• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Mark Duggan

LutonSpurs said:
Comments like these probably put you pretty high up in the zero value to the planet ranks. Very insensitive.
Click to expand...

What a load of nonsense. Not a lot of people care about a dead guy who potentially could have killed someone himself.
 
scaramanga said:
People are terrible eyewitnesses. It's been shown again and again that personal bias plays a massive role in what people 'remember'
Click to expand...

Personal bias appears for a reason also. Something else which has been proven time and time again is that people are less likely to report crimes they've seen if they perceive a hostile approach by a police force operating a zero tolerance policy.

If people are ****ed off with the way police are marching in heavy handed themselves of course they're going to opt for a 'see no evil hear no evil' approach when the police come along all nicey nicey asking dear sir or madum what they've seen.
 
Craig_J said:
Something else which has been proven time and time again is that people are less likely to report crimes they've seen if they perceive a hostile approach by a police force operating a zero tolerance policy.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that. Do you have any links to data?
 
scaramanga said:
I didn't know that. Do you have any links to data?
Click to expand...

Also, I'd be interested to know how exactly a "zero tolerance policy" presents itself in the eyes of a layman, and why someone not commiting any crimes should be concerned with such a policy.
 
scaramanga said:
Also, I'd be interested to know how exactly a "zero tolerance policy" presents itself in the eyes of a layman, and why someone not commiting any crimes should be concerned with such a policy.
Click to expand...

You are choosing to purposely view matters from a narrow perspective. Look, no-one who's a law abiding citizen should ever be concerned by the efforts of law enforcement to enforce said-laws, but we all know that sometimes, that isn't enough to prevent massive wrongs in the criminal justice system. Can you at least acknowledge that fact? Because it is a fact!
 
thfcsteff said:
You are choosing to purposely view matters from a narrow perspective. Look, no-one who's a law abiding citizen should ever be concerned by the efforts of law enforcement to enforce said-laws, but we all know that sometimes, that isn't enough to prevent massive wrongs in the criminal justice system. Can you at least acknowledge that fact? Because it is a fact!
Click to expand...

Rarely people are wrongfully arrested, yes. And even more rarely they're wrongfully convicted.

I'm not sure of the relevance to giving an honest and accurate witness statement though. Unless you're suggesting that people are working on the assumption that the police are in the wrong to begin with? In that case, their statement will, as I alluded to in an earlier post, likely be factually flawed due to their inherent bias.
 
scaramanga said:
Rarely people are wrongfully arrested, yes. And even more rarely they're wrongfully convicted.

I'm not sure of the relevance to giving an honest and accurate witness statement though. Unless you're suggesting that people are working on the assumption that the police are in the wrong to begin with? In that case, their statement will, as I alluded to in an earlier post, likely be factually flawed due to their inherent bias.
Click to expand...


With regards to the bold-face, what proof do you have of this? 'Rarely'? I'd say it's a little more frequent than 'rarely' and a less frequent than 'often'…how about 'sometimes'…and 'sometimes' can become a very dangerous thing depending on who institutes what. Let me offer an example (without going too far off-topic)…in the 70s, 80s and 90s, no-one gave too many thoughts to the Muslim faith, extreme muslims or the concept of sharia law. 2001 and 9/11 happens, and as a consequence, some governments react extremely against certain countries with heavy Muslim concentrations (some believe these actions were driven by an agenda and without evidence when it comes to 'avenging' 9/11 - another debate)…here we are, 13 years later, and not only are 'most' people 'experts' on Muslims, what the Muslim faith represents and what Muslims are doing to the fibre of the country, we have people screaming on about sharia law like it's going to happen tomorrow! I feel sure that a young Asian man in, say, Leeds, could (in 1998) have walked down the street without being thought of as necessarily a Muslim. Nowdays I'd argue that it would be much much harder for that to be the case. I would suggest that Asians and Muslims generally are more likely to be singled out for 'preferential' treatment wherever security is checked. I would suggest that a lot of people pre-judge in this fashion on a daily basis. Before 9/11 no-onenthought twice about sitting on a plane with someone in traditional Muslim dress, but now?

By the same token, are we now approaching a situation where young black men who fit a certain visual profile which is culturally seen as 'gangsta' are going to be assumed to be armed/be petty criminals? Will said-men be targeted more by police for stop and searches? will your postcode dictate whether you're treated as a potentially 'armed' subject?

These are questions to ponder. In my opinion. Because I think you will find that people are wrongfully questioned, detained and arrested rather more than we might know. Because we don't fit those 'popular profiles'...




