Coffee House

Mark Duggan lawfully killed, says high court jury

8 January 2014

5:44 PM

8 January 2014

5:44 PM

A high court jury has said Mark Duggan, whose death sparked the 2011 London riots, was lawfully killed by police. The 29-year-old was shot dead by police in Tottenham in August 2011, after officers attempted to arrest him on suspicion of planning an attack. Two days later, Duggan’s relatives marched on Tottenham Police Station and events soon spiraled out of control.

They have reacted to this afternoon’s decision with fury. His aunt has claimed that ‘the majority of people in this country know that Mark was executed’. His brother has vowed to ‘fight till we have no breath in our body for justice’. Outside the Royal Court of Justice, the crowd is reported to have shouted ‘murderers’ after hearing the verdict.

Simon Marcus, now the Conservative PPC for Hampstead and Kilburn, wrote in The Spectator in August 2012 that neither the shooting nor gang violence was the motivation behind the riots, but our soft criminal justice system:

‘I was told ad nauseam that the riots were not gang-related because only 19 per cent of those convicted in London were known gang members, and 13 per cent in the country as a whole. This vastly mistook the facts. It is enough of a percentage to have caused the riots in certain areas, and I doubt that teen gangsters would offer their name, rank and number on arrest. I would suggest that in some places more than half of those who looted and rioted are subject to what I would call a gang culture.

‘This awful reality is compounded by the failings of our soft criminal justice system. Fully 76 per cent of convicted rioters had previous convictions and nine out of ten were known to the police. Even more shockingly, 84 had committed 50 or more previous offences. Those 84 criminals should end their lives in prison. But there again lies an ideological blockade. I was shocked by the number of public servants we spoke to who simply chanted the mantra ‘prison doesn’t work’. My job rehabilitating young border­line criminals looking for a way out is made so much harder if repeat offenders or gang leaders return emboldened after short sentences to provide role models, leadership and ownership of an area saturated with drugs, guns and knives.’

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • David Webb

    Give the officer who shot Duggan a medal. We should be celebrating his death – not hand-wringing over it.

  • FrankS2

    Doesn’t the continual reporting by the BBC of the Duggan family’s wish for no more riots help create an atmosphere of riot anticipation?

    • David Webb

      Yes, it implies the BBC thinks they SHOULD riot, and are being magnanimous by not doing so.

      • FrankS2

        It’s as if they might be understandably expected to riot. I can remember the police praising football hooligans for not fighting. Such admirable restraint!

    • Eddie

      Yes, I agree – the BBC and the other usual suspects (The Grauniad etc) are stirring things up.
      They are also constantly insinuating that Mark Duggan was unlawfully killed, despite the open jury verdict and the justice that scumbag was afforded by our legal system.
      If Duggan had been a white man the story would be different – he would not be seen as a victim, esp if he’d been someone like Brievilk or anyone ‘of the right’. Therefore, the BBC et al are racist because their story would change according to a shot criminal’s skin colour. For SHAME!
      Duggan and his family are being treated like victims – instead of perpetrators of gang violence who shameless think there is nothing wrong in a family member carrying a gun, threatening people, dealing drugs etc. If this is the morality of blacks in the UK and their white bredren, then BOY do they need a church service!
      No sympathetic portrayal of the victims of scum like Duggan of course or the 5 that died in the riots the black community started with its massive pity party protest. If the so-called black community wants to know what the problem is it should look in the mirror (even if it’s been paid for with drug money).

  • Shorne

    While perhaps not directly relevant I would like to say something about the riots. Three years ago I retired after 30 years as a Probation Officer, the last 13 years I worked full time in a prison and I think I have some insight into the rioters. 75% (I think that was the figure) of those arrested had been known to the Police in the past. I have spoken to hundreds of such people over the years both individually and in groups. Their main complaint about the Police is that they ‘disrespect’ them. It only takes a few minutes to establish that their idea of being respected is that they should be allowed to do what they want when they want and if it involves violence and coercion then so be it.
    When I would suggest that respect is a positive thing that should be earned I was met by scorn or total incomprehension. Such people see the Police as the main obstacle to such respect and saw the riots as an opportunity to do en masse what they would like to do individually.
    In London at least such behaviour has a long history; ‘Evil May Day 1517, Gordon Riots 1780, Spa Field Riots 1816 and so on and when what they see as an excuse arises it will happen again.

  • David Webb

    Duggan’s aunt openly called for riots when she exclaimed “no justice, no peace”. Why hasn’t she been arrested?

    This family is worthy of nothing but contempt. They brought their son up to be a petty criminal, and now feign shock when he is gunned down seconds after throwing a gun away.

    Well, the streets are safer without him. And we would be a lot better off if his whole ethnic group were not in the UK – but removed to Jamaica.

    • Shorne

      That is utterly ridiculous,almost laughable were it not so blatantly racist. People from his ‘ethnic group’ are the backbone of the NHS, the care home system, transport etc. Talking of medals as you do below the only serving holder of the Victoria Cross is from the same group. Why do you appear to be naked in your photo by the way?

      • David Webb

        No people of his ethnic group are not the backbone of the NHS, although looking through the list of struck-off doctors, I notice few English names. The only serving holder of the VC was awarded a Mickey Mouse VC for being black! All he did was drive away – he did not display the bravery expected of a VC holder, and so sullied the whole notion of the VC.

        • Shorne

          I realise that nothing will stop you spewing out this bile but one more comment .By backbone I mean they do the menial jobs that ‘white’ people won’t do, one day you may find yourself incapable of wiping your own backside and I bet it won’t be a ‘white’ person who does it for you. As for your view of Mr. Beharry’s VC here is the official citation;
          “”Private Beharry carried out two individual acts of great heroism by which he saved the lives of his comrades. Both were in direct face of the enemy, under intense fire, at great personal risk to himself (one leading to him sustaining very serious injuries). … Beharry displayed repeated extreme gallantry and unquestioned valour, despite intense direct attacks, personal injury and damage to his vehicle in the face of relentless enemy action.”
          I leave people to judge for themselves.

          • David Webb

            Shorne, all Beharry did was to drive a van away from danger. He did not risk his life by driving towards danger or going into sniper fire to rescue injured comrades. The Taliban were shooting and he drove away – that’s all. To get a proper VC, you need to undertake brave actions regardless of the threat to your safety – not just drive AWAY from the danger – which is the opposite to what other VC-holders have won their VCs for.

            Beharry has besmirched the honour of his regiment by accepting what he knows to be an utterly bogus VC, designed as part of Labour’s racial hysteria to find a black man to give a VC too. He certainly did not earn it and did not display exceptional valour. He is a disgrace to the army.

