Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Mark Duggan shooting inquest in London finally starts...

So much misinformation etc. I'm getting a little lost. Was the jury presented with anything that clearly pointed to the police lying?
 
Not trying to be funny here, but why is that the most likely explanation? I see no evidence to back it up - discounting everything said by the police as worthless, all kinds of scenarios are possible, including that they set out that night to murder Mark Duggan in cold blood.
What motive would there have been for a pre-planned extra-judicial hit? Are there any other examples of such hits by the Met (i.e. not Northern Ireland, and not alleged politics/secret state killings on the mainland)? I don't buy it. Far more likely to me that this was a monumental f***-up (see also de Menezes).
 
I think if they'd planned to murder him they'd have come up with a better plan to cover it up. Not that they'd need to of course, when they can get away with a story as patchy as this one.

Agreed! Like they did with Tony Tucker and Pat Tate back in 95!
 
What motive would there have been for a pre-planned extra-judicial hit? Are there any other examples of such hits by the Met (i.e. not Northern Ireland, and not alleged politics/secret state killings on the mainland)? I don't buy it. Far more likely to me that this was a monumental f***-up (see also de Menezes).
Well, let's stick to what we can say with confidence:

The police shot an unarmed man and then constructed a web of lies about it, smearing their victim with unsubstantiated bullshit along the way. They lied in court at the trial of the man convicted of supplying the gun, and they lied again at the inquest.

The rest is lost in the fog of misinformation.
 
“McGuinness had told his debriefers in May 1998 that there were bags of imitation guns, wigs and balaclavas that the Flying Squad took out on operations to plant on suspects. They were used “in case an armed officer shot a robber and he wasn’t carrying a firearm” or to increase the chances of a prosecution. Everyone, he said, referred to it as a “first aid kit”. The point he made, as if this mitigated anything, was that only the guilty career criminal was fitted up this way.”

Excerpt From: Flynn, Laurie. “Untouchables (Bloomsbury Reader).” iBooks. https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=624535B499B08DA7649E7EFBFB4D7A69
 
now playing ball....suggests that she at some point did not wantor was not calling for calm :hmm:
right sorry everyone!

people on twitter etc were saying last night that she should have called for calm etc and that now this would be used as an excuse for "them to get new trainers" and those who "didn't get a 50" TV for xmas can get one now" etc etc
also the authorities (and others) would obviously prefer and want her/the family to call for calm as it makes their job easier

i am in no way suggesting that she did not want calm and that last night they were in severe shock and pain so it would have been unfair to expect some kind of calm and all encompassing statement from the family

is that ok?
 
What motive would there have been for a pre-planned extra-judicial hit? Are there any other examples of such hits by the Met (i.e. not Northern Ireland, and not alleged politics/secret state killings on the mainland)? I don't buy it. Far more likely to me that this was a monumental f***-up (see also de Menezes).
I don't think there had to be a plan as such. The culture of impunity is so deeply ingrained that there's virtually no inhibition. The likelihood of it coming to trial is fairly remote and if there is a trial, the likelihood of a conviction is vanishingly small given all the biases involved. In fact, given the history of these trials the chance is precisely zero. So they don't have to go out with the intention of murder. They can go out in the knowledge that there is no chance of them being called to account if their target does get killed. And given a particular mindset, that amounts to the same thing.
 
I don't think there had to be a plan as such. The culture of impunity is so deeply ingrained that there's virtually no inhibition. The likelihood of it coming to trial is fairly remote and if there is a trial, the likelihood of a conviction is vanishingly small given all the biases involved. In fact, given the history of these trials the chance is precisely zero. So they don't have to go out with the intention of murder. They can go out in the knowledge that there is no chance of them being called to account if their target does get killed. And given a particular mindset, that amounts to the same thing.

Gun police claim to have opened fire only six times in the past four years.
 
right sorry everyone!

people on twitter etc were saying last night that she should have called for calm etc and that now this would be used as an excuse for "them to get new trainers" and those who "didn't get a 50" TV for xmas can get one now" etc etc
also the authorities (and others) would obviously prefer and want her/the family to call for calm as it makes their job easier

i am in no way suggesting that she did not want calm and that last night they were in severe shock and pain so it would have been unfair to expect some kind of calm and all encompassing statement from the family

is that ok?


Yeah. Wasn't having a go at you but it does annoy me that people have been attacking her as if by not making this call last night she was somehow hoping the opposite to happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom