'Det Ch Insp Mick Foote, from the Met's gang crime unit Trident, said Mark Duggan was a "confrontational and violent" member of Tottenham Man Dem, a gang associated with drug dealing and violence, the latter usually targeted at other gangs in London. He said Mark Duggan was one of the 48 most violent criminals in Europe, and in 2011 was one of the targets of a police operation called Dibri which was focussing on a spike in gun related incidents in London nightclubs'.
Is there a league table for violent criminals? I'd like to know how bad number 49 was? And who the hell is the bad ass motherf*cker at number 1?
Will they be looking for justice for that bloke thats been sent down for supplying him with a gun as well?
I was saying this to my wife last night. Maybe they should vent their spleens on thoughs that helped in his crimes. Far easier to blame the police for doing their job.
There have been calls for celebrities from that "community" to step up & be heard.
What the community should be doing, is helping to prevent young men sink in to a life of crime and being responsible enough to not father 6 children.
What people should be doing is seeking to make changes from within rather than shouting & rioting about it. If you're that passionate then join the force and seek to make it better.
What I can't understand is why the police are now talking about improving their relationship with the black community ? That seems to imply that if you are black, you are immediately labelled as a potential trouble maker, symptomatic of the fact that if you are black you are much more likely to be stopped and searched by police, fact. Criminality, bad behaviour, does not come with a colour label, and the fact that a senior police officer does not appear to know this is worrying. There is no black community , just a community, and perhaps the next thing to do is to produce a more intelligent senior officer. Granpa, ex police officer.
What I can't understand is why the police are now talking about improving their relationship with the black community ? That seems to imply that if you are black, you are immediately labelled as a potential trouble maker, symptomatic of the fact that if you are black you are much more likely to be stopped and searched by police, fact. Criminality, bad behaviour, does not come with a colour label, and the fact that a senior police officer does not appear to know this is worrying. There is no black community , just a community, and perhaps the next thing to do is to produce a more intelligent senior officer. Granpa, ex police officer.
What I can't understand is why the police are now talking about improving their relationship with the black community ? That seems to imply that if you are black, you are immediately labelled as a potential trouble maker, symptomatic of the fact that if you are black you are much more likely to be stopped and searched by police, fact. Criminality, bad behaviour, does not come with a colour label, and the fact that a senior police officer does not appear to know this is worrying. There is no black community , just a community, and perhaps the next thing to do is to produce a more intelligent senior officer. Granpa, ex police officer.
Does it come with a monetary value label though?
Poorer people in poorer areas tend to see higher crime. Currently, those poorer areas in London have higher percentages of black people that more affluent areas do.
Hence, if people combat poverty and economic opportunties, does crime in poorer areas improve?
If you play with fire you run the risk of getting burnt, carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think.
Or a table leg (Harry Stanley), or an Oyster Card (Jean Charles de Menezes), or a bunch of newspapers (Ian Tomlinson), or a beard (Blair Peach)...
What do they have to do with the point I was making?
The point you made was "...carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think" ... which I took to mean "if you carry a gun, you risk getting shot and if you don't, you'll be ok".
I pointed out a few people (Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach) who were *not* carrying guns and were far from ok. And the reason I pointed that out is to demonstrate it's absolutely not "that simple".
The police do a complex, difficult, dangerous job in keeping (or attempting to keep) us safe from harm; and to bring those who do us harm to justice. Duggan, Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach are all cases where this has failed.
But for the very great majority of the time, the police do their complex, difficult and dangerous job brilliantly well: these few cases are the very rare exceptions.
How different would the police scrutiny have been if they never shot him when they had the chance and this gun holding fool was then to shoot at rivals and hit an innocent kid instead? Police don't have time to ponder on the whys and wherefores they are meant to protect and serve, if shooting a man they believe at that point in time to be armed and dangerous and he is non compliant, he reaches for something, split second to act no time to think, do or die? Shoot or be shot? Ffs I would have shot, who can wholeheartedly say they wouldn't if they were that officer ?