            See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/10561430/Government-accused-of-social-engineering-over-WW1-plans.html for a discussion of how the Cameron government is attempting to downplay the Australian, NZ, and Canadian contribution to WW1 in favour of scouring the records for contributions from blacks and Asians…

            • Shorne

              The facts speak for themselves;

              “On 1 May 2004, Beharry was driving a Warrior Tracked Armoured Vehicle that had been called to the assistance of a foot patrol caught in a series of ambushes. The Warrior was hit by multiple rocket propelled grenades, causing damage and resulting in the loss of radio communications. The platoon commander, the vehicle’s gunner and a number of other soldiers in the vehicle were injured. Due to damage to his periscope optics, Pte. Beharry was forced to open his hatch to steer his vehicle, exposing his face and head to withering small arms fire. Beharry drove the crippled Warrior THROUGH THE AMBUSH, taking his own crew and leading five other Warriors to safety. He then extracted his wounded comrades from the vehicle, ALL THE TIME EXPOSED TO FURTHER ENEMY FIRE. He was cited on this occasion for “valour of the highest order”.

              (my capitals)

              • David Webb

                None of that amounts to the level of personal valour expected of a VC holder. He just waited for gaps in the shooting to take the wounded men out. BUT IF THAT IS ALL YOU NEED FOR A VC, NEARLY ALL SOLDIERS WOULD HAVE VCs. They have nearly all done that or equivalent things. To get a VC you need to do something that will probably lead to you personally being killed. It is awarded for:

                “most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy”

                Driving away from danger and opening the van door during a gap in the shooting is just not it.

                He is a joke candidate for the VC. He won the VC because of his skin colour.

                • Shorne

                  I realise that a racist like you will never back down, none of the ones I dealt with when I worked in a prison ever did, but here’s my last comment because I don’t want to give an ament like you more opportunities to insult Mr. Beharry. If you think this is a ‘van’ then you should get out more;
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrior_tracked_armoured_vehicle

                  (of course I realise you may not be allowed out)

                  He drove this ‘through the ambush’ hence towards the enemy. He got his wounded comrades out whilst under fire.

                  “racist thought and action says far more about the person they come from than the person they are directed at.”
                  ― Chris Crutcher

                • David Webb

                  You resort to cheap and meaningless jibes. Unwittingly you show it was not just a van, but an armoured vehicle – and hence one likely to be able to withstand crossfire, reducing the valour of driving it through an ambush to near-zero.

            • Shorne

              You are WRONG

              “On 1 May 2004, Beharry was driving a Warrior Tracked Armoured Vehicle that had been called to the assistance of a foot patrol caught in a series of ambushes. The Warrior was hit by multiple rocket propelled grenades, causing damage and resulting in the loss of radio communications. The platoon commander, the vehicle’s gunner and a number of other soldiers in the vehicle were injured. Due to damage to his periscope optics, Pte. Beharry was forced to open his hatch to steer his vehicle, exposing his face and head to withering small arms fire. Beharry drove the crippled Warrior through the ambush, taking his own crew and leading five other Warriors to safety. He then extracted his wounded comrades from the vehicle, all the time exposed to further enemy fire. He was cited on this occasion for “valour of the highest order”.

            • Shorne

              You are WRONG

              “On 1 May 2004, Beharry was driving a Warrior Tracked
              Armoured Vehicle that had been called to the assistance of a foot patrol caught in a series of ambushes. The Warrior was hit by multiple rocket propelled grenades, causing damage and resulting in the loss of radio communications. The platoon commander, the vehicle’s gunner and a number of other soldiers in the vehicle were injured. Due to damage to his periscope optics, Pte. Beharry was forced to open his hatch to steer his vehicle, exposing his face and head to withering small arms fire. Beharry drove the crippled Warrior through the ambush, taking his own crew and leading five other Warriors to safety. He then extracted his wounded comrades from the vehicle, all the time exposed to further enemy fire. He was cited on this occasion for “valour of the highest order”.

      • Eddie

        And if we had not had so many immigrants over the past decades. then our population would be 5 million smaller at least, and we would not need to many health services eh? Our education system wouldn’t be under such strain either, and our house prices wouldn’t be so absurd.
        The more immigrants we have the more it costs us in services in the future – that is NEVER taken into account when thinktanks tot up the ‘benefits’ of immigration (they should factor that in and see how much we lose because of irresponsible mass immigrantion).
        And I say that as the son of an immigrant too who is sick and tired of leftie liars perpetually defending anyone with a dark skin and a religion.

  • MikeF

    Given the intensity of the BBC’s coverage of this decision you wonder what it would have been like if the jury had decided the other way. Very likely not all that much different. They seem to have decided that Duggan would be the new Stephen Lawrence and just to have gone ahead regardless.

  • FrankS2

    Some extroardinary nonsense spouted on the causes of the Duggan riots, is reported in the Telegraph , where comments are, of course, closed.

    • David Webb

      Yes I noticed. The Telegraph is fully engaged in promoting the multicultural project. Just ask yourself one question: looking at the Duggan family, do you recognise them as members of the same nation as you? If not, why are they here?

  • witchblade01

    What a joke this country has become, hundreds and thousands of people have been either mugged and in some cases killed by criminals in London over the last 40 years, many of the suspects being immigrants, many of the victims being immigrants, but who cares for those victims! London has burned several times since the 1980’s, Police officers have been murder since 1985, the first murder of a police officer according to Wiki since 1833!
    And now we see the chavs and politicans like Clegg and Cameron licking up to those that support criminals.

    I’ve got a solution lets get the Police from Jamaica over here, maybe there methods will be more pleasing to so called elements of communities that support gangsta’s and criminals.

  • FrankS2

    How many people would Duggan have shot with his new toy if the police hadn’t got their shot in first?

  • Eyesee

    Removing the criminals is the best solution, however the article was kicked off by the verdict on the police actions. So, to address that matter. It is interesting that the police wanted to arrest Duggan for ‘planning an attack’, when the real current and actual crime was possession of a firearm. Going with the former I suppose makes him sound more dangerous and the threat more imminent. You could imagine Duggan being stopped as he left his house, or some other time he was known to be alone and out of the way. But, according to the police and a jury, a totally appropriate way was to stop him whilst in a taxi, surrounding the vehicle and then shooting the target, for an undefined reason. I doubt the taxi driver would have thought it an appropriate way, nor passers by, nor local traffic. But then conveniently, they were never asked! For some time afterwards the police refused to comment on whether he had a gun or not (and certainly didn’t produce it), which can only mean they needed time to concoct a story. Around this time it was said that the gun was in a sock in a box. Now apparently Duggan threw the gun away, as it was ‘found’ on a grassed area nearby. Either way, not quite a valid reason for shooting someone. As for evidence that our armed police are not quite the sharpest tools in the box, consider their tactics. Not only was a ‘hard stop’ in the street good dramatic theatre for the news, as opposed to the safest way to detain a possibly armed man, they also surrounded the car so that the chances of shooting each other, if they opened fire was pretty high. And lo so it came to pass, one did shoot another, even if they, briefly felt they might be able to claim Duggan did it. If you read the comments of the police at the time, they come across as the evasive answers of a naughty schoolboy, caught bang to rights. If criminals go around carrying guns, I’m not really that concerned about their welfare. What I do care about is the quality, training and not least leadership of our armed police, which particularly the latter point, is currently woeful.

  • Eddie

    So a criminal scumbag gangsta piece of filth with a gun gets shot – and that’s injustice is it?
    Look at the ridiculous wigga woman who was his aunt.
    Any decent family would be ashamed that one of their kin turned out to be such a scumbag. But no, not the ‘black community.’
    Good riddance. I hope more criminal scum get shot this year.

