I love that auntie, she's brilliant, I think the black community need someone like that, hopefully the police will do the right thing from now on and stop killing black people in their custody.
You go Auntie.:)
If you read this in Charlie Brookers voice it really does sound like something out of Weekly Wipe.
I mean it does sound like the kind of sarcastic thing he would say on the show...I mean this surely isn't a serious post.
I really don't get what this is all about.
Mark Duggan had a gun. Now what he did with it, how, why and when, doesn't get over the fact that this person had gone out and got a gun.
Why are they trying to make him out to be some totally innocent person wrongly murdered by the police? That is not the facts of the matter.
Go around carrying a gun, then it's YOU who are the disgusting person and no one should cry when they get shot. One less person who thinks that carrying a gun is acceptable and that laws don't apply to them, walking the streets is a good thing.
I agree, anyone carrying a gun on the streets should be locked up, they are dangerous.
The deaths pile up each year, and it has been a shocking 42 years since any officers have been found guilty
So obviously they're all guilty (of what exactly?), and it's been hushed up by everyone involved.
No chance that the officers when they've been investigated and it's reached things like the inquest, or trials have been found not guilty by a jury who has heard the evidence.
Of course not, that would be nonsense, the idea that a jury might find officers acted correctly/did not do anything wrong.
Just heard a quote from (I think the Aunt), who apparently said the inquest was weighed against the interests of the victim, family, and community.
Well I'd hope so, the Inquest is there to find out what happened and should be weighed in the interests of the truth.
Not giving the family, the community, or anyone else the specific result they want.
What the family seems to have wanted was a result that said that Duggan was as innocent as the driven snow, and the evil police decided to shoot him for ***** and giggles.
I noticed some trade unionists were outside demonstrating.
Wouldn't it perhchance be better for them to do what they get paid/asked to do?
I don't imagine any of the trade unions want to officially be associated with this. Looks more like some people had made placards with some trade union logos on them, which they can do all they like, but it doesn't mean much. I could have stood there with one that said "NO MORE POLICE MURDERERS" with the RAC logo on it, doesn't mean they support my views.
I'd refrained from passing comment whilst the investigation and inquest were ongoing, here are my views which I now feel I can legally express:
This whole thing makes me sick.
No, not the entirely correct and proper police activity, investigation and judicial processes. The repulsive way those within the criminal fraternity and mindless lefties have hijacked this situation to turn it into something it isn't.
Firstly, the question of race.
Duggan wasn't shot because he was black. He was shot because he was illegally in possession of a firearm and coupled with his history of criminality (both convicted and intelligence only) meant that officers legitimately and understandably felt at threat when confronting him.
The race card has been exploited by some in "the community", in the wider population and by those in public life with an agenda such as David Lammy, Diane Abbott and Keith Vaz.
The latter know entirely how disingenuous and dangerous this type of game-playing is but have elected to put their popularity with certain groups ahead of their integrity and morality.
The question of race can be rectified quite quickly by looking at the stats put forward by inquest.org. Before I delve into these, it ought to be noted that these stats were used independently by those with an axe to grind to misrepresent the situation.
From 1990 to end 2013 there were 144 BME deaths in "police custody or otherwise following contact with the police".
In short - BME deaths after "contact" with the police is disproportionate to the population by one third.
No arguments on race can be provided when these facts are known.
Next, whether it was necessary for the police to shoot Duggan.
Duggan was a convicted criminal who was known to police for activities which they had been unable to adequately prosecute. In British law that means he was innocent of those activities.
However, when intelligence became available that he was engaged in the acquisition of a firearm, his background was of paramount importance to those involved in the operation - innocent lives were at stake, including those of the police and general public.
The police operate on the same basis as you or I - they are allowed to use proportionate force if they believe their lives may be in danger.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that lives were in danger throughout.
The officer who fired the shots convinced the jury (of a range of people from the local area, I might add) that he did so in good faith believing there to be an imminent risk.
It has been said that the police are "licenced murderers" and have "escaped justice". It is understandable that people are upset when a loved-one dies but it is somewhat rich of those who live a life of criminality to suddenly decide the law should protect them.
That said, It did just that - the case took almost four months to establish all the facts.