Quite. Or perhaps the police should have let Michael Adobolajo kill a couple of their colleagues rather than firing their gun and then rushing to save his life?
It seems some of us have a default position that the police are the wrong uns and the crims are ok. Skewed view of the world to me.
Any loss of life in such circumstances is a tragedy in my book, but who knows what Duggan might have been capable of. To the policeman that shot him, it seems that it's likely he thought Duggan would create a tragedy of his own if he wasn't taken out. Maybe he intended to wound him - the two guys in the Lee Rigby murder were shot collectively 8 times and survived - but we weren't there. The jury heard the available evidence and concluded as they did - including that the police did as much as they could to minimise the risk of that outcome, and that the police were correct that Duggan had a gun in the taxi - why do we who have considerably less information than they decide we know better?
It seems to me that Duggan knew the police thought he had a gun, but chose not to raise his hands as asked. As soon as he did failed to comply with the police instructions, regardless of what he had in his hands, he's asking the police to make a decision. In my view his actions precipitated his ultimate death, whatever we want to think of the police.
If you play with fire you run the risk of getting burnt, carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think.
Or a table leg (Harry Stanley), or an Oyster Card (Jean Charles de Menezes), or a bunch of newspapers (Ian Tomlinson), or a beard (Blair Peach)...
What do they have to do with the point I was making?
The point you made was "...carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think" ... which I took to mean "if you carry a gun, you risk getting shot and if you don't, you'll be ok".
I pointed out a few people (Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach) who were *not* carrying guns and were far from ok. And the reason I pointed that out is to demonstrate it's absolutely not "that simple".
The police do a complex, difficult, dangerous job in keeping (or attempting to keep) us safe from harm; and to bring those who do us harm to justice. Duggan, Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach are all cases where this has failed.
But for the very great majority of the time, the police do their complex, difficult and dangerous job brilliantly well: these few cases are the very rare exceptions.
But the jury believe that Duggan was carrying a gun, in the taxi, which is no doubt why the police went armed.
Well if there was no gun, surely the fella has been wrongly imprisoned?
At what stage has anyone disputed the fact there was a gun ? Maybe he was shot, and the gun was removed from the taxi and placed where it was found ?
...and the point of that would be? If you are going to risk your career and liberty fitting up a no mark like Duggan you would make sure it was in his hand or very much closer than where it was eventually found.
If you play with fire you run the risk of getting burnt, carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think.
Or a table leg (Harry Stanley), or an Oyster Card (Jean Charles de Menezes), or a bunch of newspapers (Ian Tomlinson), or a beard (Blair Peach)...
What do they have to do with the point I was making?
The point you made was "...carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think" ... which I took to mean "if you carry a gun, you risk getting shot and if you don't, you'll be ok".
I pointed out a few people (Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach) who were *not* carrying guns and were far from ok. And the reason I pointed that out is to demonstrate it's absolutely not "that simple".
The police do a complex, difficult, dangerous job in keeping (or attempting to keep) us safe from harm; and to bring those who do us harm to justice. Duggan, Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach are all cases where this has failed.
But for the very great majority of the time, the police do their complex, difficult and dangerous job brilliantly well: these few cases are the very rare exceptions.
But the jury believe that Duggan was carrying a gun, in the taxi, which is no doubt why the police went armed.
The point I was making was not with regard to whether he had been carrying a gun (that's not in dispute) it is that the police, in this instance failed to bring him to justice. While it's been proven that his killing was lawful, it has also deprived us of the opportunity to determine, properly, whether he was guilty.
If you play with fire you run the risk of getting burnt, carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think.
Or a table leg (Harry Stanley), or an Oyster Card (Jean Charles de Menezes), or a bunch of newspapers (Ian Tomlinson), or a beard (Blair Peach)...
What do they have to do with the point I was making?
The point you made was "...carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think" ... which I took to mean "if you carry a gun, you risk getting shot and if you don't, you'll be ok".
I pointed out a few people (Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach) who were *not* carrying guns and were far from ok. And the reason I pointed that out is to demonstrate it's absolutely not "that simple".