    • David Webb

      No – cameras on police helmets are not a good idea. Just see how that Marine was framed for the killing of a member of the Taliban, something he should have got a medal for.

      • Eddie

        I disagree. I also think we need a fully independent police complaints commission. Cameras can clear police too, don’t forget.
        But this case is clear cut – a gangsta scumbag with a gun got shot. And? He got what he should have got and got justice from a jury who saw all evidence. I defend the police 100% in this instance, and shake my head that scumbags like Duggan and his awful family still pollute our cities. Why can’t they go live in Jamaica eh?

  • Greenslime

    I don’t get all the hand wringing! A vicious drug selling gangster gets himself a handgun. Given his antecedents, it can be fairly assumed that he is prepared to use it. When shot, he had been in possession of the gun. He may have thrown it when he realised that he was being nabbed. But that movement could well have been what the police officers believed to be an aggressive action towards them. It’s all split second stuff when guns are concerned and we should remember that, for the police officers involved, this is a very tense situation. You can train all you like but you can never replicate the adrenalin surge which would come with the real possibility of incoming fire.

    A jury heard the evidence and came to the conclusion that Duggan was removed from the gene pool lawfully – not policemen, not politicians, but a jury selected from the general population.

    Short answer to all this is that if criminals do not want to risk being shot, they shouldn’t carry weapons. If you acquire a handgun, you should know that there is a strong possibility that it will be the death of you.

    For my part, I believe we are well rid of Mr Duggan.

  • Fergus Pickering

    Good God, how can you be shocked? What do you expect? If the police didn’t lie so much, then perhaps they might be believed occasionally.And black people just love their viictimhood.

    • Eddie

      The police do lie and I don’t trust them – but they are 100% right here.

      Oh yes, it’s always someone else’s fault with the blacks.
      The Indians + the Chinese can do brilliantly in our supposed racist society and supposedly racist education system, then get good jobs and contribute. The blacks however can’t seem to manage it – and then blame their myriad failings on, in order: our racist society, our racist school system, our racist police, our racist slave-trading past, our racist family goat etc.
      Excuses excuses excuses.

      Black people get arrested and imprisoned a lot because THEY make the choice to commit crime. Black boys get expelled from schools a lot because of their awful behaviour, not because they are black. These accusations by liars in the state-funded race relations industry really must stop.The family backgrounds of lots of blacks is awful – but that is their fault 100%. No-one else’s.

      Black people should MAN UP and stop blaming everyone else for problems of their own making.

      I am pleased to say that some black people now realise this – however, their voice is not the loudest – it usually gets drowned out by the victimhood-craving black people who are failures and criminals and just moan moan moan instead of working to improve their situations.
      Plenty people are poor and disadvantaged; some do something about it, get educated, work hard. Why can’t black people? Is this a social thing or biological? Learned or innate? I have no idea.

      • Fergus Pickering

        Well, I suppose it is always possible that they are innately more stupid, if intelligence is an inherited characteristic. Which it largely is, is it not?

  • keith

    Mark duggan and the other gangsters in the car were on their way to rob some fellow drug dealers, what the spokespeople ( politically correct terminology) for the community have to tell us is how were the to rob them, knock on the door and say hand over your drugs old boy please or i will shout at you, the BBC should be doing some proper journalism ( i know BBC = proper journalism doesn’t go together) and ask a few hard questions of these spokespeople, like maark duggans criminal career, what was he doing in the car in the first place etc, but it wont happen BBC journalists will never ask the tough questions of people from minorities

    • Andy

      Word in relation to BBC you were looking for is ‘oxymoron’ !

      • keith

        true

        • Andy

          And plenty of morons work for the BBC !

  • Mike

    I have little sympathy for this individual killed by the police BUT in the interests of a level playing field in law and order I have severe misgivings with the verdict given by this jury.

    Here is my observation into the so called UK justice system-

    “The judge said the jury should reach its decisions ‘on the evidence and the evidence alone”, think about this carefully !

    Fact: Duggan a known drug ‘lord’ was gunned down by police who believed he was armed and dangerous.
    Fact: No gun was found on him and the police couldn’t offer any evidence as to why not.
    Fact: A police insider admitted this shooting was a result of a thousand f*** ups !

    Then we have –

    Fact: Tony Martin a lone pensioner had suffered multiple break ins and robberies to his property.
    Fact: Despite reporting it to the police, nothing happened so he protected his property from future break ins.
    Fact: Two well known low life scroats broke in , one was injured and one was killed in the ensuing fray.

    Result 1: Plod is found not guilty of using excessive force based on the ‘likelihood’ of Duggan having a gun despite NO evidence being presented by the police that he did have a gun when they shot him dead.

    Result 2: Tony Martin, a pensioner served several years inside for protecting his home from known criminals who broke into his property.

    Think about it folks, is this legalized vigilantism by the police whilst the likes of home owner Tony Martin (and us) ended up serving time for killing a tooled up intruder to his house.

    Sounds like, one rule for gun happy Plod and another for the rest of us when ALL of us should be allowed to take out some low life animal threatening us without threats from plod to arrest us and the courts to incarcerate us.

    • Agrippina

      You can, it is called ‘reasonable force’. Mr Martin had shot the young fellow in the back thus the conclusion being that they were leaving, defined as not being reasonable. He had also removed lightbulbs, stairs etc, all to do with the definition of reasonable.

      Remember the burglar shot in the leg sued him, and the case was thrown out, so not all bad. Just a shame that the jury did not find him ‘not guilty’ really.

      • Mike

        The real problem with juries or the CPS is they look at the ‘evidence’ in the cold light of day over tea and biscuits (CPS) whilst the defendant is expected to make a correct legal decision over reasonable force whilst under stress and a serious perceived threat to themselves. It might well be that the plod who shot Duggan believed he was under threat but equally Martin could claim he was under threat as he didn’t know if this intruder was about to turn around and come back at him.

        A 55 something man vs a 20 something young male is not a fair contest and I believe any force is justifiable for the older man if he believes he is under threat even if that man is facing away at the time. He’s the intruder after all not the home owner.

        Judges however have the ‘authority’ to ‘persuade’ a jury to go along with their interpretation of the law rather than natural justice and its not that often a jury will stick two fingers up at the judges ‘direction’ as was the case with Martin.

    • realfish

      So you have severe misgivings about the decision reached by the jury, based on what? Were you in court to hear the 3 months of evidence that the jury were required to consider?

      • Andy

        Exactly. I doubt the jury could have brought in any other verdict. If this little thug hadn’t been running around London with a gun in a cardboard box he probably wouldn’t have been shot. Moral of story – if you have a gun and play the big heavy don’t be surprised if you end up with a bullet in you, either from your ‘mates’ of the Police. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

        • John Border

          My goodness, I thought Goebbels was dead. But no, he escaped and now goes under the name of Andy.

          Andy dearest, don’t give up those solitary pursuits for gentlemen!

    • Bob339

      The police in Britain are simply not up to carrying guns.