Why did the officer shoot to kill?
He didn't is the simple answer, he shot to prevent himself [and anyone else] coming to harm. To shoot someone in the leg (as has been suggested) is known around the world to be an ineffective and risky tactic.
Police are trained to shoot for the central body mass as:
1). It is more likely they will hit the target than aiming for the head.
2). It will stop someone in their tracks.
It is not reasonable to expect people to put themselves in such dangerous circumstances to act like a social worker or doctor, they aren't able to resolve every situation by discussion and reasoning.
That said, the stats indicate that they are incredibly successful at doing so in most cases -
During 2011/12, there were 12,550 operations in which the use of firearms was authorised.
Firstly, the reaction of Duggan supporters was repulsive - we're given to understand there were threats made (some of which we heard on TV) and damage to the court.
The police took no action. I feel this is wrong but we can understand, if not agree with why - they didn't want to trigger another riot.
This suggests that the British police are being held to ransom by the criminal fraternity because people, as described above, are using this case for their own agendas.
I note Bernard Hogan-Howe was asked on Channel 4 News if the "death was avoidable" to which he gave some lily livered politicians answer.
What he should have said was "absolutely, he [Duggan] could have avoided this by not obtaining a firearm".
Today we have the Socialist Worker rent-a-mob releasing Doves for a brutal gangster - these people appear to have no sense of irony.
We had a mass of people converge on a police station to demand "justice" - they cannot accept that justice has been done in this case.
For years to come people will pander to this group in order to prevent rampant criminality on the streets.
This is deeply damaging to our country and to the morale of the people we pay to protect the majority of decent people who live in the area and around the UK.
It is time people in authority stopped pandering to those with agendas and made these facts crystal clear.
I'd refrained from passing comment whilst the investigation and inquest were ongoing, here are my views which I now feel I can legally express:
This whole thing makes me sick.
No, not the entirely correct and proper police activity, investigation and judicial processes. The repulsive way those within the criminal fraternity and mindless lefties have hijacked this situation to turn it into something it isn't.
Firstly, the question of race.
Duggan wasn't shot because he was black. He was shot because he was illegally in possession of a firearm and coupled with his history of criminality (both convicted and intelligence only) meant that officers legitimately and understandably felt at threat when confronting him.
The race card has been exploited by some in "the community", in the wider population and by those in public life with an agenda such as David Lammy, Diane Abbott and Keith Vaz.
The latter know entirely how disingenuous and dangerous this type of game-playing is but have elected to put their popularity with certain groups ahead of their integrity and morality.
The question of race can be rectified quite quickly by looking at the stats put forward by inquest.org. Before I delve into these, it ought to be noted that these stats were used independently by those with an axe to grind to misrepresent the situation.
From 1990 to end 2013 there were 144 BME deaths in "police custody or otherwise following contact with the police".
In short - BME deaths after "contact" with the police is disproportionate to the population by one third.
No arguments on race can be provided when these facts are known.
Next, whether it was necessary for the police to shoot Duggan.
Duggan was a convicted criminal who was known to police for activities which they had been unable to adequately prosecute. In British law that means he was innocent of those activities.
However, when intelligence became available that he was engaged in the acquisition of a firearm, his background was of paramount importance to those involved in the operation - innocent lives were at stake, including those of the police and general public.
The police operate on the same basis as you or I - they are allowed to use proportionate force if they believe their lives may be in danger.
Throughout the operation it is not unreasonable to conclude that lives were in danger throughout.
The officer who fired the shots convinced the jury (of a range of people from the local area, I might add) that he did so in good faith believing there to be an imminent risk.
It has been said that the police are "licenced murderers" and have "escaped justice". It is understandable that people are upset when a loved-one dies but it is somewhat rich of those who live a life of criminality to suddenly decide the law should protect them.
That said, It did just that - the case took almost four months to establish all the facts.
Why did the officer shoot to kill?
He didn't is the simple answer, he shot to prevent himself [and anyone else] coming to harm. To shoot someone in the leg (as has been suggested) is known around the world to be an ineffective and risky tactic.
Police are trained to shoot for the central body mass as:
1). It is more likely they will hit the target than aiming for the head.
