Duggan Vigil: Police Fear Disorder In Tottenham

Protesters plan to "provoke disorder" at a vigil for Mark Duggan in London, police have warned.

Scotland Yard said it had extra officers on standby and would be ready to "intervene immediately" if trouble broke out.

Hundreds of relatives and supporters of the 29-year-old are gathering outside Tottenham police station and have appealed for those taking part to remain peaceful.

http://news.sky.com/story/1193608/duggan-vigil-police-fear-disorder-in-tottenham



The police have closed the police station where the Vigil is to take place so as not to be in any way confrontational , let's hope it is all peaceful.

Nice to see our protective services are now controlled at the whim of the mob.

Makes you feel really safe doesn't it that that the police would rather close a police station to appease those upset at the result of a properly conducted legal hearing than do anything to investigate the abuse and threats made against a jury doing their job.

In fact I see strong parallels between this and some dubious parenting practices and I predict the outcome will be the same.

When a toddler throws a fit because they dont like something we see parents going all out to appease said toddler and make them feel better - with the result that the toddler learns that they can get their own way by throwing a fit and that the parent has no real power.

Now we see a section of the community throwing a fit because they dont like something (3 guesses where they learned the appropriate way to communicate their displeasure) and the police are appeasing them and trying to make them feel better - what are they going to learn do you think?

It is not a mob until they break the Law in some way , then they become a Mob.

No a mob is a large disordered gathering of people - they do not have to be breaking the law because it is not against the law to be disordered.

A group of singing football fans parading would be a mob even though doing that is breaking the law. A crowd at a music festival is a mob. etc.

However in this context I would query quite how within the law they are remaining if the police have decided to close the police station to maintain calm - that sounds awful like the police have suffered threats of violence which would be breaking the law.

I know that the police had a word with the family after their "no justice no peace" speech.

It would have looked bad if they were charged, so they had a word and got them to release a statement.

How sweet.

Appeasement.

Honestly it would be far better for everyone if they police had made arrangements to have enough back up that the minute anyone broke the rules they were stopped and detained.

A childs feeling of security depends on the belief that the adults can protect them, that belief is formed when the adults quickly and firmly enforce the rules against them. A societies feeling of security depends onthe belief that the authorities can protect them - that belief is formed when society quickly and firmly enforces its own rules.

The more people see the police closing stations and trying to make people feel better so they dont break the law the less faith they are going to have and the more they are going to be tempted to start breaking the rules themselves.

This country has the right to peaceful lawful protest - any gathering that includes the threat let us do what we want or we will get violent is not a peaceful lawful protest and therefore there is no right for it to take place.

sphinx wrote:In fact I see strong parallels between this and some dubious parenting practices and I predict the outcome will be the same.

When a toddler throws a fit because they dont like something we see parents going all out to appease said toddler and make them feel better - with the result that the toddler learns that they can get their own way by throwing a fit and that the parent has no real power.

Now we see a section of the community throwing a fit because they dont like something (3 guesses where they learned the appropriate way to communicate their displeasure) and the police are appeasing them and trying to make them feel better - what are they going to learn do you think?

WTF, so what you are saying now is there is never an injustice in the world, verdicts are always right and that people should never get upset over what they see to be an injustice?

The fact you miss poorly Sphinx is not only is there still an issue in this country with Police having a poor stereotype in stop and searches and as seen recently blacks and asians are likely to receive harsher sentences for crimes the same as whites. This means there is still a problem in this country with not only racism but poor stereotypes and you expect everyone to not think this also on top of everything is not another example of an injustice?

Get real sphinx, you blatantly ignore the fact there is a problem with some within not only the Police force but now it is also judges. Thus people already thinking they are being unfairly discriminated against would no doubt feel more so than anything this is just another example of this

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:In fact I see strong parallels between this and some dubious parenting practices and I predict the outcome will be the same.

When a toddler throws a fit because they dont like something we see parents going all out to appease said toddler and make them feel better - with the result that the toddler learns that they can get their own way by throwing a fit and that the parent has no real power.

Now we see a section of the community throwing a fit because they dont like something (3 guesses where they learned the appropriate way to communicate their displeasure) and the police are appeasing them and trying to make them feel better - what are they going to learn do you think?

WTF, so what you are saying now is there is never an injustice in the world, verdicts are always right and that people should never get upset over what they see to be an injustice?

The fact you miss poorly Sphinx is not only is there still an issue in this country with Police having a poor stereotype in stop and searches and as seen recently blacks and asians are likely to receive harsher sentences for crimes the same as whites. This means there is still a problem in this country with not only racism but poor stereotypes and you expect everyone to not think this also on top of everything is not another example of an injustice?