  • JabbaTheCat

    Iz coz he’z blak innit?

  • IRISHBOY

    So once again there’s not a single journalist either with the nous to notice or, if he does, the cojones to say it, but why does the black community and their appended leaders only ever get this agitated when a black is killed by a white?
    Hundreds of young black boys have been murdered in the 20 years since the Lawrence case and not one of their grieving mothers has been given a minute of air-time or an inch in a newspaper column. Is this grief not worthy of attention? Are there no “lessons to be learned” in these cases?

    The jury has given their judgement in the Duggan case, but the police don’t get the automatic benefit of the doubt as they did before they became in someone’s phrase “the paramilitary wing of the Guardian”. Not since they managed to shoot dead a man carrying a chair leg, or tasering a blind man because the stupid prat of an officer couldn’t tell the difference between a classic white-stick and a firearm.

    • Agrippina

      Indeed, how many black young men have been killed by fellow black men?

      • IRISHBOY

        Well, in London alone it seemed for years to be more than 20 a year.

        And in the context of today’s carry-on, let’s remember the immense dignity of Mr & Mrs Taylor, parents of young Damilola killed by a black on his way home from the library.

        • Agrippina

          Whose Mother when interviewed on the Today prog, told Humphries that they were just ‘high spirited boys’, even when challenged with the various offences they had been charged with over the years and from a young age. Thus one had to conclude that if she could not tell the difference between right and wrong, how on earth was she going to instill anything into her 2 criminal sons.

          • Eddie

            And Damilola should not have even been in the UK in the first place, like so many Africans.

            • Jackthesmilingblack

              Stupid, illogical argument. If he hadn’t been born he wouldn’t have been murdered.

      • Andy

        Now dear don’t be racist. But blacks killing blacks is different – no whites around to blame.

      • Bob339

        Quite a lot but not enough to teach them restraint or civilized behaviour

    • Mike

      Irrespective of whether there’s any justification to accuse the MET of racism, one thing is for certain and that’s their incompetence that amounts to actions that should be classed as reckless endangerment that should result at the very least to charges of manslaughter. So far, they have escaped all manner of reckless endangerment operations from legal scrutiny and as a result, justice has not only failed but has been seen to fail spectacularly !

  • RavenRandom

    Gangster with gun is shot. I do not weep for dead criminals.

    • Mike

      But the judiciary punishes those not in the police force who kill intruders !

      • James Healey

        No they don’t – they frequently bring no charges against those who kill and injure in defence of themselves and their homes. You’re backing up this statement on the basis of the Tony Martin case, which, as I posted above, simply isn’t relevant. Whatever your views on his actions (and I’d be happy to have a pint with him!) the law, (as it applies equally to police and public) is not going to accept that you had a genuine and honestly held belief that your life was in danger, when you are armed with a firearm, and separated from a fleeing intruder by distance, bricks and mortar and a staircase.

        • Mike

          Tony Martin aside, lets look at the catalog of other miscarriages of justice or rather the different rules applied to the public compared to the plod when they kill or injure someone.

          In 2009, the millionaire businessman Munir Hussain fought back with a metal pole and a cricket bat against a knife-wielding burglar who tied up his family at their home in Buckinghamshire. Hussain was jailed for two
          and a half years, despite his attacker being spared prison. Appeal judges reduced the sentence to a year’s jail, suspended.

          Then in September 2012 a couple were arrested at their farm house in Melton Mowbary and kept in jail for 3 days after protecting themselves against 4 intruders. No doubt the previous appeal with Munir Hussain focused the
          pea brains of the CPS to eventually let them go BUT they still had to endure 3 days inside while plod, plodded along their usual course. Additionally, they were told not to discuss their situation with the media, I wonder why ?

          I could list more if you want but I’m sure you get the picture. Joe Public protects themselves in their own home after being disturbed and suffer the indignity and stress of being arrested and banged up whilst plod, tooled up for a fracas in full control of their faculties, NEVER gets interrogated for their actions involving the death of someone. Even the extraordinary killing of Charles Menenzes didn’t result in manslaughter charges due to reckless endangerment AKA we f***** up big time !

          • David Webb

            Well Munir Hussain belonged to the right ethnic group – and so managed to get a suspended sentence on appeal. What about those of us who DON’T belong to protected ethnic groups?

            • Mike

              Exactly we’re all f***** over by the system unless we’re a minority group or the establishment !

          • James Healey

            Sorry Mike, but your examples only serve to prove my point.

            The Hussain case was an appalling incident, and if the uncle, or neighbour, or whoever it was that came round, had arrived whilst the attackers were in the house, it would have been anything goes. But he didn’t, he arrived shortly afterwards, untied the family and then he and Mr Hussain
            armed themselves and went looking for the intruders. They found them down the road and bashed them up. Now, you and I may say fair enough in the circumstances, and shake their hand – but just as in the Martin case, the law is never going to accept a self-defence plea when you’ve gone out looking for the person you’re supposedly in fear of, no matter how morally justified your actions may be.

            I’m not familiar with the other case, but as you point out,
            they weren’t charged! So this is not a case of different rules for the public and the police. Yes, they were in custody for 3 days, and I’m not going to pretend that isn’t unpleasant. But here you’re confusing punishment and process. I’m sure you’d agree that any incident where a person has been killed is going to be taken very seriously and investigated very thoroughly. Critical to that investigation will be the account of the killer. At this point, the police’s hands are tied. By law (police and criminal evidence act 1984) they cannot ask a person questions about their involvement in a suspected offence without arresting them and taking them to a police station. This is not for the police’s benefit (in fact it’s often costly and time consuming) but is, ironically, considered necessary to protect the “rights” of the person being questioned; they can be risk assessed, given access to lawyers, interpreters, appropriate adults, doctors, drug workers, allowed to review the codes of practice etc etc blah blah blah. You see, in the eyes of the law, being arrested is not a sanction, it’s merely a procedure. Now it’s true that the procedure is different for police officers, which may seem unfair, but it would be totally impractical if it weren’t. The police use force all the time. Even putting handcuffs on someone, without any violence being used, is a use of force and must be justified and written up, with reference to the power used and the reason why it was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances etc. If you arrested officers to investigate their every use of force, you’d never have any cells for criminals! It’s also accepted that police officers on duty, exercising their powers as a constable, will be subject to different procedures than the public – I challenge you to find a police force in any country where that isn’t the case. The point is, whatever the procedure, the police are just as accountable, and subject to just the same laws, as the public.

            As for Charles de Menezes, where is the justification for
            manslaughter charges? Yes, a terrible mistake was made. But the officers that shot him had been told that he was one of the 7/7 bombers, that he was believed to have a bomb, and that he must be prevented from entering the tube at any cost. They were unable to reach him before he did enter the tube, at which point I imagine there was a blind panic going on. They were told to stop him by whatever means. They managed to get on the tube, he was identified to them by the surveillance officer, and they shot him. What else could they do? They believed him to be a suicide bomber intent on martyrdom, if he was challenged, they thought he’d press the button and blow them all up. That no charges were brought is in no way evidence of “the different rules applied to the public compared to the plod” Did they have a genuine, honestly held belief that their and others lives were in danger? Damn right they did. There is no inconsistency there.

