Riot in London last night

[the_leander]

According to Murdoch's channel, Tottenham isn't convinced by that explanation.

Yes I saw that, the fact that he was well known to the police as a gangster and thug are irrelevant.

But he was a good boy who loved his family.... So were the Krays by all accounts.

Which begs the question: how do you know this is the way it happened?

Preponderance of available evidence. So far Murdochs channel which has claimed that the gun was a fake (doesn't matter - as it happens it was but), that there was no gun (errr) and that he would never have pulled it on a rozzer have so far been disproved.

The story from the police has been pretty consistent throughout. There hasn't been the sort of story changing on the police side that you find when they've fucked up. Consider the Tompkinson case - first there was no cameras working in the area, then they suggested that it might have been protesters that did it and so on and so on until the amateur footage from that tourist popped up.

How quickly we forget Jean Charles de Menezes.

Was a tragic accident brought about by lack of resources and bad communication.

Wildly different from a yardy pointing a gun at you in the first person. Kinda takes the grey out of the situation.

 

[Robert]

Preponderance of available evidence.

Such as?
-EDIT-
Sky, BBC, RT, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Herald, Scotsman, Independent: all reporting the manner of his death as:
"circumstances which are still unclear"

But you *know* what happened?

The story from the police has been pretty consistent throughout.

I haven't seen this story.
Do you have a link to it?

I've only read snippets, mostly third-hand and some contradictory (e.g. the bullet lodged in the police radio was originally claimed to have come from Duggan, then suggestion that it was a police bullet.)

Was a tragic accident brought about by lack of resources and bad communication.

Accident?
I beg to differ. Pinning an unarmed man to the floor and shooting him repeatedly in the head is not something I could ever describe as an accident.

Then again, if this type of behaviour can be called accidental, it's easy to see why being struck by a police baton can be "accidental".

 

[adz]

Basmati Rice...It's for makin' curry'n'shit!

 

[Robert]

Sky News:
"Tottenham wants answers about the death of Mark Duggan."

Russia Today just ran an identical report.
A.P. reports on both channels or do RT get their UK news from Sky?

 

[the_leander]

I haven't seen this story.
Do you have a link to it?

A fairly good start here.

The TL;DR version.

He was stopped in his cab as part of Operation Trident - which deals with gun crime in the black community.
He was shot in the chest.
An officer was injured during this although it appears that was a blue on blue. Initial reports suggested Duggan had shot the officer.
Duggan was armed and his gun was taken away for testing. Turns out it wasn't a replica as some claimed but the real thing.
That the Met should have but didn't sent an FLO to speak to the family to break the news (which was the cause of their initial protest).

Btw, there is apparently a youtube vid of the incident involving the 16 year old. Looks like I was wrong and for that I apologise to you.

I've only read snippets, mostly third-hand and some contradictory (e.g. the bullet lodged in the police radio was originally claimed to have come from Duggan, then suggestion that it was a police bullet.)

I think the suggestion that it came from a police issued gun was initially from the guardian, but I might be wrong on that. Certainly the blogs that have brought up that fact pointed to them.

edit the IPCC look to have confirmed it now.

 

[the_leander]

Russia Today just ran an identical report.
A.P. reports on both channels or do RT get their UK news from Sky?

AFAIK RT have their own people over here. But snagging other networks news isn't beyond them or any other media outlet.

 

[Robert]

A fairly good start here.

Thank you but nowhere in that report does it say Duggan pulled his gun on police.
In fact, it doesn't even say it was him carrying the gun.

Again, whilst I accept that Duggan pulling his gun is the most likely explanation, I see nothing in that BBC link to explain your certainty about it.

If I'm missing something, I apologise and please point to it.

Btw, there is apparently a youtube vid of the incident involving the 16 year old. Looks like I was wrong and for that I apologise to you.

No need to apologise to me. It wasn't me claiming it happened, I was just relaying what various news outlets were saying.

 

[Dammy]

 

[the_leander]

Thank you but nowhere in that report does it say Duggan pulled his gun on police.
In fact, it doesn't even say it was him carrying the gun.

Like I said, it was a start, not the whole thing. Besides, until the report comes out tomorrow it'll be highly unusual to disclose such.

However, it is clear it was his gun, according to the guardian.

We know that he was a member of a well known criminal gang, we know also that he was feeling paranoid after the fatal stabbing of his cousin a few weeks prior. We know that the police had enough intelligence on him to point CO19 at him as part of Operation Trident. It then becomes a question of probability.