You lost me with the last paragraph. I agree with you, and always have done, that witness statements are always likely to be flawed and that often their bias is (as you said) confirmed by the agenda/pre-conceived opinions said-witness might hold.
 
thfcsteff said:
Meanwhile, in LA…

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-kelly-thomas-verdict-fbi-to-examine-trial-evidence-20140113,0,4049891.story#axzz2qLwTRy1m


Just to clarify, you can now stop and question a homeless schizophrenic men in bus depots and two of you can beat him to death because he might've been 'fighting'…such little tiny fellas they are too, those fine law enforcement officers…
Click to expand...

Seriously, that is little more than an opinion piece - is that what passes for reporting over there?

I don't know enough about the case to say who is in the right/wrong, but all that story tells me is that the FBI are looking to see if there's anything worth looking at.
 
scaramanga said:
Seriously, that is little more than an opinion piece - is that what passes for reporting over there?

I don't know enough about the case to say who is in the right/wrong, but all that story tells me is that the FBI are looking to see if there's anything worth looking at.
Click to expand...

There's a video of the whole incident online.
 
i do have sympathy for the many, many decent and great policemen and women everywhere, who do jobs most of us would cringe away from, and who are human beings like us all…but the bad eggs? They should not be 'covered' or 'tolerated' they should be outed. They ****-stain everything and allow doubt to creep in. Think about being a decent young officer going into Broadwater Farm now. You're tarred with a certain 'brush'. You are already 30% more likely to get into a serious situation because there is a pre-conception. Covering for dodgy work helps no-one in any field, and covering for dodgy colleagues helps even fewer.
 
thfcsteff said:
A lot of what you say is very very hard to disagree with, indeed, I don't.

I think perhaps you've missed the point of my opinion at any rate, which is shooting people dead because you 'think' they were a threat is poor. Again, no FACTS exist, either with DNA evidence or eye-witnesses, to place a gun as having come from Duggan's hand out of the mini-cab. That is a FACT. And as you quite rightly say, the FACTS are always very important. Thus the FACT is the bloke was shot on 'suspicion' of having a gun despite the fact he did not have one and that no-one had seen a gun being thrown from a vehicle, let alone suggested that it looked like Duggan was reaching for one when shot.

No, let's be honest, this entire case is about reputations and history. Not 'facts'. It's about those grey areas of supposition and reputation. I have no doubt Duggan was not going to win any philanthropic prizes, but I also have no doubt he did not have a gun on him when he was shot. And that, to me, is the problem. Because Dorothy, can we not agree that NO-ONE should be shot on 'reputation' without some hard evidence?
Click to expand...

In an ideal world I'd agree but then there is risk and threat analysis. Based on what we are led to believe (previous suspected use of firearm, who he really was, what he was suspected of, the fact they suspect him as being armed and en route to use a firearm) the threat was considered very high and the risk also very high indeed. I don't think the firearms officer was on trial as to whether there was a better course of action, whether it was felt he could have delayed but whether Mark Duggan's killing was 'lawful' and a jury of our peers found in favour of the arresting officers. We just have to take every comment on a case like this with a large pinch of salt as it is entirely possible that both sides are equally full of ****. I do strongly believe though that you hear about the incidents such as these and not about the literally thousands of incidents where no deadly force is required or utilised. If it was only about history then the lion's share of that evidence and fact suggests the police take extreme care in probably 99% of firearms cases and have a very low error rate.

The facts of the case are Duggan was known to have a gun in his possession, the intel was correct, the gun was found outside the vehicle clearly suggesting that he threw it away. The exact moment he did is unknown but it takes people time to stop in a police car get out and issue orders. He had time. The facts suggest a police officer thought he had that gun on him when he was shot. It doesn't matter in the eyes of the law whether he did or not. The firearms officer made a choice based on what he saw and in this sad case a man died because of his circumstances. Had he dropped the weapon from the vehicle in plain site, not run and had given himself up he'd now be in court trying to get off on a technicality of some sort. He isn't because of the choices he took.
 
Mate, it absolutely tickles me that you have repeatedly ignored the DNA evidence in this case. Can I ask why?
 
Have the LAPD got jurisdiction over here now or something?

thfcsteff said:
Covering for dodgy work helps no-one in any field, and covering for dodgy colleagues helps even fewer.
Click to expand...
This case has been examined by a jury, presumably not made up of coppers, and they've decided it wasn't unlawful? Is that really a cover up?

You seem to doubt that the gun found was related to Duggan in any way Steff?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back