            • Mike

              Au contraire, and I suppose the police don’t go out looking for someone who has attacked or killed one of their own with an agenda of their own, get real please.

              As for 3 days in custody, I think that proves my point as the police killers of Menezes, Duggan or many other ‘civilians’ have never had to spend 3 days in custody whilst their actions were investigated. You seem oblivious to the fact that this is EXACTLY what I have objected to
              in my previous posts, the different treatment meted out to Joe public compared to plod when someone is killed in ‘dubious’ circumstances.

              I don’t give a flying f*** what the law may say as all I’m saying is it isn’t a level playing field between plod and the public when someone is killed. If anything, its the law that’s wrong and should be changed. Your extensive paragraph quoting procedure & law is immaterial as
              far as I’m concerned as its wrong when based against natural justice.

              I do like your ironic “Yes, a terrible mistake was made” in regard to killing Menezes but for too long, UK law has not embraced corporate or establishment manslaughter as an accountable redress that should see the inside of a court with appropriate sanctions. Mistakes were made with
              Menezes due to incompetence and NOT an honest mistake. The plod supposed to be keeping him under surveillance went off for a pee and in reality they didn’t even know who they were following. Surely profiling
              would have suggested that a Brazilian male was unlikely to be a suicide bomber but not so for the MET.

              Many NAZI’s in the second world war honestly believed they were doing the right thing and if that gives the MET a cop out just because they also had a genuine, honestly held belief, then justice can never be served. It is beholden on those with a state licence to kill to make
              110% certain that their actions are justified and even more so than a home owner protecting their property. They are supposed to be trained unlike us, they were wide awake (supposedly) rather than being woken up
              by an intruder AND they have protective gear. In all of this, they have failed far too many times and never been held properly accountable.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    How about a picture of Mark Duggan, Spec? Or isn`t that relevant?

    • Rainsboro

      The wise words of Inspector Harry Callahan come to mind ” When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher
      knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn’t out collecting for the Red Cross”. The police had every reason to think Duggan had a gun and would use it, the jury got it right

      • HookesLaw

        A good film, but that was a film and the real life circumstances were widely different . But I think the jury decician was the right one.

    • Paddy

      How about a picture of PC Blakelock as a reminder to the younger generation of what these animals are capable of.

    • George Smiley

      We should not dignify this criminal scum by polluting this ancient and venerable magazine with his vile and menacing face on his photographic portraiture.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    “Mark Duggan lawfully killed, says high court jury”
    Does the name Jean Charles de Menezes strike a chord? Trigger-happy Plod. Shoot first, ask questions much, much later.

    • RavenRandom

      No sympathy for gangster with a gun.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        You could be next, Raven. When a thicker-than-average Plod mistakes your camera with its long-range lens for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.
        “I was in fear for my life.”
        “course you were, Constable Flashman.”

        • victor67

          Only if he’s black!

        • RavenRandom

          Maybe. If I had a criminal history. Maybe if I was an active criminal. Maybe if I had a gun in the car.
          Gangster, with a history, with a gun makes you a person of interest for armed police.

      • Mike

        Any sympathy for a home owner banged up after killing an intruder ?

        • RavenRandom

          Yes. Not sure how your comment is relevant to the either the topic or this comment thread.

          • Mike

            Elsewhere I drew the comparison between plod killing a criminal and a home owner killing an intruder. The courts side with the police officer with some justification however they don’t when its a home owner killing an intruder.

            Level playing field it isn’t !

            • RavenRandom

              Fair enough. I agree with you, if someone is in your home to steal or do harm, they should not be surprised at the consequences. Especially as a threatened person in their own home is so scared and flush with adrenaline that they are not likely to be thinking clearly.

              • Mike

                That was the real issue I was trying to bring out.

                A trained plod fully awake & protected with body armour should have a much higher level of legal scrutiny over a death caused by them than a person in their home whose just been woken up from their sleep.

                The trouble is, it doesn’t happen that way in real life and the police can kill with no apparent sanction (Jean Charles de Menezes) whilst Tony Martin (and others) serve time.

                • Paddy

                  Have you got an agenda here!

                • Mike

                  Of course, but you seem to have missed it.

                  Its very simple, I expect the police to be at least legally accountable to the same level as the general public rather than sliding out of responsibility for manslaughter. Is that too unreasonable to ask for or are they excused from the consequences of their actions !

      • Holly

        I agree, in part, but at such a young age, why was he a gangster, and why did he have a gun? His behaviour probably began many years before this incident.

        These questions must be asked, answered, and corrected, in order for the number of the next generation of very young gangsters, with guns, to be cut.

        • RavenRandom

          Don’t get confused with the current incident “society made him do it” and underlying social causes. In full knowledge he broke the law. If you carry a gun, and are a part of a known criminal gang then you wilfully up the probability that something nasty will happen to you.

    • HookesLaw

      Just because that operation was mishandled in the aftermath of a bomb attack (and it seems to be it was very badlky handled) that does not make the reaction here wrong.

    • Paddy

      Try living in America.

    • George Smiley

      Shut up, you little Japanese twerp!

  • Bonkim

    Mark Duggan – criminal – No sympathy for low life.

  • Peter Stroud

    A jury, after hearing all the evidence gave their verdicts: majority verdicts, but final verdicts nevertheless. They decided that Duggan was not holding a gun, when he was shot. But it seems obvious that the police had good reason to think that he was either concealing his hand, which held a gun, or going for a gun. That is why the jury concluded that the police were legally justified in shooting. They should never be abused for doing their job.

    • Mike

      As I’ve posted elsewhere, if plod can be let off on a perceived threat then why are others arrested and incarcerated (Tony Martin) over reaction to a real threat !

      • James Healey

        Tony Martin shot someone from a first floor window as they were running away down the drive, and they weren’t armed – I have sympathy for him, (I believe he’d been burgled 16 times in 2 years) but he was never going to get away with a common law self defence plea under those circumstances. But running towards a gangster, who you’ve been briefed is in possession of a gun, who doesn’t follow your lawful commands and jumps out of his car gun in hand…..that does justify a pre-emotive strike.

        • Mike

          With Martin, I believe those intruders were actually tooled up with some weapons and in any respect, if someone is on your property I believe you have the moral right to protect yourself in any manner without pulling out some legal tome to check on your response level. Legal niceties and weasels words don’t cut it for me when the judiciary cannot experience your fears in your own home.

          However, last year we had that couple in a farmhouse who shot and killed an armed intruder (face to face) and were arrested for 3 days in an obvious case of self defence. I doubt the police officer who shot Duggan was held for 5 minutes to justify his killing actions.

          Of course we mustn’t forget the manslaughter of Jean Charles de Menezes (and others) who were gunned down by incompetent police without any command to stand still, stop. If you’re innocent of any wrong doing and are in a crowd when an unmarked plod shouts out something, do you automatically assume he’s shouting at you, I don’t think so.