2). It will stop someone in their tracks.
It is not reasonable to expect people to put themselves in such dangerous circumstances to act like a social worker or doctor, they aren't able to resolve every situation by discussion and reasoning.
That said, the stats indicate that they are incredibly successful at doing so in most cases -
During 2011/12, there were 12,550 operations in which the use of firearms was authorised.
Firstly, the reaction of Duggan supporters was repulsive - we're given to understand there were threats made (some of which we heard on TV) and damage to the court.
The police took no action. I feel this is wrong but we can understand, if not agree with why - they didn't want to trigger another riot.
This suggests that the British police are being held to ransom by the criminal fraternity because people, as described above, are using this case for their own agendas.
I note Bernard Hogan-Howe was asked on Channel 4 News if the "death was avoidable" to which he gave some lily livered politicians answer.
What he should have said was "absolutely, he [Duggan] could have avoided this by not obtaining a firearm".
Today we have the Socialist Worker rent-a-mob releasing Doves for a brutal gangster - these people appear to have no sense of irony.
We had a mass of people converge on a police station to demand "justice" - they cannot accept that justice has been done in this case.
For years to come people will pander to this group in order to prevent rampant criminality on the streets.
This is deeply damaging to our country and to the morale of the people we pay to protect the majority of decent people who live in the area and around the UK.
It is time people in authority stopped pandering to those with agendas and made these facts crystal clear.
I don't imagine any of the trade unions want to officially be associated with this. Looks more like some people had made placards with some trade union logos on them, which they can do all they like, but it doesn't mean much. I could have stood there with one that said "NO MORE POLICE MURDERERS" with the RAC logo on it, doesn't mean they support my views.
Comments
Anyway to me it looks like it has to take a white women for the police to treat people equally,to have better relations.
Oh dear. That made me laugh. Must be a troll or thick.
Come again.
Has her voice ever been heard before about this relationship?
Thought not.
If you read this in Charlie Brookers voice it really does sound like something out of Weekly Wipe.
I mean it does sound like the kind of sarcastic thing he would say on the show...I mean this surely isn't a serious post.
The deaths pile up each year, and it has been a shocking 42 years since any officers have been found guilty
I agree, anyone carrying a gun on the streets should be locked up, they are dangerous.
So no facts then. Thought so.
So obviously they're all guilty (of what exactly?), and it's been hushed up by everyone involved.
No chance that the officers when they've been investigated and it's reached things like the inquest, or trials have been found not guilty by a jury who has heard the evidence.
Of course not, that would be nonsense, the idea that a jury might find officers acted correctly/did not do anything wrong.
No police officers have been found guilty here either.
Well I'd hope so, the Inquest is there to find out what happened and should be weighed in the interests of the truth.
Not giving the family, the community, or anyone else the specific result they want.
What the family seems to have wanted was a result that said that Duggan was as innocent as the driven snow, and the evil police decided to shoot him for ***** and giggles.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. I very much doubt it will make any difference to the situation as it is now.
Yes that is correct.
And your point is?
Wouldn't it perhchance be better for them to do what they get paid/asked to do?
That whatever it is yellowpark is expecting to see change in the wake of Mark Duggan's lawful shooting, he will be disappointed.
Why? Because the police lawfully killed him as judged by a Jury of his peers?
I don't imagine any of the trade unions want to officially be associated with this. Looks more like some people had made placards with some trade union logos on them, which they can do all they like, but it doesn't mean much. I could have stood there with one that said "NO MORE POLICE MURDERERS" with the RAC logo on it, doesn't mean they support my views.
This whole thing makes me sick.
No, not the entirely correct and proper police activity, investigation and judicial processes. The repulsive way those within the criminal fraternity and mindless lefties have hijacked this situation to turn it into something it isn't.
Firstly, the question of race.
Duggan wasn't shot because he was black. He was shot because he was illegally in possession of a firearm and coupled with his history of criminality (both convicted and intelligence only) meant that officers legitimately and understandably felt at threat when confronting him.
The race card has been exploited by some in "the community", in the wider population and by those in public life with an agenda such as David Lammy, Diane Abbott and Keith Vaz.