Again, whilst I accept that Duggan pulling his gun is the most likely explanation, I see nothing in that BBC link to explain your certainty about it.

If I'm missing something, I apologise and please point to it.

Like I said, preponderance of evidence. None of the claims of the guardian about him not having a gun or it being a replica have stood up.

Just saw this edit:

Such as?
-EDIT-
Sky, BBC, RT, Guardian, Telegraph, Times, Herald, Scotsman, Independent: all reporting the manner of his death as:
"circumstances which are still unclear"

But you *know* what happened?

Please stop putting words into my mouth.

I said, and I quote "The preponderance of evidence". Not, "I know", not "I was there", or anything else.

Also didn't notice this bit:

Accident?
I beg to differ. Pinning an unarmed man to the floor and shooting him repeatedly in the head is not something I could ever describe as an accident.

Beg all you want, the initial stake out was primed for someone entirely different.

It was accidental in as much as they got the wrong man, which was due to poor communication.

So unless you have evidence showing they were looking for him from the beginning, then yes, his death was accidental in as much as they got the wrong man.

That's not to take away from his death, or to say that the officer wasn't intent on killing the suspect, problem was he wasn't their suspect.

I've little doubt however that even if they had kept on with the actual suspect, that there wouldn't have been a death that day.

 

[Robert]

Like I said, preponderance of evidence. None of the claims of the guardian about him not having a gun or it being a replica have stood up.

Straw man - demonstrating as false a claim that it was either a fake or not there is not the same as demonstrating he pulled it on police.

Please stop putting words into my mouth.

I said, and I quote "The preponderance of evidence". Not, "I know", not "I was there", or anything else.

You also said:
"Yardy gangster pulled a gun on armed police, got slotted. The end."

I asked how you could be sure and you cited, "evidence."

Now unless you want to argue the difference between "being sure" and "knowing," I don't really see how you can accuse me of putting words in your mouth.
-EDIT-
I've just gone back and re-read and I actually asked you, "how do you know?"

So, I'll kindly ask you to withdraw your accusation.

It was accidental in as much as they got the wrong man,

Killing the wrong person is not the same as accidentally killing someone.
Please tell me you understand the difference?
Equating the two is beyond silly.

 

[Glaucus]

From what's been presented here in the thread it seems to me that nothing is 100% certain, so no one can say they know anything. Regardless, even if someone claims to "know" something based on incomplete facts, it's not that big a deal unless that person has the authority to issue arrest warrants or something. So in a way you're probably both right but overall, it's kinda pointless.

 

[Robert]

in a way you're probably both right but overall, it's kinda pointless.

True dat.

 

[the_leander]

Straw man - demonstrating as false a claim that it was either a fake or not there is not the same as demonstrating he pulled it on police.

Like I said preponderance of evidence. And not a strawman as it goes toward that. So far evidence to the contrary such as him not having a gun have proven false. If something comes up later that proves one way or the other that what is out there already is incorrect, I will accept that. For citation, see the incident of the 16 year old.

You also said:
"Yardy gangster pulled a gun on armed police, got slotted. The end."

I asked how you could be sure and you cited, "evidence."

You asked for the story so far as you'd only seen snippets, so I pointed you to an article which I thought put together most of the facts known about the case together in one nice neat bundle. I then followed this up with the background of the man citing multiple sources covering the key parts.

Apparently I'm not the only one who has come across the claim that Duggan pulled a gun, so this is floating around out there...

"It wasn't like this before," said one woman standing close to one of the two burned-out police cars. "It started out as a peaceful demonstration. The police shot a guy here last week and they lied about what happened. They said he pulled a gun but he wouldn't have done that with armed police. They shot him so badly that his mother could not recognise him."

It should be noted that the IPCC have put out a statement disputing that last part here.

Now unless you want to argue the difference between "being sure" and "knowing," I don't really see how you can accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

I never once stated I knew, you said that. I said, in my initial reply to you what I said was based on the preponderance of evidence. So yes, you did put words into my mouth.

Killing the wrong person is not the same as accidentally killing someone.
Please tell me you understand the difference?
Equating the two is beyond silly.

Unless you can show that they intended to kill him from the outset, then yes, it was accidental. And whilst I accept it is likely that had they been on the tail of the person they were supposed to be he might have died instead, that is not evidence of intent.

 

[Robert]

not a strawman as it goes toward that.

Of course it's a strawman.
Summary:
Q: Where's the evidence he pulled a gun?
A: Someone claimed the gun was fake. Here's some evidence that the gun wasn't fake.