The police do a complex, difficult, dangerous job in keeping (or attempting to keep) us safe from harm; and to bring those who do us harm to justice. Duggan, Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach are all cases where this has failed.
But for the very great majority of the time, the police do their complex, difficult and dangerous job brilliantly well: these few cases are the very rare exceptions.
But the jury believe that Duggan was carrying a gun, in the taxi, which is no doubt why the police went armed.
The point I was making was not with regard to whether he had been carrying a gun (that's not in dispute) it is that the police, in this instance failed to bring him to justice. While it's been proven that his killing was lawful, it has also deprived us of the opportunity to determine, properly, whether he was guilty.
Fair enough - not sure Tomlinson belongs in that list then.
If you play with fire you run the risk of getting burnt, carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think.
Or a table leg (Harry Stanley), or an Oyster Card (Jean Charles de Menezes), or a bunch of newspapers (Ian Tomlinson), or a beard (Blair Peach)...
What do they have to do with the point I was making?
The point you made was "...carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think" ... which I took to mean "if you carry a gun, you risk getting shot and if you don't, you'll be ok".
I pointed out a few people (Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach) who were *not* carrying guns and were far from ok. And the reason I pointed that out is to demonstrate it's absolutely not "that simple".
The police do a complex, difficult, dangerous job in keeping (or attempting to keep) us safe from harm; and to bring those who do us harm to justice. Duggan, Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach are all cases where this has failed.
But for the very great majority of the time, the police do their complex, difficult and dangerous job brilliantly well: these few cases are the very rare exceptions.
But the jury believe that Duggan was carrying a gun, in the taxi, which is no doubt why the police went armed.
The point I was making was not with regard to whether he had been carrying a gun (that's not in dispute) it is that the police, in this instance failed to bring him to justice. While it's been proven that his killing was lawful, it has also deprived us of the opportunity to determine, properly, whether he was guilty.
With trying to be glib. I think this was very much justice.
If you play with fire you run the risk of getting burnt, carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think.
Or a table leg (Harry Stanley), or an Oyster Card (Jean Charles de Menezes), or a bunch of newspapers (Ian Tomlinson), or a beard (Blair Peach)...
What do they have to do with the point I was making?
The point you made was "...carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think" ... which I took to mean "if you carry a gun, you risk getting shot and if you don't, you'll be ok".
I pointed out a few people (Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach) who were *not* carrying guns and were far from ok. And the reason I pointed that out is to demonstrate it's absolutely not "that simple".
The police do a complex, difficult, dangerous job in keeping (or attempting to keep) us safe from harm; and to bring those who do us harm to justice. Duggan, Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach are all cases where this has failed.
But for the very great majority of the time, the police do their complex, difficult and dangerous job brilliantly well: these few cases are the very rare exceptions.
But the jury believe that Duggan was carrying a gun, in the taxi, which is no doubt why the police went armed.
The point I was making was not with regard to whether he had been carrying a gun (that's not in dispute) it is that the police, in this instance failed to bring him to justice. While it's been proven that his killing was lawful, it has also deprived us of the opportunity to determine, properly, whether he was guilty.
Fair enough - not sure Tomlinson belongs in that list then.
It's a (non-comprehensive) list of cases in which the police have, instead of protecting people from harm, actually harmed them and/or where a known or alleged criminal has been killed by the police instead of being brought to juctice.
I believe Tomlinson and Peach are in the former category. Some of the others could be said to be in both categories.
If you play with fire you run the risk of getting burnt, carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think.
Or a table leg (Harry Stanley), or an Oyster Card (Jean Charles de Menezes), or a bunch of newspapers (Ian Tomlinson), or a beard (Blair Peach)...
What do they have to do with the point I was making?
The point you made was "...carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think" ... which I took to mean "if you carry a gun, you risk getting shot and if you don't, you'll be ok".
I pointed out a few people (Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach) who were *not* carrying guns and were far from ok. And the reason I pointed that out is to demonstrate it's absolutely not "that simple".
