Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:03 am  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

Sounds like a typical Police balls-up.... However, I struggle to have any sympathy for somebody who embraces the lifestyle that Duggan obviously did.

What's the old saying.... 'He who lives by the sword.....'??

I haven't heard any of the evidence at all, haven't seen any of the coverage (was away all day yesterday), haven't read anything in the newspapers yet, but my initial reaction is the same as yours, he who lives by the sword etc etc.

For anyone critical of the police and what they have to deal with on a daily basis, think what your daily life would be like if you didn't have a police force to deal with the scum of society, the sort of people who would routinely carry a gun, the sort who's lifestyle includes drunkeness and drug-addled and the accompanying abdication of responsibility that those habits introduce, the sort who would call the police to their house and then shoot two of them for no reason that they can explain, and the sort of people who would steal cars for a laugh and then encourage a pursuit putting dozens of lives at risk.

And some of those police officers are doing it voluntarily.

A criminal gets killed every now and again from actions that he initiates himself - tough.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:03 am  

Damo-Leeds wrote:

Some people have no choice but to embrace chaotic lifestyles because every other option is probably dire. Not everyone has the willpower to live legitimately when the capitalist system keeps kicking them down.

Are you on a wind up?

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:13 am  

Sheldon wrote:

Are you on a wind up?

No, I'm Just offering another point of view.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:43 am  

Damo-Leeds wrote:

Some people have no choice but to embrace chaotic lifestyles because every other option is probably dire. Not everyone has the willpower to live legitimately when the capitalist system keeps kicking them down.

But he was living the capitalist dream - just the products his gang were dealing are illegal but they do generate 'Super normal profits'. Unlikely Mr Duggan was too concerned about the misery he was inflicting when he was down at the jewellers spending his tax free profits?

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:07 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

But he was living the capitalist dream - just the products his gang were dealing are illegal but they do generate 'Super normal profits'. Unlikely Mr Duggan was too concerned about the misery he was inflicting when he was down at the jewellers spending his tax free profits?

He was hardly living the capitalist dream as a low end drug dealer. If he was then he would had surrounded himself with wealth and not poverty. Kim Dotcom is a better example of a criminal living the capitalist dream.

A bit of jewelry doesn't take you into capitalist dreamland..

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:12 am  

I'm no expert on firearms, and like others haven't read the full details of the case, but I do wonder why, based on the fact that he may have had a gun (or may not have) at the time, the highly trained coppers didn't seek to incapacitate him (instead of using lethal force) with a shot to the shoulder of the arm carrying the alleged weapon, then one to the leg to knock him down. Why shoot him in the chest?

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:36 am  

rumpelstiltskin wrote:

As for the antics outside the Court of that braying mob....dear God, did that woman actually give a clenched fist salute at the end of her diatribe?......I simply compare the attitude of the parents of Lee Rigby with these people, and shake my head at their ignorance.

This was what I was most shocked by. Clenched fist salute "no peace without justice" other than shout "lets riot" they couldn't have gone much further in instigating a riot. Deliberate or naive? The aunt seemed eloquent enough that it wasn't naive stupidity. Anyway, little bit of celebrity for her.

On Duggan: I have very little sympathy for a gun carrying drug dealer. I have every sympathy for the police going about their business being faced with someone suspected to be armed and dangerous.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:40 am  

My concern is not that the officer acted within the law, given the circumstances, but that he mistakenly shot Mark Duggan.
This is deemed acceptable in the very difficult circumstances that the officer found himself in and I have every sympathy if someone thinks that their life is in danger.
I in no way think that an officer would have any reason to execute someone, so for the family to claim that is quite outrageous.
But the fact remains that this man was shot by mistake and I would hope that lessons will be learned in terms of how people are apprehended. The old movie cops would have been behind their cars for protection ordering him to come out with his hands up not sticking their nose into his face.
Is there a procedure in cases like this, not least for the protection of the officers?
Or is it all suck it and see?

I have no sympathy for Mark Duggan and his criminal ways, but I am concerned that he was killed in error and I do hope that the police themselves do not take the attitude that these things happen occasionally ...tough!
That Duggan was a villain and he is no great loss is an understandable but slightly worrying aspect in viewing the legitimacy of his killing.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:54 am  

Damo-Leeds wrote:

Some people have no choice but to embrace chaotic lifestyles because every other option is probably dire. Not everyone has the willpower to live legitimately when the capitalist system keeps kicking them down.

We live in one of the wealthiest countries with some of the greatest opportunities opportunities to do what you want and live comfortably. You're in the lucky 10% of the world population. If you can't do it here, you won't do it anywhere else.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:56 am  

Chris28 wrote:

I'm no expert on firearms, and like others haven't read the full details of the case, but I do wonder why, based on the fact that he may have had a gun (or may not have) at the time, the highly trained coppers didn't seek to incapacitate him (instead of using lethal force) with a shot to the shoulder of the arm carrying the alleged weapon, then one to the leg to knock him down. Why shoot him in the chest?

Chris, firearms officers are trained to shoot to stop the subject continuing to be a threat. (This is a different philosophy to that of armed forces training). To stop effectively and efficiently you are taught to aim for the centre of the largest area, the torso. The idea of aimed shots into the shoulder (which is a terrible place to receive a bullet) or any other specific part of the body is a total fantasy and only happens in the movies. No matter how good you are at hitting a target on a range, hitting a person who is moving is very difficult indeed. Firearms officers also have to be extremely aware of the "backdrop" during an incident and minimise danger to anyone who finds themselves nearby; being trained to aim at the centre of the target mass minimises the risk to third parties. Like you I have limited information about what took place in this specific incident, but I am trying to explain some of the practical issues firearms officers face on the rare occasions when firearms are drawn, and even rarer occasions when shots are fired.