Get real sphinx, you blatantly ignore the fact there is a problem with some within not only the Police force but now it is also judges. Thus people already thinking they are being unfairly discriminated against would no doubt feel more so than anything this is just another example of this

You seem to have missed something - I accepted the possibility even probability that the police had been out of order and an injustice committed. I expected the inquest to show that - the inquest did not. 10 jurors considered all the evidence - and did so in an environment that was anything but calm and neutral. 10 ordinary people - not police, not lawyers, not in positions of authority were shown evidence in an atmosphere with pressure to find the killing unlawful and they - the ones who actually saw every bit of evidence that the rest of us have not seen - concluded the killing was lawful.

Forget what you think of the police what do you think of the jury system especially the inquest jury system (I am assuming here people know the difference between and inquest and a trial by the way)

Also lets say there was injustice - exactly how is mob violence the right way to fight injustice?

I will remind you of a sickening injustice - Hillsborough. Tell me did the people of Liverpool go gathering around police stations with the message close down or we will get violent?

I said and still said the correct response to this would be to ensure full back up so if anyone broke the law they would be dealt with instantly. Let the vigil go ahead legally but dont close the police station, dont withdraw the police make the message loud and clear that people my protest and demonstrate but they will do legally or be stopped.

Why has this taken on a Racist agenda by the Black community , Duggan is mixed Race ,so why should his black half take preference.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


WTF, so what you are saying now is there is never an injustice in the world, verdicts are always right and that people should never get upset over what they see to be an injustice?

The fact you miss poorly Sphinx is not only is there still an issue in this country with Police having a poor stereotype in stop and searches and as seen recently blacks and asians are likely to receive harsher sentences for crimes the same as whites. This means there is still a problem in this country with not only racism but poor stereotypes and you expect everyone to not think this also on top of everything is not another example of an injustice?

Get real sphinx, you blatantly ignore the fact there is a problem with some within not only the Police force but now it is also judges. Thus people already thinking they are being unfairly discriminated against would no doubt feel more so than anything this is just another example of this

You seem to have missed something - I accepted the possibility even probability that the police had been out of order and an injustice committed.  I expected the inquest to show that - the inquest did not.  10 jurors considered all the evidence - and did so in an environment that was anything but calm and neutral.  10 ordinary people - not police, not lawyers, not in positions of authority were shown evidence in an atmosphere with pressure to find the killing unlawful and they - the ones who actually saw every bit of evidence that the rest of us have not seen - concluded the killing was lawful.

Forget what you think of the police what do you think of the jury system especially the inquest jury system (I am assuming here people know the difference between and inquest and a trial by the way)

Also lets say there was injustice - exactly how is mob violence the right way to fight injustice?

I will remind you of a sickening injustice - Hillsborough.  Tell me did the people of Liverpool go gathering around police stations with the message close down or we will get violent?  

I said and still said the correct response to this would be to ensure full back up so if anyone broke the law they would be dealt with instantly.  Let the vigil go ahead legally but dont close the police station, dont withdraw the police make the message loud and clear that people my protest and demonstrate but they will do legally or be stopped.

I missed nothing, your view point was very clear lets recap you said:

In fact I see strong parallels between this and some dubious parenting practices and I predict the outcome will be the same.

that was horse hit based on the reality of bias already seen against blacks in this country. I actually think for the main the Police are great but like other people in this country have allowed poor stereotypes to form views they have of different ethnic groups, the point you are sorely missing, which has created tension for decades.

Whi even said it is going to be mob violence? All this is after the London riots is a precaution nothing more, noddy has rioted yet, and again I condemn all rioting, but I can certainly see what would lead some people to such anger no matter if what they do is wrong.

ALLAKAKA wrote:
Why has this taken on a Racist agenda by the Black community  , Duggan is mixed Race ,so why should his black half take preference.

I did think about burning some buildings down and beating some people up in 2011 over the racist killing of my brother, Mr Duggan.

But I'm not a frigging racist thug.

But then how would you even understand what it is like to walk out everyday Andy and have many people are constantly judging you just because of the colour of your skin?

Again no violence is ever right, but you miss why people can become very unhappy!

PhilDidge wrote:But then how would you even understand what it is like to walk out everyday Andy and have many people judge you just because of the colour of your skin?

Again no violence is ever right, but you miss why people can become very unhappy!  

No blacks or foreigners are judged by the colour of their skin - they are judged by the way they act.

Check out every thread I've ever posted - you'll see a recurring theme - it is BAD BEHAVIOUR!