The police do a complex, difficult, dangerous job in keeping (or attempting to keep) us safe from harm; and to bring those who do us harm to justice. Duggan, Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach are all cases where this has failed.
But for the very great majority of the time, the police do their complex, difficult and dangerous job brilliantly well: these few cases are the very rare exceptions.
But the jury believe that Duggan was carrying a gun, in the taxi, which is no doubt why the police went armed.
The point I was making was not with regard to whether he had been carrying a gun (that's not in dispute) it is that the police, in this instance failed to bring him to justice. While it's been proven that his killing was lawful, it has also deprived us of the opportunity to determine, properly, whether he was guilty.
With trying to be glib. I think this was very much justice.
I think being gunned down in cold blood is a very, very long way from "justice".
If even a fraction of the accusations made against Duggan were true, then he deserved to spend a very, very long time locked away. But, because he's been killed, we'll never have a chance to find out; and we're deprived of justice. Revenge, maybe. Retribution. Reprisal. But not justice.
Think most people would consider me a leftie but I shed not one tear for for violent scum like Duggan that come a cropper. The fact that we don't put him through the expensive legal system, look after him in prison for no doubt only a couple of years and then do it all again and again I consider a bonus. He carried a gun to use on someone and ended up getting shot himself. Poetic justice anyone.
You are making it sound like the police waited outside a night club, ambushed him, shot him and drove off into the night. The police had intelligence that suggested he was in a vehicle and carrying a gun hence the reason why the armed police were called in.
He was not shot down in cold blood, he was killed as part of a police operation that requires split second decisions from highly trained officers.
He was not shot down in cold blood, he was killed as part of a police operation
Very little difference.
Was he killed by being shot by the police? Yes. Was he brought to justice? No.
So you are expecting those police officers to put their lives on the line in an attempt to get armed criminals to lay down and surrender without a fight so they can appear in court. Try explaining that to the loved ones of the female police officers who Dale Cregan slaughtered.
He was not shot down in cold blood, he was killed as part of a police operation
Very little difference.
Was he killed by being shot by the police? Yes. Was he brought to justice? No.
So you are expecting those police officers to put their lives on the line in an attempt to get armed criminals to lay down and surrender without a fight so they can appear in court. Try explaining that to the loved ones of the female police officers who Dale Cregan slaughtered.
I dont know how you can defend him, frankly. Chizz. If he was a paedo would you defend him? or a terrorist? I dont see much difference myself. Glad he's dead.
During the riots police had to stand by and watch these little runts smash the shit out of places where we live, burning cars, robbing places etc. mainly because if they do the slightest thing wrong people like you moan and moan that they made a mistake.
Well this case not only did they end up killing someone who I'm glad is no longer prowling the streets they've also been legally shown to have made the right decision.
I don't really get what there is to discuss beyond that point.
I dont know how you can defend him, frankly. Chizz.
Not defending him. And if you can point out where I have stated that I am, I will go back and edit.
What I *am* defending is the judicial process. I would prefer to have Duggan (and, for that matter the two unspeakably awful people who murdered Lee Rigby) face trial.
And I am sure no-one would prefer the opposite, ie the police deciding who is guilty and killing them rather than going through a court case.
I dont know how you can defend him, frankly. Chizz.
Not defending him. And if you can point out where I have stated that I am, I will go back and edit.
What I *am* defending is the judicial process. I would prefer to have Duggan (and, for that matter the two unspeakably awful people who murdered Lee Rigby) face trial.
And I am sure no-one would prefer the opposite, ie the police deciding who is guilty and killing them rather than going through a court case.
What part don't you get ? The police didn't decide to kill him. He was shot in the course of their lawful pursuit of arresting a known armed and very very dangerous man.
