diane Abbott can also wade in with their opinion. Let's see what would've happened had he kept the gun and shot at police officers. Let's see what would've happened had he gone to the destination and shot someone. Let's see what would've happened if he had got to the destination and a gun fight broke out resulting in the deaths of innocent by standers.

The fact that people in power are trying to appease a minority in the London area mostly made up of racists, anti police, anti British, criminal scum and criminal sympathisers, is absolutely sickening. The police have a hard enough job as it is. Where is this outcry when generally young blacks are getting murdered by young blacks in this gang warfare BS? They don't care then, but the big bad police shoots an armed gang member, all hell breaks lose, how dare they kill an armed gang banging piece of trash!

Most of you don't even know this, but did you know the officers who shot Lee Rigby's killers were also brought up on whether they should've discharged their guns? Oh yeah that's not public knowledge, but this is what's happening internally.

The police can get it wrong, but this anti police BS that's going around is unreal. Do you want these kind of gang scum running your towns? The police are being hammered and if armed officers finally think enough I'm not going to discharge my gun at all, what do you think is going to happen to a city like London which is getting more violent by the day?

Some people need to wake up and see where this is going. The alternative is terryfying. A gamg member was shot dead by police, a gang member who was on his way to attack a rival gang member. I cant put it plainer than that! Well done the police!
edit on 9-1-2014 by SecretFace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 07:10 AM
link   

alldaylong

Cobaltic1978

alldaylong
reply to post by mr-lizard
 



There is an old saying

Live By The Sword Die By The Sword


He didn't have a sword and he was shot.

He didn't have a gun and he was shot.



I would say this is another BS case and the officer involved has got away with, well literally murder.

All those claiming he was a gangster, so what? He wasn't armed, end of story. They found a gun 6 metres away from the scene, his fingerprints weren't on it. Are you all advocating that the police should act as judge and jury and kill all criminals? Seriously? I don't want to live in that kind of society, justice wasn't carried out today, another police officer has got away with murder.

I wonder if this officer has a previous history of criminal activity, just like in the Ian Tomlinson case? I doubt we will ever know.


He did have a gun. It was supplied to him 15 minutes before the incident:-

www.theguardian.com...

No fingerprints were on the gun because it was covered with a sock.

Duggan had a gun ILLEGALLY. He tossed it away.



Sorry, I should have made myself clearer.

He wasn't in possession of a gun when he was shot. If the officer mistook the mobile phone he was allegedly holding when he was shot for a gun, then there appears to be a big problem with being able to tell the difference between a firearm and a non lethal weapon.

Are you happy for this officer to be in possession of a firearm within our community?



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by SecretFace
 



Most of you don't even know this, but did you know the officers who shot Lee Rigby's killers were also brought up on whether they should've discharged their guns? Oh yeah that's not public knowledge, but this is what's happening internally.


Every time a police officer discharges a weapon an internal investigation is carried out. There is no case to answer in that instance, so stop trying to create a problem where there isn't one, it's just normal procedure.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Cobaltic1978

alldaylong

Cobaltic1978

alldaylong
reply to post by mr-lizard
 



There is an old saying

Live By The Sword Die By The Sword


He didn't have a sword and he was shot.

He didn't have a gun and he was shot.



I would say this is another BS case and the officer involved has got away with, well literally murder.

All those claiming he was a gangster, so what? He wasn't armed, end of story. They found a gun 6 metres away from the scene, his fingerprints weren't on it. Are you all advocating that the police should act as judge and jury and kill all criminals? Seriously? I don't want to live in that kind of society, justice wasn't carried out today, another police officer has got away with murder.

I wonder if this officer has a previous history of criminal activity, just like in the Ian Tomlinson case? I doubt we will ever know.


He did have a gun. It was supplied to him 15 minutes before the incident:-

www.theguardian.com...

No fingerprints were on the gun because it was covered with a sock.

Duggan had a gun ILLEGALLY. He tossed it away.





Are you happy for this officer to be in possession of a firearm within our community?



The answer is yes.

If an armed officer is a form of deterrent to criminals arming themselves then i say so be it.
Some people think that the police have a "Shoot To Kill" policy. They don't. Look for instance at the killers of Lee Rigby.



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   

alldaylong

Cobaltic1978

alldaylong

Cobaltic1978

alldaylong
reply to post by mr-lizard
 



There is an old saying

Live By The Sword Die By The Sword


He didn't have a sword and he was shot.

He didn't have a gun and he was shot.



I would say this is another BS case and the officer involved has got away with, well literally murder.

All those claiming he was a gangster, so what? He wasn't armed, end of story. They found a gun 6 metres away from the scene, his fingerprints weren't on it. Are you all advocating that the police should act as judge and jury and kill all criminals? Seriously? I don't want to live in that kind of society, justice wasn't carried out today, another police officer has got away with murder.

I wonder if this officer has a previous history of criminal activity, just like in the Ian Tomlinson case? I doubt we will ever know.


He did have a gun. It was supplied to him 15 minutes before the incident:-

www.theguardian.com...

No fingerprints were on the gun because it was covered with a sock.

Duggan had a gun ILLEGALLY. He tossed it away.





Are you happy for this officer to be in possession of a firearm within our community?



The answer is yes.

If an armed officer is a form of deterrent to criminals arming themselves then i say so be it.
Some people think that the police have a "Shoot To Kill" policy. They don't. Look for instance at the killers of Lee Rigby.


I'm not suggesting they have a shoot to kill policy, what I am suggesting is this officer cannot tell the difference between a suspect carrying a lethal weapon or a suspect carrying a mobile phone. To me that is scary.

I appreciate the police have a difficult job in controlling the gang culture and I certainly do not condone Mark Duggan's choice of lifestyle, but if people think it's okay to go around shooting unarmed people, then I guess they have done a great job in conditioning.
edit on 9/1/14 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

SecretFace




Most of you don't even know this, but did you know the officers who shot Lee Rigby's killers were also brought up on whether they should've discharged their guns? Oh yeah that's not public knowledge, but this is what's happening internally.

editby]edit on 9-1-2014 by SecretFace because: (no reason given)


This is standard procedure in the UK (and probably elsewhere). Every time a firearms officer discharges a weapon in a situation, they are effectively "arrested" and then taken for questioning at the cells - they know they potentially face serious charges if they act inappropriately.

I am very happy about this as it means officers have to properly assess the situation as best they can rather than just go in guns blazing. It is also one of the reasons people are turned down for selection to Firearms Training - they do not assess enough.

Duggan himself was a serial criminal. The Head of Trident has identified him as a serious individual who there was significant intelligence on. He was also claimed to be one of the 50 most violent criminals in Europe (although this would need verifying).

He was related to the Noonan's in Manchester, a lovely family who have extensive interests in drugs, guns (supplying and using) and various other criminal activities. He also had links to lovely people like Dave Courtney (celeb gangster). Was he therefore the innocent, loving man portrayed by his family in the disgusting scenes outside court yesterday? No, of course not. He was a scumbag of the highest order.

Good on the jury for following the guidelines asked of them and therefore adhering to the law. I would now like to see charges brought against people like Dianne Abbot for inciting trouble following the verdict.





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join