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You seem to have missed something - I accepted the possibility even probability that the police had been out of order and an injustice committed.  I expected the inquest to show that - the inquest did not.  10 jurors considered all the evidence - and did so in an environment that was anything but calm and neutral.  10 ordinary people - not police, not lawyers, not in positions of authority were shown evidence in an atmosphere with pressure to find the killing unlawful and they - the ones who actually saw every bit of evidence that the rest of us have not seen - concluded the killing was lawful.

Forget what you think of the police what do you think of the jury system especially the inquest jury system (I am assuming here people know the difference between and inquest and a trial by the way)

Also lets say there was injustice - exactly how is mob violence the right way to fight injustice?

I will remind you of a sickening injustice - Hillsborough.  Tell me did the people of Liverpool go gathering around police stations with the message close down or we will get violent?  

I said and still said the correct response to this would be to ensure full back up so if anyone broke the law they would be dealt with instantly.  Let the vigil go ahead legally but dont close the police station, dont withdraw the police make the message loud and clear that people my protest and demonstrate but they will do legally or be stopped.

I missed nothing, your view point was very clear lets recap you said:

In fact I see strong parallels between this and some dubious parenting practices and I predict the outcome will be the same.

that was horse hit based on the reality of bias already seen against blacks in this country. I actually think for the main the Police are great but like other people in this country have allowed poor stereotypes to form views they have of different ethnic groups, the point you are sorely missing, which has created tension for decades.

Whi even said it is going to be mob violence? All this is  after the London riots is a precaution nothing more, noddy has rioted yet, and again I condemn all rioting, but I can certainly see what would lead some people to such anger no matter if what they do is wrong.

Oh right so you misunderstood my comparison.

Its got fuck all to do with colour.
A group of people - of all sorts of colours, faiths, genders, etc have let it be known that they want a police station closed and if this does not happen they are going to get nasty.
This is the same as the toddler telling the parent if they are presented with a certain food they are going to throw it on the floor.
Parents have taken to responding to toddlers making such threats by not presenting them with the food - teaching the toddler that they can get their own way by threats and at the same time damaging the toddlers security as they feel the parent is not strong enough to protect them from threats.
Police are now responding to the threats by doing what the mob want them to - teaching said mob that they can get their own way by threats and that the police cannot protect them from threats.

BigAndy9 wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:But then how would you even understand what it is like to walk out everyday Andy and have many people judge you just because of the colour of your skin?

Again no violence is ever right, but you miss why people can become very unhappy!  

No blacks or foreigners are judged by the colour of their skin - they are judged by the way they act.

Check out every thread I've ever posted - you'll see a recurring theme - it is BAD BEHAVIOUR!

i am afraid that is incorrect as seen by countless studies showing the fact is they are judged by their skin colour:




Courts are biased against blacks’ with white offenders handed more lenient sentences, says official report

Judges and magistrates are institutionally racist, consistently handing down more lenient sentences to white criminals, an official Government study has revealed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/courts-are-biased-against-blacks-with-white-offenders-less-likely-to-be-jailed-for-similar-crimes-says-official-report-8959804.html

So again you do not even understand what it is like to be constantly judged by the colour of your skin

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


I missed nothing, your view point was very clear lets recap you said:

In fact I see strong parallels between this and some dubious parenting practices and I predict the outcome will be the same.

that was horse hit based on the reality of bias already seen against blacks in this country. I actually think for the main the Police are great but like other people in this country have allowed poor stereotypes to form views they have of different ethnic groups, the point you are sorely missing, which has created tension for decades.

Whi even said it is going to be mob violence? All this is  after the London riots is a precaution nothing more, noddy has rioted yet, and again I condemn all rioting, but I can certainly see what would lead some people to such anger no matter if what they do is wrong.

Oh right so you misunderstood my comparison.

Its got fuck all to do with colour.
A group of people  - of all sorts of colours, faiths, genders, etc have let it be known that they want a police station closed and if this does not happen they are going to get nasty.
This is the same as the toddler telling the parent if they are presented with a certain food they are going to throw it on the floor.
Parents have taken to responding to toddlers making such threats by not presenting them with the food - teaching the toddler that they can get their own way by threats and at the same time damaging the toddlers security as they feel the parent is not strong enough to protect them from threats.
Police are now responding to the threats by doing what the mob want them to - teaching said mob that they can get their own way by threats and that the police cannot protect them from threats.

Again no violence is ever right, not sure how many times I can express that until it sinks in but I can also understand what leads to such anger, which you seem unable to grasp. I never said it was wrong for th Police to respond to threats, but my points were in regard to your woeful post I first commented on here

Do you know what it is liked to be constantly judged by your skin colour?