You pull your trigger to put the person down surely if they truly wanted to execute Mark Duggan wouldn't he have had a bullet hole in the head
The gang violence around nth London is ridiculous with people getting shot in broad daylight and stabbed to death in streets near nursery schools
Man Dem Dem Africans
are both high profile gangs around here who are intent on killing each other if those that want justice before peace put their focus on saving these poor young boys and girls from seeing people like mark duggan as a role model in life then these things will be even rarer
as a football coach in nth London I deal with boys who are vulnerable to these people and it takes a lot of talking and motivating and putting myself out to ensure these boys go straight home from school and that their parent (not parents) know who they are with where they are going and what they will be doing
I have them training 2 times a week and playing on a Sunday, I have strict rules about behaviour when in the team and when representing their club colours
I also have told all parents that if they are having trouble with the boys in school or at home to let us know and we try to influence their lives in a positive way
I have one young black lad come to me straight from school on training days where I feed him and ensure he has a school diary with no bad comments in it and so he can discuss it with me
(his mum is so frightened that he will fall into the gang on her estate and as dad is nowhere to be seen he has no male influence in his life, My wife and I regularly fall out over some of what I find myself trying to do for him and the impact it has on my family time but I do care about the boys in my team and the area I live in )
the Black community (and I hate saying that term as I believe its the Community that need to do it not black) but they do not do enough to condone and try to stop this situation worsening, until it is one of their sons , grandsons, nephews etc get killed in either Black on black crime, Gang crime or killed by the police
I had a team from Woodgreen who only have Black players approach 3 of my boys also black to tell them they should be playing for him, and when I challenged him I was told what do I know about black youths and the issues they face
the guys heart was in the right place with his boys and his commitment to the keeping kids in his area safe and on a regime that he sees as good enough
but the fact he felt a white guy from nth London with a team that has more white kids in than black due to our catchment area having a higher demographic of white people than black couldn't help or be a positive influence in these boys lives is one of the reasons it wont ever be fixed , as there is still a feeling amongst a generation of black people within the area I live that all white people have a certain amount of racism within, the ironic bit is that they cant see that everyone themselves included have an element of racist or non correct views in them ,
If someone kills in cold blood, they kill in a way that seems especially cruel because they show no emotion. Violent or aggressive Unkind, cruel and unfeelingTreating people or animals badly
I dont know how you can defend him, frankly. Chizz.
Not defending him. And if you can point out where I have stated that I am, I will go back and edit.
What I *am* defending is the judicial process. I would prefer to have Duggan (and, for that matter the two unspeakably awful people who murdered Lee Rigby) face trial.
And I am sure no-one would prefer the opposite, ie the police deciding who is guilty and killing them rather than going through a court case.
What part don't you get ?
I don't think there's any part I don't get! Except, perhaps, why anyone thinks I am "defending him".
Comments
What the community should be doing, is helping to prevent young men sink in to a life of crime and being responsible enough to not father 6 children.
What people should be doing is seeking to make changes from within rather than shouting & rioting about it. If you're that passionate then join the force and seek to make it better.
"If you fly with the crows, you're gonna' get shot"
Poorer people in poorer areas tend to see higher crime. Currently, those poorer areas in London have higher percentages of black people that more affluent areas do.
Hence, if people combat poverty and economic opportunties, does crime in poorer areas improve?
The point you made was "...carry a gun then run the risk of getting shot. Its that simple I think"
... which I took to mean "if you carry a gun, you risk getting shot and if you don't, you'll be ok".
I pointed out a few people (Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach) who were *not* carrying guns and were far from ok. And the reason I pointed that out is to demonstrate it's absolutely not "that simple".
The police do a complex, difficult, dangerous job in keeping (or attempting to keep) us safe from harm; and to bring those who do us harm to justice. Duggan, Stanley, de Menezes, Tomlinson and Peach are all cases where this has failed.
But for the very great majority of the time, the police do their complex, difficult and dangerous job brilliantly well: these few cases are the very rare exceptions.
It seems some of us have a default position that the police are the wrong uns and the crims are ok. Skewed view of the world to me.
