Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:39 am  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

If you read the news reports around the case Duggan wasn’t some random person who found himself suspected of being a member of a violent organised criminal operation by accident. He portrayed himself as a gangster, and the Police though he was a gangster because he associated with known gangsters, and prior to the shooting they were monitoring his behaviour, they were suspicious of regular taxi rides he took between locations in London known to be associated/controlled by violent gangs (those who are a little worldly wise will know taxis are used in this way to shift drugs/guns/cash/other because they are less likely to be stopped than a stolen car or a car registered to a known criminal). Now his family might claim this was a mistake, he was just a bit of a loveable rogue who liked to pretend he was a “gangsta”, and who despite being officially unemployed and from a less than affluent background inexplicitly had money to spend taking taxis to visit his mates who just happened to be known/suspected violent organised criminals. For me it’s a bit of a stretch to believe the harmless rogue theory.

Doesn’t matter though does it. Whether or not he was a ‘gangsta’ is a bit irrelevant, we have a process for dealing with that. His death is no more justified if he were Tony Soprano incarnate than if he was the new Ghandi. His death is only justified by the officer who shot him having and honest and reasonable belief that he or the people around him faced an imminent threat.

If that is the case, what happened is fine. If it isn’t, what happened is murder. Everything else is irrelevant.

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:41 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Interesting. I'm not doubting you, you understand, but you couldn't by any chance just provide a link to the stats for composition of juries by racial prejudice in the "acquitted police killer" cases you refer to, could you?

No i couldnt. But i also did not state it was based purely on racial prejudices hence the delete as appropriate comment.

I can however remember reports where it stated all white jury ( they have stopped doing that now).

The point is that juries in this country are notorious for not convicting police officers in these types of cases. Sometimes due to the juries, sometimes due to the judges, sometimes the failure of the cps tp prosecute effectively and sometimes due to the fact the police investigate themselves.

The Point stands that 100s of people die at the hands of the police and yet the police are very rarely held to account or successfully prosecuted.

Statistically some of these deaths at the hand of the police are criminal acts

[Kosh]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:43 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

Statistically some of these deaths at the hand of the police are criminal acts

You don't actually understand statistics, do you?

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:48 am  

Kosh wrote:

You don't actually understand statistics, do you?

Yes statistically you are more likely to ignore the important point and play petty intellectual point scoring games.

( based on your last post anyway )

[Kosh]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:56 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

Yes statistically you are more likely to ignore the important point and play petty intellectual point scoring games.

( based on your last post anyway )

It's not a petty intellectual point. You are claiming that statistics somehow guarantee that some deaths in Police custody must have been a result of criminal acts. Statistics are capable of no such thing. That's a fairly central plank of your argument based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

I'd say that's rather relevant to the discussion, wouldn't you?

[Durham Giant]

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 11:03 am  

Kosh wrote:

It's not a petty intellectual point. You are claiming that statistics somehow guarantee that some deaths in Police custody must have been a result of criminal acts. Statistics are capable of no such thing. That's a fairly central plank of your argument based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

I'd say that's rather relevant to the discussion, wouldn't you?

Do you want to comment on the fact that the Police kill large numbers of people and very very rarely are successfully prosecuted for their actions.

Do you have any views on this or are you wanting to be a pedant about the way i presented some information.

Should i change it to balance of probabilities add in the word likelihood would that make you happier.

Maybe that would just obfuscate things though and you would have to concentrate on the main point.

Police kill and get away with it FACT

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 11:23 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

It is the rule of law, police get charged with offences ( occasionally) and are acquitted by jury's often made up of people like Rover 49, Jerry Chicken, Cronus et al who all think , " dey is black*, dey is criminals*, dey are scum* " ( *delete as appropriate) , police are lovely and cuddly and they would never kill anyone illegaly or unjustly

LOL, good job I have a sense of humour and don't jump up and down demanding that you retract your accusation of racism, I can write off your slur on my fictional character as simple foolishness on your part so don't worry about it.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 11:27 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

Do you want to comment on the fact that the Police kill large numbers of people and very very rarely are successfully prosecuted for their actions.

Do you have any views on this or are you wanting to be a pedant about the way i presented some information.

Should i change it to balance of probabilities add in the word likelihood would that make you happier.

Maybe that would just obfuscate things though and you would have to concentrate on the main point.

Police kill and get away with it FACT

Calm down dear.

As has already been pointed out to you, statistics prove very little but as you are leaning on them very heavily for your ridiculous outbursts then could you provide the breakdown of those deaths in custody to show which ones were due to a police officer killing a detainee and better still what methods they used (you know, the bit where you mentioned suffocation), I'm assuming that you have those statistics haven't you ?

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 11:28 am  

Damo-Leeds wrote:

Well your no better than the likes of Mark Duggan in this world if you think two wrongs make a right.

*you're

Where was the second wrong? A court of law found the shooting was lawful. Or don't you understand that?

Perhaps you'd prefer the gun had been delivered to be used in a crime somewhere? Perhaps to shoot an innocent person? To cause the death of another rather than himself? No, I have no problem with someone peddling guns meeting a sticky end. Lawfully, of course.

Durham Giant wrote:

It is the rule of law, police get charged with offences ( occasionally) and are acquitted by jury's often made up of people like Rover 49, Jerry Chicken, Cronus et al who all think , " dey is black*, dey is criminals*, dey are scum* " ( *delete as appropriate) , police are lovely and cuddly and they would never kill anyone illegaly or unjustly

Care to prove any of that that? Links? Quotes? Or is that a totally fabricated accusation? Perhaps you should read my first post in this thread on page 2 where I mention the police and people like you in paragraph 5. You're a perfect example.

Oh look! You've thrown race in there. I haven't mentioned race, most people haven't mentioned race, yet somehow there it is. That's embarrassing even by your usual aimless ranting standards.

Perhaps you think Duggan and his associates just need a hug eh? Poor misguided little cherubs.

Re: The Mark Duggan verdict. : Fri Jan 10, 2014 11:37 am  

Wire Yed wrote:

This guys only worth to society is keeping Policeman, Solicitors, Judges and Prison Guards employed, good riddance, it's saved me a few pounds in tax.

A few pennies possibly. Otherwise, you're exaggerating.

The issue is not whether Duggan himself was a nice person: the issue is whether the police acted correctly.

They do have form – look up Harry Stanley, for instance, an entirely innocent man who was shot dead on the grounds that he was carrying a repaired table leg in a bag (which must have been a gun) and sounded a bit Oirish to someone who couldn't tell the difference between Irish and Scottish but had rung the police with this devastatingly incriminating evidence of terrorism, which they decided was absolutely trustworthy.

Part of the problem is how the courts deal with such situations. In the Stanley case, the coroner had only allowed the jury to return a verdict of either lawful killing or an open verdict. That was changed at a judicial review and a verdict of unlawful killing was returned, leading police to hand in their firearms authorisations in protest. That was overturned in the High Court and returned to an open verdict.

The officers involved were later interviewed in the light of some new forensic evidence, but no prosecution occurred. They stated that they acted in self defence. But given the facts – a man coming home from a pub, carrying something entirely innocent, for entirely innocent reasons (it had been repaired), is challenged by police and turns to face them and is then shot dead – it's rather difficult to maintain that.

So the message that it sends out is that you can shoot dead someone on the grounds of a staggeringly inaccurate 'tip off' and claim you acted in self defence when there is nothing to maintain that.

I'm not suggesting that I know the answer, and I will stress that I do think that the police have an unenviable job, but the issue is not whether society is better off without a Duggan or not, not least because these things do not only conveniently happen to the Duggans of this world.