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Oh right so you misunderstood my comparison.

Its got fuck all to do with colour.
A group of people  - of all sorts of colours, faiths, genders, etc have let it be known that they want a police station closed and if this does not happen they are going to get nasty.
This is the same as the toddler telling the parent if they are presented with a certain food they are going to throw it on the floor.
Parents have taken to responding to toddlers making such threats by not presenting them with the food - teaching the toddler that they can get their own way by threats and at the same time damaging the toddlers security as they feel the parent is not strong enough to protect them from threats.
Police are now responding to the threats by doing what the mob want them to - teaching said mob that they can get their own way by threats and that the police cannot protect them from threats.

Again no violence is ever right, not sure how many times I can express that until it sinks in but I can also understand what leads to such anger, which you seem unable to grasp. I never said it was wrong for th Police to respond to threats, but my points were in regard to your woeful post I first commented on here

Do you know what it is liked to be constantly judged by your skin colour?

Where exactly have I even mentioned skin colour didge? Or have you read the statement "a certain section of the community" as reading "blacks"? The statement "a certain section of the community" refers to the section of the community that is making threats not any colour faith or other arbitrary grouping.

It would appear that I am being judged by my skin colour right now by you - you are judging that as I am white I must be racist and referring to blacks when I use totally non descriptive language.

Again you made rather stupid statements in regards to people ie Blacks being angry over an injustice and some nonsense of parenting. I am showing you why this anger is not only born but allowed to grow because you need to understand the the point I am making to you in regards to in this instance the black ethnic community.

No I am not judging you by your skin colour, a very woeful remark on your part, I am asking you if you know what it feels like to be constantly judged by your skin colour.

If you can answer this question, then you will understand how such resentment and anger has built up

Would you like some videos to help you understand this?

But I was under the impression that Violence is not only condoned by some but also taught as defensive violence .

ALLAKAKA wrote:
But I was under the impression that Violence is not only condoned by some but also taught as defensive violence .

Violence is always wrong but sometimes violence is also necessary, if not, you would not any of the enjoyments you have today!

You cannot have war without violence

PhilDidge wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:
But I was under the impression that Violence is not only condoned by some but also taught as defensive violence .

Violence is always wrong but sometimes violence is also necessary, if not, you would not any of the enjoyments you have today!

You cannot have war without violence

Then you have lost your own argument on this case as if someone is known to be armed they take the risk of being shot by the Police.

PhilDidge wrote:Again you made rather stupid statements in regards to people ie Blacks being angry over an injustice and some nonsense of parenting. I am showing you why this anger is not only born but allowed to grow because you need to understand the the point I am making to you in regards to in this instance the black ethnic community.

No I am not judging you by your skin colour, a very woeful remark on your part, I am asking you if you know what it feels like to be constantly judged by your skin colour.

If you can answer this question, then you will understand how such resentment and anger has built up

Would you like some videos to help you understand this?

Again where have I talked about blacks?

You are judging me on the basis of me making statements about blacks - I have not made statements about blacks.

I cannot understand why you are going off on this race thing - I dont get where it has come from or why you think I am referring to colour.

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Again you made rather stupid statements in regards to people ie Blacks being angry over an injustice and some nonsense of parenting. I am showing you why this anger is not only born but allowed to grow because you need to understand the the point I am making to you in regards to in this instance the black ethnic community.

No I am not judging you by your skin colour, a very woeful remark on your part, I am asking you if you know what it feels like to be constantly judged by your skin colour.

If you can answer this question, then you will understand how such resentment and anger has built up

Would you like some videos to help you understand this?

Again where have I talked about blacks?

You are judging me on the basis of me making statements about blacks - I have not made statements about blacks.

I cannot understand why you are going off on this race thing - I dont get where it has come from or why you think I am referring to colour.

This whole vigil is about many blacks feeling an injustice about the fact they are black,, not just about Mark do you not even see that?

Hence your views point earlier were to me very poor

I am not judging you but trying to help you understand why groups of people can become very angry, which is why I am asking you what it is like to be constantly judged by your skin colour, if you can even understand what that is like?

Because the reality is black people are constantly judged by their skin colour

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Again where have I talked about blacks?

You are judging me on the basis of me making statements about blacks - I have not made statements about blacks.

I cannot understand why you are going off on this race thing - I dont get where it has come from or why you think I am referring to colour.

This whole vigil is about many blacks feeling an injustice about the fact they are black,, not just about Mark do you not even see that?

