scalyboy
They’re taking the piss now
Well, yes, that makes sense - but it's different to what has been suggested by some, that this was a pre-planned hit by the Met.
Mark Duggan shooting inquest in London finally starts...
- Thread starter TopCat
- Start date
scalyboy
They’re taking the piss now
Regarding this idea that Duggan was targeted for death, again - what would the motive be? Because he was "one of the 42(?) most violent criminals in Europe" 
And related to this, I have another question - have any details of his police records etc (if any) been released? i.e. if it's been said that he was a "violent gangster" did he have any convictions? Given that info about de Menezes (e.g. overstayed his visa IIRC) was leaked to the police-friendly media as smears, surely if Duggan had a criminal record it would by now have been leaked? Has it? I'm genuinely asking because I don't recall having seen this, but I may have missed it.
This stuff about his being a member of a gang in itself doesn't hold much water for me, IMHO belonging to a gang can sometimes just mean living on a certain estate. I've seen references to his having been involved in two violent gun crimes...but where did this (mis)information come from if it isn't a matter of record? False rumours can be leaked, be disseminated in the press, possibly refuted months later, but the damage is done, and then the original 'facts' are repeated on Twitter... Anyone got any links please?
But anyway, his being or not being a criminal doesn't or shouldn't have any bearing on whether it's permissible to shoot dead an unarmed man (if he was unarmed, as seems to have been the case). But it may have helped to sway the jury..?
And related to this, I have another question - have any details of his police records etc (if any) been released? i.e. if it's been said that he was a "violent gangster" did he have any convictions? Given that info about de Menezes (e.g. overstayed his visa IIRC) was leaked to the police-friendly media as smears, surely if Duggan had a criminal record it would by now have been leaked? Has it? I'm genuinely asking because I don't recall having seen this, but I may have missed it.
This stuff about his being a member of a gang in itself doesn't hold much water for me, IMHO belonging to a gang can sometimes just mean living on a certain estate. I've seen references to his having been involved in two violent gun crimes...but where did this (mis)information come from if it isn't a matter of record? False rumours can be leaked, be disseminated in the press, possibly refuted months later, but the damage is done, and then the original 'facts' are repeated on Twitter... Anyone got any links please?
But anyway, his being or not being a criminal doesn't or shouldn't have any bearing on whether it's permissible to shoot dead an unarmed man (if he was unarmed, as seems to have been the case). But it may have helped to sway the jury..?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's bollocks. He had convictions for possession of cannabis and handling stolen goods, nothing violent at all. I would assume the rest is police lies until someone can show otherwise.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The #1 boy you've been after is there. Accuracy - the whole let off is based on inaccuracy. What this dick was is not as important as what they think it was.
Getting dark. Few hours left.
Getting dark. Few hours left.
The Metropolitan Police are the biggest armed gang in London.
Regarding this idea that Duggan was targeted for death, again - what would the motive be? Because he was "one of the 42(?) most violent criminals in Europe"
And related to this, I have another question - have any details of his police records etc (if any) been released? i.e. if it's been said that he was a "violent gangster" did he have any convictions? Given that info about de Menezes (e.g. overstayed his visa IIRC) was leaked to the police-friendly media as smears, surely if Duggan had a criminal record it would by now have been leaked? Has it? I'm genuinely asking because I don't recall having seen this, but I may have missed it.
This stuff about his being a member of a gang in itself doesn't hold much water for me, IMHO belonging to a gang can sometimes just mean living on a certain estate. I've seen references to his having been involved in two violent gun crimes...but where did this (mis)information come from if it isn't a matter of record? False rumours can be leaked, be disseminated in the press, possibly refuted months later, but the damage is done, and then the original 'facts' are repeated on Twitter... Anyone got any links please?
But anyway, his being or not being a criminal doesn't or shouldn't have any bearing on whether it's permissible to shoot dead an unarmed man (if he was unarmed, as seems to have been the case). But it may have helped to sway the jury..?
Seems he got arrested a number of times for some fairly serious shit but never actually done. Looks like the coppers (and the mail) had it in for him, but who knows. Regardless. The cops have dodged a bullet here, yet again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...olent-gangsters-thug-death-sparked-riots.html
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Leave it out, Lammy is light years away from saying he wasn't a gangster there. What on earth are you on about?
He says he had no record of violence but his obfuscation and bluster around the direct question is a very long way from what you suggest.
From that little performance it actually seems to me that he thought he was a gangster.
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Disgusting article. Don't quote the fucking Mail on this, gabi, ffs.
I agree, it's a filthy rag and a terribly biased article. There is some info in there tho that other papers aren't publishing, and is probably the info that swayed the jurors.
And I'll quote whoever the fuck I want thanks.