          The Duggan shooting was described by a police insider as consisting of a thousand f*** ups just like the Menezes killing and even though there was no pre-meditation to kill either man, the police have not been held properly accountable.

          If nothing else, in the case of Menezes, police officers should have been put away for manslaughter due to gross incompetence.

          • Paddy

            “Of course we mustn’t forget the manslaughter of Charles de Menezes”.

            And we mustn’t forget PC Blakelock.

            • Mike

              Of course we shouldn’t forget PC Blakelocks death and I certainly sympathize with his death.

              However, incompetent plod might eventually get a correct conviction of the real killer in March this year after previously ‘fitting up’ Silcot, Engin Raghip and Mark Braithwaite only to have those convictions overturned in 1991. Can we really trust them to get it right ?

          • Makroon

            The difference is that de Menezes an entirely innocent bloke, was offered some sympathy but very little attention by the TV media, whereas Duggan a murder suspect and gun-toting drug dealer and gang capo is already being turned into “the Steve Biko of Tottenham” by our disgusting TV media.

            • Mike

              My point wasn’t about trying to make Duggan out to be a innocent but everything to do with the disparity between legal & judicial scrutiny when a police officer kills someone and when a home owner injures or kills an intruder.

              Examples like Menezes demonstrate the ‘get out’ card that plod plays so well compared with a couple in Melton Mowbary who are arrested and banged up for 3 nights when protecting themselves against 4 armed intruders.

              Level playing field it isn’t !

            • Fergus Pickering

              Steve Biko? No. You’ve lost me. A footballer? The name rings a bell.

              • Jackthesmilingblack

                Pretending ignorance and stupidity isn’t really funny. But then perhaps you’re not pretending.

        • Eyesee

          Your point would be stronger if it didn’t contain fabrication. Duggan did not jump out of the car gun in hand, he was shot, as the jury said, without any sight of a gun. In fact the police couldn’t immediately find a gun. I care less for Duggan than the fact our police shoot people a little too readily, a little too often and sometimes for no reason at all. Yet they (unlike the Army) never have to face any consequences. Read the IPCC report on Harry Stanley. It is a document that, from start to finish is designed to exonerate the officers involved. Then ask why. A political police force of course, is protected by its political masters. Is that what we have?

          • James Healey

            It doesn’t contain fabrication. The jury did not say he was shot without any sight of a gun. The jury accepted he was in possession of a gun prior to the shooting. The jury thought “more likely than not” that he threw it over the fence prior to the shots being fired. That suggests to me that he probably jumped out of the car with the gun in his hand and threw it over the fence, which would fit with the officers account. “our police shoot people a little too readily, a little too often and sometimes for no reason at all” – what is your evidence for any of that? Our police very rarely shoot people, certainly as a percentage of the number of armed operations they conduct, and I guarantee they are more accountable than the army. Can I point out that the army in Iraq and Afghanistan are not fighting a war (well obviously they are, but not in legal terms) they are conducting peace support operations. Their legal power to use force i.e. shoot people, is defined by their rules of engagement, which are broadly based on common law rules of self defence, which the police are relying on. Are you really suggesting that all the fatal shootings the army have been involved in in the last 10 years have been subject to the same level of investigation as police shootings here?! Seriously? Why do you bring up Harry Stanley? Are you suggesting they shouldn’t have been exonerated? Why?

            • Mike

              By your own summation you have questioned the juries result despite not saying as much. If the jury thought “more likely than not” that he threw it over the fence prior to the shots being fired then surely that means they believed he was shot whilst unarmed. Hardly a case of lawful killing and in any respect, the police stated they didn’t have conclusive proof he had a gun when they shot him.

              As for accountability, they were never charged with reckless endangerment or manslaughter over the Menezes killing when they should have been and their eyesight is highly questionable what with killing a man with a chair leg, tasering a blind man whilst at the same time they apparently have xray vision to see a gun inside a sock with Duggan.

              Why can’t we all agree that plod f***** up big time on many occasions and need to be held to account for a change.

              • James Healey

                Of course it can be lawful killing even if he was unarmed. The law is based on the circumstances as you perceived them to be, as long as your perception was reasonable. If the officer saw the gun, believed he was going to be shot, took the decision to shoot in good faith, and Duggan threw the gun before the shots were fired, but the officer didn’t realise this, that’s lawful killing. Which appears to be the decision the jury reached.
                Accountability does not mean getting charged. It means accounting for your actions. The officers have accounted for their actions, in court, under highly aggressive cross examination from the country’s top QC (presumably at the cost of hundreds of thousands of tax payer pounds, I can’t see the Duggan family having paid him!) and the jury have accepted they lawfully killed Duggan. Why can’t you?
                I’ve already replied re. Menezes below. As for the chair leg, it was wrapped in bags and Stanley had told people in the pub it was a gun and he was going to shoot someone. They called the police saying he had a gun, and when the officers challenged him, he pointed it at them. Clearly it was suicide by cop, but how were they to know it wasn’t a gun? How is this evidence of them “f****** up”?

                • Mike

                  If the police had acted correctly and not made mistakes in a raft of police killings that have occurred in recent years, it must beg the question why changes have been made to their operating procedures. There’s that old saying, “if it aint broke then don’t fix it”. Quite obviously even they realise they messed up big time.

                  However the problem is, you’re still missing the point. You’ve given all manner of excuses why the police mistook a chair leg for a gun or with Duggan they could apparently see a gun through a sock but fail to see it discarded and with Menezes perhaps he had a ‘dangerous looking’ rucksac. However, when it comes to home owner in a very real clear and present danger, they are treated differently when they injure or kill an intruder.

                  Just where is the justification in having two sets of legal rules for dealing with ‘manslaughter’ depending on who carried it out. This is the real question, not legal mumbo jumbo as to what happens in practice when its nothing but a lame excuse.

                • James Healey

                  I’m not missing the point. I get your point, I’m just saying you’re wrong. The home owner is not treated differently. The home owner who kills an intruder, and the police officer who kills in the course of his duty, must both justify their actions against the same legal criteria. You have not produced a single example of a home owner convicted for killing an intruder, where a police officer wouldn’t have been convicted under the same circumstances, or of a police officer exonerated, where a member of the public wouldn’t have been.

                • Mike

                  I am not purely talking about court cases, I am talking about the whole judicial procedure.

                  The couple in Meltom Mowbary who injured (not killed) one of 4 armed men who broke into their property were arrested and kept in jail for 3 days whilst plod interrogated them.

                  Was ANY plod who killed Menezes, Duggan or any other person ever arrested and held in prison for interrogation for 1 minute let alone 3 days ? No, I didn’t think so and that’s my first point which you choose to ignore.

                  On the second point, the home owner is arrested by plod whilst they and the CPS deliberate if a crime might have been committed. When plod kills a person, it is up to the IPCC to decide what to do. They are two completely different legal process’s and the justifiable homicide argument is not the same. How can it be when its not the same bodies investigating the events that occurred nor the same procedures.

                  On your last point, many a motorist has served time for manslaughter when a person was killed due to their mistakes. I recall a driver up north who fell asleep, crashed through a barrier and ended up on the train tracks that caused a train crash which killed someone. He actually served time for his mistake but the plod who killed Menezes didn’t serve time for his mistake.