Hence your views point earlier were to me very poor

I am not judging you but trying to help you understand why groups of people can become very angry, which is why I am asking you what it is like to be constantly judged by your skin colour, if you can even understand what that is like?

Because the reality is black people are constantly judged by their skin colour

Why are you going on about that others do not know , when you yourself do not know what it feels like , your basing it on ASSUMPTIONS.

At last allakaka is starting to grasp it, many of us do not know what it is constantly like to be judged by our skin colour, meaning we don;t understand how difficult it is for those who constantly are judged by their skin colour. Hence we cannot even begin to imagine how this might create great anger.
The videos posted will help you understand this point

PhilDidge wrote:At last allakaka is starting to grasp it, many of us do not know what it is constantly like to be judged by our skin colour, meaning we don;t understand how difficult it is for those who constantly are judged by their skin colour. Hence we cannot even begin to imagine how this might create great anger.
The videos posted will help you understand this point

I've always had a firm grasp on the situation , I can see how Whites must feel in Africa.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Again where have I talked about blacks?

You are judging me on the basis of me making statements about blacks - I have not made statements about blacks.

I cannot understand why you are going off on this race thing - I dont get where it has come from or why you think I am referring to colour.

This whole vigil is about many blacks feeling an injustice about the fact they are black,, not just about Mark do you not even see that?

Hence your views point earlier were to me very poor

I am not judging you but trying to help you understand why groups of people can become very angry, which is why I am asking you what it is like to be constantly judged by your skin colour, if you can even understand what that is like?

Because the reality is black people are constantly judged by their skin colour

And the white people are there why?

I am not quite sure what any of this has to do with the injustice of being black - are they suggesting that a known white criminal known to have a gun would not have been shot?

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:



This whole vigil is about many blacks feeling an injustice about the fact they are black,, not just about Mark do you not even see that?

Hence your views point earlier were to me very poor

I am not judging you but trying to help you understand why groups of people can become very angry, which is why I am asking you what it is like to be constantly judged by your skin colour, if you can even understand what that is like?

Because the reality is black people are constantly judged by their skin colour

And the white people are there why?

I am not quite sure what any of this has to do with the injustice of being black - are they suggesting that a known white criminal known to have a gun would not have been shot?  

You are like the girl in the video storming off, not able to grasp the point being made.
The fact is blacks are seen as through poor stereotypes as criminals for example, because and lets make this very clear to you, because of their skin colour. Some of the Police again also do this by an over representation of blacks being stopped compared to white people, even though though white people commit far more crimes. The police do not stereotype the white person with crime. Is this starting to sink in. This and many other aspects in life where blacks are stereotyped and discriminated against because they are black is still a problem. This is why anger builds for black people because they are being treated worse than white people, because you and I Sphinx are not judged by our skin colour in this country. The same would apply in reverse if whites were being treated this way in a country they were a minority. The reality is as seen you cannot contemplate what it is liked to be judged by your skin colour and neither can I, but I can understand why it would be an ongoing problem and an up hill struggle to be treated equally just like you and I am. Hence why the anger is born and grows. So when an unarmed black man is shot dead do you not think this crosses the mind of black people if this is another example of an injustice because he was black? 

Have a good evening!

It seems that some people cannot grasp the concept of targeting crime from where it originates.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

And the white people are there why?

I am not quite sure what any of this has to do with the injustice of being black - are they suggesting that a known white criminal known to have a gun would not have been shot?  

You are like the girl in the video storming off, not able to grasp the point being made.
The fact is blacks are seen as through poor stereotypes as criminals for example, because and lets make this very clear to you, because of their skin colour. Some of the Police again also do this by an over representation of blacks being stopped compared to white people, even though though white people commit far more crimes. The police do not stereotype the white person with crime. Is this starting to sink in. This and many other aspects in life where blacks are stereotyped and discriminated against because they are black is still a problem. This is why anger builds for black people because they are being treated worse than white people, because you and I Sphinx are not judged by our skin colour in this country. The same would apply in reverse if whites were being treated this way in a country they were a minority. The reality is as seen you cannot contemplate what it is liked to be judged by your skin colour and neither can I, but I can understand why it would be an ongoing problem and an up hill struggle to be treated equally just like you and I am. Hence why the anger is born and grows. So when an unarmed black man is shot dead do you not think this crosses the mind of black people if this is another example of an injustice because he was black? 

Have a good evening!

No what I dont get is what unfair targeting has to do with this case.

Was duggan a criminal? Did he at some point have a gun? did the police genuinely believe he still had the gun at the point they shot him?

huh??? where's my post gone????

If the coroners inquest was to be repeated and a new jury in place and the verdict was the same . What then.