Grace Johnson
i like dairylea dunkers
Yeah, there standard police issue. They say because they fragment so are less likely to travel through the target's body and into someone else.
scalyboy
They’re taking the piss now
cheers gabi
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
are you sure it was information heard by the jury?
telbert
Do you like sponge?
The O.B. didnt do these.
leanderman
Street Party: July 2
The only plausible evidence against Duggan is from an associate who, asked by police about Duggan's death, said: 'They say karma is bitch. Live by the gun, die by the bullet.'
Grace Johnson
i like dairylea dunkers
Yeah, it's fucked innit. Standard rounds might not stop someone from moving if they're wired with adrenaline or drugs so they use the argument that hollow points are more incapacitating
. What them bullets do to you is fucking brutal, their use is even banned in the military ffs.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Yes, they are designed to stop just the person you are pointing the gun at, without hurting anyone else. Unfortunately it's not easy to reliably stop someone without killing them - more penetrating rounds will kill reliably but the assailant still has time to get some shots off before they go down, and you can hit other people since the bullet goes through them - so it's actually easier to kill a whole bunch of people than it is to instantly stop just one.
An ultra-reliable 'killswitch' ranged taser would be a great thing but no such thing exists to my knowledge.
None of which is remotely relevant with how you should deal with a man armed only with a Blackberry.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Does anyone know exactly what the police 'rules of engagement' are? When carrying a gun, we were under very strict instructions as to opening fire. Essentially, you had to see and identify a firearm, and it had to be pointed at you to be able to fire. Rules regarding vehicles were different, if a car failed to stop, you were permitted to fire. (As I said on another thread, I came within seconds of killing a drunken comrade, who had returned from a night out in Hannover, and zig-zagged the barrier.)
It seems that simply failing to comply with police instructions is liable to get you shot. If this is the case, then the rules need a major rethink.
xes
F.O.A.D
I just survived a conversation with an EX london met and military cop.
*breathes deeply*
He is such a cunt, and I kept my composure and everything!! (even after he told us the time he dressed up as a miner, during the strikes which he was earning shit loads of overtime for, and how much fun he had after people told him what bad taste it was)
AND I KEPT MY CALM.
This is like, a first!!
*breathes deeply*
He is such a cunt, and I kept my composure and everything!! (even after he told us the time he dressed up as a miner, during the strikes which he was earning shit loads of overtime for, and how much fun he had after people told him what bad taste it was)
AND I KEPT MY CALM.
This is like, a first!!
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
It seems more likely that Duggan did have the gun in the car. If only because if I was a plod wanting to fit someone up to make them look like a professional gangster on the way to kill someone I'd have chosen a proper gun, and I'd have made sure Duggan's DNA found its way on to it. I wouldn't rule out a planned execution, but it seems less likely than the now traditional fuck up plus conspiracy scenario.
Also, if this had all been planned it wouldn't have taken them three days to get their statements straight.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
This is how I see it, less a premeditated execution than a murder that happened because of a culture of impunity for police officers. And this verdict is unlikely to make firearms officers more likely to check their targets in future, confirming as it does that even fatal fuck ups can be brushed under the carpet without the killer's name even being made public.
That's another double standard I fucking hate. It's common practice to name suspects in most high-profile cases, but when a police officer kills someone his name is just fucking V53. If their actions were lawful and justified, why the secrecy? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear isn't that how it works?
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Well I'd look at the fact that the officer who shot Duggan claiming he was stood facing him, pointing a gun. Not only was he not carrying a gun but the angle at which the bullet hit him, diagonally downward through the chest, suggests that either the copper was ten feet tall or Duggan was leaning forward. The only non-police witness to this has said Duggan had his hands behind his head and was facing down, in a pose of surrender. This is the only version of what happened that would account for the angle of the bullet wound.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
According to V53's testimony the angled shot down through the chest was the first round discharged. Was V53 up a step-ladder when he loosed the hollow-tip?
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
It was a warning shot aimed high, but it richocheted off a passing pigeon that happened to be wearing body armour.
e2a: I shouldn't joke, that's pretty much the exact explanation the Italian pigs came up with for the death of Carlo Guiliani
scalyboy
They’re taking the piss now
This is odd - BBC account of the Kevin Hutchinson-Foster trial. Says: "After the handover, Mr Duggan carried on towards Tottenham Hale with the gun, taking it out at some point during the journey, the court was told." - but his DNA wasn't found on the gun. So was he wearing gloves? But his DNA was on the shoebox. Presumably only the minicab driver could have testified to having seen this?
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Is this what he said in court (as opposed to before the inquiry when all manner of guff, lies and disinformation were flying about), and do you have the time he said it or some link to the recorded statements and evidence?
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
The transcripts are here:
http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/hearing-transcripts.htm
...I'm gonna have a trawl through them myself. As I understand it though the officer who shot Duggan stated in court that Duggan was pointing a gun at him.
Similar threads