                  I rest my case !

                • Eyesee

                  Thanks for the update on the Harry Stanley shooting, it is very important information as it was not in the IPCC report, you may want to contact them. He ‘turned around aggressively, in a combat stance’ said the police. What is the chance this is true of a painter and decorator, who had no reason to believe the armed police were talking to him?

            • Eyesee

              You say I need to substantiate that the police shoot people a little too readily and then ask why I bring up Harry Stanley! Er, perhaps because he was a completely innocent member of the public with a chair leg in a bag, who was shot because when challenged from behind he turned round! Or try looking up the Terry Nicholas shooting. A man trying to get a gun to protect himself (two attempts on his life) and armed police rush at him, in an alley, in unmarked cars, at night. Amazingly he shot at them, so they had to kill him. Had to. The concern is the tactics of the police, not the actions of armed criminals.

  • Julieann Carter

    It’s the Laurie Penny’s and Owen Jone’s on Twitter, stirring up malcontent among their followers and anyone else who’ll pay them attention, that I detest.
    Diane Abbott too, pretending ‘bafflement’, and then ratcheting up further tension by referring to ‘cuts, and ‘austerity’.

    • Ricky Strong

      Even hearing Laurie Penny’s name makes me seethe with anger, though she bit off more than she could chew picking on Starkey at the Sunday Times festival of Education. Well worth a watch on youtube if you are not familiar.

    • John Lea

      That’s the same Dianne Abbott who took her son out of the local comprehensive and straight into a private school, so that he (presumably) wouldn’t have to mingle with the likes of Duggan.

      • Andy

        The poisonous old bag was on SkyNews this afternoon.

  • Colin

    Oops, that’s compo claim out the window, then…

  • Holly

    Would the mother’s reaction have been any different IF her son had had a gun in his hand?
    I can understand her shock and anger, at the loss of her son, but he chose the path he travelled, and nothing anyone says, or does will ever change the emotions she is feeling.
    She will forever love him, and mourn his passing.

    While the public and police were ‘detached’ from that ‘closeness’, we will forever see a young man who chose the wrong path.

    Neither are wrong in their feelings.

    • Alexandrovich

      Not me Holly – I’ve forgotten him already.

      • Holly

        I hope you feel better for it.
        Whenever this young man’s name is mentioned you will remember who he was, and the reasons why.

        He was raised in the Labour era, and there are hundreds of young people in this country like him.
        Our feelings towards these young people will always be different from the feelings of their family and friends.
        He is just one of many who, because of Labour’s social engineering, never had a chance. He, and his mother, like many others were sucked in, and all boundaries were taken away, proper punishments were frowned upon by the bleeding hearts.They were seen as old fashioned, cruel but the results speak for themselves.

        Imagine what it is like to be young in Britain today.
        They have been allowed, by most of the adults in their lives, to basically do as they please, and many of them have. Now adults themselves they have little, if any perception of being respectful to others,or any real understanding that the rule of law now also applies to them. It never has before.
        Everything that they have experienced from their early years to adulthood, no longer applies. They are, all of a sudden expected to know and understand how things work in the real world, when they have never been taught how to behave.

        It would not be very far from the truth that they have been raised to be feral.

        How would you, or anyone go about knowing or understanding something we have never been taught?

        There are many factors, and many people to blame for why so many young people have gone down the path this young man did, and placing ALL the blame onto him may seem justified, he was just a bad un. But the social structure of his life also contributed to his choices.

        • Paddy

          And also think of the mothers of the young police officers who have to go onto the streets unarmed to sort out these delinquents.

  • Jambo25

    The BBC, in heir breathless reports, were obviously hoping that this will lead to more trouble. One of the Duggan family was repeatedly shown chanting “No justice. No peace.”. In the context of what happened in 2011, that appears to me to be getting rather close to incitement.

  • Daniel Maris

    Whatever you think about this family, we can’t let thug families rule our society. They should be dealt with very severely, shown who’s boss.

    I say that as someone who strongly condemned the severe sentencing of poor kids who nipped into a shop to get a free pair of trainers.

    Thugs are quite different.

    • Alexsandr

      theft is OK then?
      how would you like it of a load of looters smashed your doors and windows in and just took your stuff?

      • Daniel Maris

        I didn’t say it was OK. I denounced the severity of the sentencing for what amounted to a bit of opportunistic petty theft. They shouldn’t have been punished but 4 years sentences for knicking a pair of trainers is ridiculous. If the Police abandon the streets violence and theft will always follow eventually.

        • Alexsandr

          well I am not going to defend plod for their lamentable response to the riots. but that doesnt excuse the behaviour of the rioters and what must have been a very scary experience for the residents of the areas affected. and for some of the shopkeepers. There was one shop in brum that still had staff in it when the riots started there. they were trapped in the shop while the thieves tried to break down the shutters.
          Thats why heavy sentences were necessary. But an apologist for petty crooks would not understand that.

          • Daniel Maris

            I never said it excused their behaviour. I said the sentencing was too severe given the nature of the offences – opportunistic thefts by mostly poor teenage kids from single mum families who have to swim in a sea of affluence in London.

            • HookesLaw

              Whats wrong with affluence? Why should affluence, aka hard work and success, be a reason for justifying crime. There are jobs – but these oiks cannot be bothered – they want it but will not work for it.

            • Alexsandr

              Oh shut up. There are plenty of kids from deprived backgrounds who don’t go out stealing. This was pure and simple theft during a riot and as such deserves a heavy sentence.

              and if the offenders from the riots hadn’t been punished properly, then we probably would have had trouble last night.

        • Agrippina

          Quite right, folks who were dialling 999 and recieving no assistance at all, even though there were in danger, the police should not have abandoned the streets. They did not abandon the West End, sadly the poor decent folks of Tottenham and other areas were abandoned. Thus sending out the wrong signals to the opportunists.

          • Paddy

            Do you realise how few police there are on the streets of London at any one time.

        • Colonel Mustard

          You lefties have never considered the theft of property to be a real crime. It is one of the reasons we are where we are.

          • Daniel Maris

            No I don’t consider shoplifting from Tescos to be a crime in the same way mugging a little old lady is a crime – just as many people here don’t consider TV licence fee evasion to be a real crime.

            In the “good old days” which you will remember Colonel, shopkeepers sensibly kept their goods behind counters and under glass so they couldn’t be stolen.

            • HookesLaw

              Absurd.

            • Nicholas chuzzlewit

              Fascinating. Do you ever express an opinion on anything which is not absurd?

        • Andy

          No it wasn’t. Theft is theft and in these cases it was aggravated by riot.

          • John Border

            And Andy – racism is racism aggravated by hatred . Thats you, dear boy!

            • Andy

              Liar. You are just Fascist Scum. Get ye to the Guardian where you belong.

              • John Border

                Oh you silly tw*t. Fascism and Socialism are enemies. Even a window licker knows that. But not you. LOL! You spotty teenager you! Now get back to another session of “frapper la viande”…

      • Mike

        Sadly, under UK law we cant use extreme prejudice like plod does to protect ourselves otherwise there’s a better than even chance will end up inside like Tony Martin did !