I dont know

Because that is how many black people will see the fact that to them he was shot dead and again an injustice has been done because he is black and with the Police lying and to me they are lying about aspects of this case. Hence why some blacks will feel this is because he is black why again an injustice has happened and the shooting was found lawful, again can you understand this? Because when you read the trial you may understand why again blacks would feel that the Police are again covering up something because the man who died was black

There is no doubt he was a criminal but things do not add up like the PC saying he saw him reach for a gun, but this would be impossible being as the gun was found inside a sock behind a fence and a sock does not look like a gun, with the fact he had a mobile phone in his hand. So there is no way he had a gun in his hand if when shot. Claims are then made the police threw this to clear any danger, but again it was found in a sock, so that makes no sense. This to me is what led to the shooting, the cops made an error judgement over him moving his arm, which constituted because of intelligence that he had a gun that he was reaching for one. When minutes later they see he has none they radio in that shots have been exchanged, why? To cover a mistake made and then even worse to claim in trial they saw him actually reach and hold a gun. 

This is also very important:


Witness B, claimed that the weapon was in fact a mobile telephone and that Mr Duggan appeared to be surrendering when he was shot. Just a few seconds before the shooting, Mr Duggan had been speaking with his brother Marlon in an unhurried three-minute phone call, his brother told the inquest.

To me the Police made an error and should have come clean, they also now make this look again especially to the black community, that again the force to them is rife with racism, being as they see that the Police are not telling the truth.

When you look at the facts of the case, the versions by the Police do not add up.

Right really have to go, laters

But the police force is not solely made up of White officers , are you suggesting that only white officers are Racist ?

PhilDidge wrote:Because that is how many black people will see the fact that to them he was shot dead and again an injustice has been done because he is black and with the Police lying to me they are lying about aspects of this case. Hence why some blacks will feel this is because he is black why again an injustice has happened and the shooting was found lawful, again can you understand this? Because when you read the trial you may understand why again blacks would feel that the Police are again covering up something because the man who died was black

There is no doubt he was a criminal but things do not add up like the PC saying he saw him reach for a gun, but this would be impossible being as the gun was found inside a sock behind a fence and a sock does not look like a gun, with the fact he had a mobile phone in his hand. So there is no way he had a gun in his hand if when shot. Claims are then made the police threw this to clear any danger, but again it was found in a sock, so that makes no sense. This to me is what led to the shooting, the cops made an error judgement over him moving his arm, which constituted because of intelligence that he had a gun that he was reaching for one. When minutes later they see he has none they radio in that shots have been exchanged, why? To cover a mistake made and then even worse to claim in trial they saw him actually reach and hold a gun. 

This is also very important:


Witness B, claimed that the weapon was in fact a mobile telephone and that Mr Duggan appeared to be surrendering when he was shot. Just a few seconds before the shooting, Mr Duggan had been speaking with his brother Marlon in an unhurried three-minute phone call, his brother told the inquest.

To me the Police made an error and should have come clean, they also now make this look again especially to the black community, that again the force to them is rife with racism, being as they see that the Police are not telling the truth.

When you look at the facts of the case, the versions by the Police do not ad up.

Right really have to go, laters  

Phil 10 people have looked at the facts of the case - they have seen and pondered far more facts of the case than either you or I possibly could. They found the police acted lawfully.

If we were having this debate before or in absence of the coroners inquest then what you are saying would have some weight however in light of the inquest and jury verdict his death was lawful.

I am not denying injustice happening elsewhere in other cases - but people should go and protest at them. It seems to me far too many people are so desperate for this to be an injustice they are failing to accept that a jury has looked at everything and declared it not an injustice. Please note that the verdict accepted he did not have his gun at the point shot but that there was no way for the police to know that was the case - the police there on the ground had every reason to think he had a gun and no reason to think he did not.

ALLAKAKA wrote:


But the police force is not solely made up of White officers , are you suggesting that only white officers are Racist ?

Still not grasping the point, I am not saying the the Police is rife with racism but here again when things to not add up black people will, being as there has been a history of racism within the Police

sphinx wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Because that is how many black people will see the fact that to them he was shot dead and again an injustice has been done because he is black and with the Police lying to me they are lying about aspects of this case. Hence why some blacks will feel this is because he is black why again an injustice has happened and the shooting was found lawful, again can you understand this? Because when you read the trial you may understand why again blacks would feel that the Police are again covering up something because the man who died was black

There is no doubt he was a criminal but things do not add up like the PC saying he saw him reach for a gun, but this would be impossible being as the gun was found inside a sock behind a fence and a sock does not look like a gun, with the fact he had a mobile phone in his hand. So there is no way he had a gun in his hand if when shot. Claims are then made the police threw this to clear any danger, but again it was found in a sock, so that makes no sense. This to me is what led to the shooting, the cops made an error judgement over him moving his arm, which constituted because of intelligence that he had a gun that he was reaching for one. When minutes later they see he has none they radio in that shots have been exchanged, why? To cover a mistake made and then even worse to claim in trial they saw him actually reach and hold a gun. 