The latter know entirely how disingenuous and dangerous this type of game-playing is but have elected to put their popularity with certain groups ahead of their integrity and morality.
The question of race can be rectified quite quickly by looking at the stats put forward by inquest.org. Before I delve into these, it ought to be noted that these stats were used independently by those with an axe to grind to misrepresent the situation.
From 1990 to end 2013 there were 144 BME deaths in "police custody or otherwise following contact with the police".
Source: http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/bame-deaths-in-police-custody
This figure was provided to indicate how the police target BME people.
Delving further into the figures, we can find that in the same period, there were total of 1,476 deaths in the same circumstances as above.
Source:
http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody
This means that BME deaths represent 9.76% of all cases.
That would sound high until you establish that the BME population of England and Wales is 14%
Source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census/key-statistics-for-local-authorities-in-england-and-wales/rpt-ethnicity.html#tab-Ethnicity-in-England-and-Wales
In short - BME deaths after "contact" with the police is disproportionate to the population by one third.
No arguments on race can be provided when these facts are known.
Next, whether it was necessary for the police to shoot Duggan.
Duggan was a convicted criminal who was known to police for activities which they had been unable to adequately prosecute. In British law that means he was innocent of those activities.
However, when intelligence became available that he was engaged in the acquisition of a firearm, his background was of paramount importance to those involved in the operation - innocent lives were at stake, including those of the police and general public.
The police operate on the same basis as you or I - they are allowed to use proportionate force if they believe their lives may be in danger.
It is not unreasonable to conclude that lives were in danger throughout.
The officer who fired the shots convinced the jury (of a range of people from the local area, I might add) that he did so in good faith believing there to be an imminent risk.
It has been said that the police are "licenced murderers" and have "escaped justice". It is understandable that people are upset when a loved-one dies but it is somewhat rich of those who live a life of criminality to suddenly decide the law should protect them.
That said, It did just that - the case took almost four months to establish all the facts.
Why did the officer shoot to kill?
He didn't is the simple answer, he shot to prevent himself [and anyone else] coming to harm. To shoot someone in the leg (as has been suggested) is known around the world to be an ineffective and risky tactic.
Police are trained to shoot for the central body mass as:
1). It is more likely they will hit the target than aiming for the head.
2). It will stop someone in their tracks.
It is not reasonable to expect people to put themselves in such dangerous circumstances to act like a social worker or doctor, they aren't able to resolve every situation by discussion and reasoning.
That said, the stats indicate that they are incredibly successful at doing so in most cases -
During 2011/12, there were 12,550 operations in which the use of firearms was authorised.
Of those, only 5 resulted in shots being fired.
That works out as 0.039%.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statistics-on-police-use-of-firearms-in-england-and-wales-2011-12
The aftermath of the verdict
Firstly, the reaction of Duggan supporters was repulsive - we're given to understand there were threats made (some of which we heard on TV) and damage to the court.
The police took no action. I feel this is wrong but we can understand, if not agree with why - they didn't want to trigger another riot.
This suggests that the British police are being held to ransom by the criminal fraternity because people, as described above, are using this case for their own agendas.
I note Bernard Hogan-Howe was asked on Channel 4 News if the "death was avoidable" to which he gave some lily livered politicians answer.
What he should have said was "absolutely, he [Duggan] could have avoided this by not obtaining a firearm".
Today we have the Socialist Worker rent-a-mob releasing Doves for a brutal gangster - these people appear to have no sense of irony.
We had a mass of people converge on a police station to demand "justice" - they cannot accept that justice has been done in this case.
For years to come people will pander to this group in order to prevent rampant criminality on the streets.
This is deeply damaging to our country and to the morale of the people we pay to protect the majority of decent people who live in the area and around the UK.
It is time people in authority stopped pandering to those with agendas and made these facts crystal clear.
What deaths are these piling up Auntie?
Why are you saying Mark was black?
Lets have some facts and accuracy please..
Now this is funny coming from you, and your pile of bodies.
Or are you just winding us up? You must be, because you cant be serious.
http://kmflett.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/trade-unionists-back-peaceful-vigil-for-mark-duggan-this-saturday-2/
Wow. This, one hundred times over. Best post of the thread, easily.