That, Alan, is a strawman.

You asked for the story so far as you'd only seen snippets,

I asked "how do you know?"

I never once stated I knew, you said that.[/b]

I asked how you knew and you said "preponderance of evidence."

So yes, you did put words into my mouth.

bollox - I'm not having that.

If I posted, for example,
"Scotland game is off,"
and you asked,
"How do you know?"
I say.
"Evidence."
You say,
"Everywhere else says the game's on but you *know* it's off?"
If I then come back with,
"Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I knew,"
well, you'd be within your rights to call me a drama queen.

Unless you can show that they intended to kill him from the outset, then yes, it was accidental.

Good grief - wrong guy or not, they chased an innocent, unarmed man into the station, pinned him to the floor and shot him in the head six or seven times.

An accident would have been if the gun went off unexpectedly and hit him by mistake.

If someone comes round to your house, breaks in, smashes it up and says, "Make sure you've paid by Monday!"
when it turns out your next door neighbour owes money to gangsters, your house getting smashed up in a case of mistaken identity doesn't suddenly become an accident.

I honestly cannot believe you don't understand the difference.
How depressing.

Anyway, it appears we agreed all along that Duggan probably pulled a gun.
-EDIT-
from your Guardian link:

it is not clear whether he ever opened fire or even drew his weapon

-ANOTHER EDIT-
Just been on the news that ballistics show he categorically did not open fire.
The bullet lodged in the police radio was from another police officer.

-

 

[metalman]

From what's been presented here in the thread it seems to me that nothing is 100% certain, so no one can say they know anything.

What is known for certain, is that Brits have taken up a sudden interest in ... Baseball!

When being questioned by your local bobby about why you have a baseball bat, be sure and know the answers to these questions .... Baseball Quiz for Brits
and be sure to own a ball & glove too!
.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

bollox - I'm not having that.

Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who...

(this is supposed to be a happy occasion).

---
Cops do murder people from time to time though. There is a bunch of lads in just about every force who like to think they are judge and executioner - and they are mostly tolerated due to frustration. It's difficult to build a case and get a conviction and the cops just "know" some guys are dirty but they can't get them legitimately. Quite a lot of the time it's a pick up and then a beating somewhere on the outskirts of town. Sometimes they just outright shoot a guy with a previously confiscated gun. Crap happens. "What the hell, he was a bad guy anyway and had it coming" is the usual attitude.

 

[the_leander]

Of course it's a strawman.
Summary:
<snip>

Not when it is being judged as part of a larger body of evidence. I chose the word preponderance carefully because that is how I looked at and continue to judge the incident. I even explained earlier in this very thread some of the metrics I use to judge such incidents (The police overestimate numbers and underestimate their actions, whilst protesters do the opposite).

That, Alan, is a strawman.

And so begins the condescension.

I asked how you knew and you said "preponderance of evidence."

Which is by it's very definition mutually exclusive to "know".

bollox - I'm not having that.

You bloody will. I'm not going to have you telling me I said something I clearly didn't.

I honestly cannot believe you don't understand the difference.
How depressing.

Whatever.

Anyway, it appears we agreed all along that Duggan probably pulled a gun.
-EDIT-
from your Guardian link:

-ANOTHER EDIT-
Just been on the news that ballistics show he categorically did not open fire.
The bullet lodged in the police radio was from another police officer.

-

It was looking pretty likely that would be the case fairly late last night, especially when the IPCC went tight lipped about it when asked.

 

[Robert]

Not when it is being judged as part of a larger body of evidence.

Whether the gun is fake or real does nothing to answer the question of whether he pulled his gun or not.
Using this in retort to a request for evidence that Duggan pulled his gun is practically the definition of a strawman.

Which is by it's very definition mutually exclusive to "know".

So when I asked you how you knew why not just say, "I don't"?

We could've avoided this whole words-in-the-mouth nonsense.

You bloody will.

OK then.

 

[the_leander]

Using this in retort to a request for evidence

When you asked how I knew, I stated preponderance of evidence. You then asked for the story and I supplied you with the link covering the bulk of the information available.

And when pushed, I believe at the time I did say that... Yes I did... "It then becomes a question of probability."

A point you and I both agree on.

OK then.

Heh, s'funny - my mum used to use that line on me, worked then too.

 

[the_leander]

So now that that's out of the way...

Who'd like to place bets on whether or not it'll kick off now that there are ~16000 police on the ground as opposed to the 6000 that were out last night?