This is also very important:


Witness B, claimed that the weapon was in fact a mobile telephone and that Mr Duggan appeared to be surrendering when he was shot. Just a few seconds before the shooting, Mr Duggan had been speaking with his brother Marlon in an unhurried three-minute phone call, his brother told the inquest.

To me the Police made an error and should have come clean, they also now make this look again especially to the black community, that again the force to them is rife with racism, being as they see that the Police are not telling the truth.

When you look at the facts of the case, the versions by the Police do not ad up.

Right really have to go, laters  

Phil 10 people have looked at the facts of the case - they have seen and pondered far more facts of the case than either you or I possibly could.  They found the police acted lawfully.

If we were having this debate before or in absence of the coroners inquest then what you are saying would have some weight however in light of the inquest and jury verdict his death was lawful.

I am not denying injustice happening elsewhere in other cases - but people should go and protest at them.  It seems to me far too many people are so desperate for this to be an injustice they are failing to accept that a jury has looked at everything and declared it not an injustice.  Please note that the verdict accepted he did not have his gun at the point shot but that there was no way for the police to know that was the case - the police there on the ground had every reason to think he had a gun and no reason to think he did not.

10 people is 10 individual where 10 other people could conclude that this was unlawful so that point has no relevance

What I do say has some weight, the fact is witnesses conflict over testimony over the events, which will not help the Jury, but to me one point stands out, the gun was found in a sock behind a fence

Anyway really have to go this article is very interesting to read on the matter of which everyone can make up their mind on the matter:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mark-duggan-was-he-really-armed-were-the-police-under-threat-all-the-key-evidence-9046789.html

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Phil 10 people have looked at the facts of the case - they have seen and pondered far more facts of the case than either you or I possibly could.  They found the police acted lawfully.

If we were having this debate before or in absence of the coroners inquest then what you are saying would have some weight however in light of the inquest and jury verdict his death was lawful.

I am not denying injustice happening elsewhere in other cases - but people should go and protest at them.  It seems to me far too many people are so desperate for this to be an injustice they are failing to accept that a jury has looked at everything and declared it not an injustice.  Please note that the verdict accepted he did not have his gun at the point shot but that there was no way for the police to know that was the case - the police there on the ground had every reason to think he had a gun and no reason to think he did not.

10 people is 10 individual where 10 other people could conclude that this was unlawful so that point has no relevance

What I do say has some weight, the fact is witnesses conflict over testimony over the events, which will not help the Jury, but to me one point stands out, the gun was found in a sock behind a fence

Anyway really have to go this article is very interesting to read on the matter of which everyone can make up their mind on the matter:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mark-duggan-was-he-really-armed-were-the-police-under-threat-all-the-key-evidence-9046789.html

Why didnt you just admit you had no faith in the jury system at the start didge - it would have saved so much time.

Dear me another pointless counter, I do have faith in the Jury and appeal system , because sometimes Juries get it wrong, so please spare me that silliness, my point was another 10 individuals may have seen different. that does not mean I have no faith in the system, I am pointing out this is very much a possibility, again read the article, to me things do not add up

Right back tomorrow

Ill try again ..since my post has dissapeared into the aether


firstly,
was Duggan a dangerous career criminal, who was known to have a penchant for guns? yes he was...those who live by the sword etc....
Does this in and of itself justifiy his shooting ....no in fact it doesnt, and those who think police should be allowed to act as judge jury and execution had better be careful what they wish for...

HOWEVER

He WAS armed, he had been under surveillance and seen to pick up a gun from a dealer (who has since been sent down)
He was also known or believed to be out to do some one no good (from intel gathered)

SO the order goes out to stop this guy
The cops stop the taxi, and the armed officers surround it...lots of orders shouted....
Now, for SOME reason he either didnt obey or did something contrary and threatening
THAT police Officer had a fraction of a second to make an awful decision....to take a mans life...
if he didn't and was wrong, He or another possibly innocent person would be dead.
If he does and is wrong the hounds will be after him....
I suspect few here would be capable of making such a decision.....
NOW...as to law....the killing was deemed LAWFUL by the jury.
that decision is encompased by a simple piece of law(well simple for law) actually Common law
Did that police officer rightfully believe that his or another's life was in danger..if he did then it was lawful. simple and straight forward.
This same law protects EVERY citizen from the charge of murder, if you should kill someone whom you have reasonable reason( and that you have to prove) to believe poses a deadly threat to you or another...