    • Agrippina

      If the family had behaved in a dignified manner, the public may have sympathised, but the behaviour inside and outside court has been disgraceful.

      • Holly

        And there was no one else allowed to ‘guide’ him either.
        Will we learn any lessons from this?
        That there has to be boundaries set from an early age. That rules are set down to teach children that they are respected enough to be made to adhere to them, so they grow up very different from this young man.

        There are hundreds of young people in the same position of never having to do what they don’t want, and hundreds of adults going along with this idiotic idea.

  • Rainsboro

    Any chance the Spectator could run an instant competition ‘Write a 1500 word piece for the Guardian on why this was a racist killing’ with the prize going to the one which most exactly matches the first article on CiF. Or is that just too easy?

  • Agrippina

    If he was such a decent hardworking chap, why did he have a gun about his person. How did he support himself and 6 or 4 kids, reports vary on this fact. Why did he associate with known criminals if he is such a ‘decent hardworking fellow’.

    One fewer criminal with a gun, so far as I can tell.

    • John Lea

      Well said. One less half-wit in the world. Would hate to live in London, mind, surrounded by gangsta thugs like Duggan and his awful family.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Nice legacy, though. The damage caused during the Tottenham riots can be laid at Plod`s door, exacerbated by their deliberately slow response.

        • HookesLaw

          You are right about a slow response to riots . In this case re the shooting I think I can understand the jury’s verdict; meantimethe howling family mob and their supporters speak the themselves.

        • John Border

          You still alive? I heard you’d pleasured yourself to death.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            It was so dull in town that I took myself off on three months’ backpacking in third-world Asia. Much like yourself I dare say.
            Jack, Kathmandu

  • albertcooper

    Why does the Left,the wounded.,the folk who see gang crime as a legitimate pursuit always shout down ,and in this case the Police Spokesman !

  • monty61

    Shocked at just how much airtime the PM programme has just given to various spokespeople for a convicted villan and active gang member who by common consent had a gun in the car even if it turned out he wasn’t holding it when shot.

    These so-called ‘community’ leaders (including the Black Officers’ leader) ought to be given short shrift … instead it seems to be OK to shout your head off at a deputy chief constable and have it reported as legitimate protest and not what it is – low-life loutish thuggery – on the national news.

    Having no TV I don’t pay a licence fee so I’ve made my protest already, but you have to ask: precisely who is served by this kowtowing to scumbag demagoguery?

    • Alexsandr

      who are these so called community leaders. Have they been elected or anything? No? then shut up.

      • In2minds

        Alexandr asks about community leaders. Well these are the people feted by our politicians and police for so long it will be a habit hard to break. But then that’s stupidity for you.

    • toco10

      Why was Duggan running around London with a gun in a cardboard box?Was it merely an accessory or did he intend using it?

      • Andy

        A good question.

      • John Border

        It was supplied by the police.

    • victor67

      So our Police never lie and conspire to fabricate evidence? This sounds like the cop panicked and screwed up big time by shooting an unarmed man with a blackberry in his hand and his mates are covering up for him.(Standard practice in the Police and Military). He even shot one of his colleagues .

      There has never been a recorded conviction of any Police Officer after any death due to Police action. I don’t think we have heard the last of this and it will be damming for the Met when the truth comes out.

      • crosscop

        “There has never been a recorded conviction of any Police Officer after any death due to Police action.”
        Bollocks. Two of my old colleagues were sent down for murder – later reduced to manslaughter on appeal.

        • victor67

          While on duty?

          • crosscop

            Yes. They beat a prisoner to death in the cells.

      • Paddy

        What an absolute load of rubbish.

        Do you realise the care the British police have to take before they are even allowed to carry a gun.

        If you were a police officer how would you like to go on to the streets and face that ‘scum’ that were outside the court last night.

        • victor67

          The Police no matter how well trained they are fallible and make mistakes. A tragic one in this case. However instead of being open about it . They have conspired from the start to cover it up and smear the victim by overestimating his gang involvement and excluding his family.
          The cover up is what will come back to bite the Met.

    • victor67

      Also if the Police had nothing to cover up. Why did they start briefing the media immediately after the incident feeding false information to the press?

    • Ben Kelly

      It’s being used as another way of neutering the police which is one of the primary reasons that gun crime and gangsterism is out of control in parts of London. They shoot a violent, gun owning, drug dealing gangster and the whole place erupts into riots and the police are vilified instead of the criminal. It happens in the USA except they don’t use it as a way of weakening the police force every time an incident happens. I’m sure the liberals that defend him would have been disgusted if they actually met the gansta and met some of the victims of his crimes, and I don’t doubt there are some. Sick of it.

      https://twitter.com/TheScepticIsle

    • dalai guevara

      Whilst I fully agree with your feelings, the issue here is not whether some thuggery is observed yelling at a chap in uniform. The issue here is that we collectively do not fall into the trap of beating the clientele you so aptly describe at their own game.
      We must be seen observing the laws of the land, not ignoring them.
      That currently appears to be the line of attack of all those who have a TV and perhaps watch too much cr*p on it all day long.

      Why the skin colour of some other spokesperson even comes into this is way beyond me. As far as I could *see* on TV, the mililant auntie was of caucasian descent.

      • monty61

        Radio is colour-blind. All I heard was a disgusting rabble.

    • ButcombeMan

      “Policing by consent” is one of the tired old cliches produced out of the mouths of Common Purpose brainwashed Bramshill fodder, the same fodder that initially tried to deny massive fiiddling with crime statistics, the same fodder that initially sided with the Officers in the Diplomatic Protection Group. The same fodder that preserves too many Constabularies and too many Police ranks. The same Policing leadership that hung back after the first Duggan inspired riots. Deliberately I think, to give politicians a fright.

      Policing by consent does NOT mean, the consent of the rabble. It should mean the consent of the majority.

      We have seen (historically) where this PC nonsense gets us. It gets the no go (for policing) areas of Liverpool that existed in the 80s.

      It is about time some government, any government, got a grip on Policing.

      Scattering about Police Commissioners like confetti, has not done it.

    • anncalba

      Still the main item on News on the BBC website. The Nation’s subsidised Broadcaster. Impartial – they don’t know the meaning of the word.

    • Makroon

      Duggan was more white than black. It is the media that has tried to turn this into a “black issue”. Sky even had a nice picture of a burning bus as a background – evidently to encourage the malcontents to set London ablaze again. And Leveson excluded the TV media – laughable.

    • John Border

      ‘it seems to be OK to shout your head off at a deputy chief constable’

      You of course defer to authority and would no doubt do a Monica Lewinsky on the officer, just to show how debased you are.

      If arrested for drunkenness you would beg for more as the cops beat you down and tasered you. More sir please!!

      • monty61

        Hmmm, your image, your fantasy it would appear.

        • John Border

          Which; the beating, Monica, or grovelling to authority? I’m going for Monica. Dont you like that sort of thing? Pray tell.

          Dont try playing the psychologist, you are a miserable failure.

Close