Any loss of life in such circumstances is a tragedy in my book, but who knows what Duggan might have been capable of. To the policeman that shot him, it seems that it's likely he thought Duggan would create a tragedy of his own if he wasn't taken out. Maybe he intended to wound him - the two guys in the Lee Rigby murder were shot collectively 8 times and survived - but we weren't there. The jury heard the available evidence and concluded as they did - including that the police did as much as they could to minimise the risk of that outcome, and that the police were correct that Duggan had a gun in the taxi - why do we who have considerably less information than they decide we know better?
It seems to me that Duggan knew the police thought he had a gun, but chose not to raise his hands as asked. As soon as he did failed to comply with the police instructions, regardless of what he had in his hands, he's asking the police to make a decision. In my view his actions precipitated his ultimate death, whatever we want to think of the police.
I believe Tomlinson and Peach are in the former category. Some of the others could be said to be in both categories.
If even a fraction of the accusations made against Duggan were true, then he deserved to spend a very, very long time locked away. But, because he's been killed, we'll never have a chance to find out; and we're deprived of justice. Revenge, maybe. Retribution. Reprisal. But not justice.
You are making it sound like the police waited outside a night club, ambushed him, shot him and drove off into the night. The police had intelligence that suggested he was in a vehicle and carrying a gun hence the reason why the armed police were called in.
He was not shot down in cold blood, he was killed as part of a police operation that requires split second decisions from highly trained officers.
Was he killed by being shot by the police? Yes. Was he brought to justice? No.
During the riots police had to stand by and watch these little runts smash the shit out of places where we live, burning cars, robbing places etc. mainly because if they do the slightest thing wrong people like you moan and moan that they made a mistake.
Well this case not only did they end up killing someone who I'm glad is no longer prowling the streets they've also been legally shown to have made the right decision.
I don't really get what there is to discuss beyond that point.
What I *am* defending is the judicial process. I would prefer to have Duggan (and, for that matter the two unspeakably awful people who murdered Lee Rigby) face trial.
And I am sure no-one would prefer the opposite, ie the police deciding who is guilty and killing them rather than going through a court case.
The gang violence around nth London is ridiculous with people getting shot in broad daylight and stabbed to death in streets near nursery schools
Man Dem
Dem Africans
are both high profile gangs around here who are intent on killing each other if those that want justice before peace put their focus on saving these poor young boys and girls from seeing people like mark duggan as a role model in life then these things will be even rarer
as a football coach in nth London I deal with boys who are vulnerable to these people and it takes a lot of talking and motivating and putting myself out to ensure these boys go straight home from school and that their parent (not parents) know who they are with where they are going and what they will be doing
I have them training 2 times a week and playing on a Sunday, I have strict rules about behaviour when in the team and when representing their club colours
I also have told all parents that if they are having trouble with the boys in school or at home to let us know and we try to influence their lives in a positive way
I have one young black lad come to me straight from school on training days where I feed him and ensure he has a school diary with no bad comments in it and so he can discuss it with me
(his mum is so frightened that he will fall into the gang on her estate and as dad is nowhere to be seen he has no male influence in his life, My wife and I regularly fall out over some of what I find myself trying to do for him and the impact it has on my family time but I do care about the boys in my team and the area I live in )
the Black community (and I hate saying that term as I believe its the Community that need to do it not black) but they do not do enough to condone and try to stop this situation worsening, until it is one of their sons , grandsons, nephews etc get killed in either Black on black crime, Gang crime or killed by the police
I had a team from Woodgreen who only have Black players approach 3 of my boys also black to tell them they should be playing for him, and when I challenged him I was told what do I know about black youths and the issues they face
the guys heart was in the right place with his boys and his commitment to the keeping kids in his area safe and on a regime that he sees as good enough
but the fact he felt a white guy from nth London with a team that has more white kids in than black due to our catchment area having a higher demographic of white people than black couldn't help or be a positive influence in these boys lives is one of the reasons it wont ever be fixed , as there is still a feeling amongst a generation of black people within the area I live that all white people have a certain amount of racism within, the ironic bit is that they cant see that everyone themselves included have an element of racist or non correct views in them ,
Violent or aggressive
Unkind, cruel and unfeelingTreating people or animals badly
(Definition of in cold blood from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)