Clearly the jury accepted, in the light of the information the officer had, that indeed he felt so threatened.

BUT,
there has clearly been some "fudging" here and that is wrong and unacceptable. I can understand why, but its still wrong, Understandable that the police should want to make it an absolutely clear cut case, because of the anti police nut jobs who always have a "ahh...but...." Wrong because we should be able to expect transparency from those appointed to be our guardians,
these concerns have also been addressed in the judgement given BTW...head cams and isolation of officers until statements taken...

NO ONE should criticise this officer for what he did, I only hope his concience is clear and has not been clouded with doubt from the idiots....

If ten people unanimously agreed it was legal in a hearing during which a minutes silence was held for the deceased (something not done for murder victims who have never broken a law in their life) and in which the public gallery made it ultra clear which way they want verdict to go then I am happy to conclude that a different group of ten would only reach a different conclusion if they were bribed as well as threatened.

Nowhere have I seen people protesting at the disgraceful abusive treatment the jurors were put through - it took real moral courage to stand up and find the killing lawful when so much pressure was on them to find it unlawful.

Well done Sphinx, then stop coming out with daft points I do not bacl

Victor I agree with the vast majority of your points accept one, the man who shot Mark, to me he has fabricated what happened to clear him from any wrong claiming Mark had the gun in his hand, this to me is also wrong. I can accept in such a situation that the Police would be nervous and in fear before they would even stop a Taxi with intelligence that this person is armed and why it could lead to the Officer being in fear of his life by any movement on the part of Mark. So to say he had the gun in his hand is also wrong by this officer and he should admit and agree he feared for his life but that he did not see a gun and was mistaken and it was a movement which made him react . Right now I am late lol

Did he fabricate it...or did he AT THE TIME believe Duggan had a gun....even if it was proved later he didnt matters not, what is the essence of it is that he believed, with good reason that he DID and thus was in fear of his or others lives...If he didnt believe it was a gun.....why was he in fear...then we get back to the "the cops were out to shoot him because". Which I dont consider a reasonable line of thought.

Oh and dont take too much notice of the so called witness who recons HE saw duggan with a phone.....he was NINE stories up and must have thus been a fair way back as well to see that....by gum he must have eyes like a vulture.....

PhilDidge wrote:Well done Sphinx, then stop coming out with daft points I do not bacl

Victor I agree with the vast majority of your points accept one, the man who shot Mark, to me he has fabricated what happened to clear him from any wrong claiming Mark had the gun in his hand, this to me is also wrong. I can accept in such a situation that the Police would be nervous and in fear before they would even stop a Taxi with intelligence that this person is armed and why it could lead to the Officer being in fear of his life by any movement on the part of Mark. So to say he had the gun in his hand is also wrong by this officer and he should admit and agree he feared for his life but that he did not see a gun and was mistaken and it was a movement which made him react . Right now I am late lol

Duggan had HISTORY  and being armed and confronted by armed police officers then feared for his life and threw the gun away.

ALLAKAKA wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Well done Sphinx, then stop coming out with daft points I do not bacl

Victor I agree with the vast majority of your points accept one, the man who shot Mark, to me he has fabricated what happened to clear him from any wrong claiming Mark had the gun in his hand, this to me is also wrong. I can accept in such a situation that the Police would be nervous and in fear before they would even stop a Taxi with intelligence that this person is armed and why it could lead to the Officer being in fear of his life by any movement on the part of Mark. So to say he had the gun in his hand is also wrong by this officer and he should admit and agree he feared for his life but that he did not see a gun and was mistaken and it was a movement which made him react . Right now I am late lol

Duggan had HISTORY  and being armed and confronted by armed police officers then feared for his life and threw the gun away.

Maybe, but you would have to show that the police officer KNEW this, Knew there was NO other gun and thus had no reason to fire.....

grumpy old git wrote:

ALLAKAKA wrote:



Duggan had HISTORY  and being armed and confronted by armed police officers then feared for his life and threw the gun away.

Maybe, but you would have to show that the police officer KNEW this, Knew there was NO other gun  and thus had no reason to fire.....

So one moment he has a gun and in a flash throws it away and you assume the police officer saw it in slow motion ? he had a gun , that is INTENT and he was shot for no other reason than being a GUNMAN.