salute tottenham

john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
FairiesWearBoots said:
I'm not surprised - but it doesnt mean he didnt draw for his gun though?

surely armed police should have shoulder cams/helmet cams to show transparency in this sort of volatile situation?
Click to expand...

The Guardian has stated that the non-police gun was found inside a sock. Obviously guns can be fired whilst inside socks. More info needed from statements and CCTV really.

One of the many sensible demands of the justice for smiley culture campaign is shoulder or headcams for armed police (and cameras inside police vans).
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"The statement it doesnt mean he didnt draw for his gun though? is completely consistent with the IPCC thing you quoted upthread. That Duggan didn't fire at the police does not mean that he didn't draw his gun. Logically, that's entirely correct."
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's logically correct. The "doesn't mean he didn't draw his gun statement" is totally consistent with the IPCC's statement as is "Duggan hypnotized the police to trick them into firing" or "Duggan snatched the guns from the police and fired a bullet through his arm into the radio before shooting himself in the chest" or infinitely many other statements that aren't explicitly denied and which therefore have the same logical correctness. I don't see anyone mentioning those later options though and I'm guessing that that is because, although they are not denied, they are also not implied by the statement and there is thus no reason to raise them.
 
Last edited:
P

paolo

Mechanical phantoms
vimothy said:
Market Street, Manchester, right now:

scaled.php
Click to expand...

Good, Miss Selfridge is pish. I'm going to Birmingham on Thursday to visit the grandparents for a few days :eek:

Glasgow teenager arrested for rioty Facebook message - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14461393

Scottish police>>>>English police :cool:
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
The fact that he was shot implies that the either 1, the police thought he was a threat, and shot him, or 2, that they didn't think he was a threat, and shot him anyway.

One of these must be true. It is obviously impossible to decide which on the basis of a ballistic test. Consequently, there is no reason to expect that the IPCC would decide this on the basis of the ballistic test--which was, in fact, the implication of your claim.

edit: @rich, obvs
 
Last edited:
john eden

john eden

male pale and stale
It's a ballistics report, as promised. It was only ever going to be about what went bang and how many times.

They are obv releasing this early to dispel the "4 shots / execution" rumour.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
One of the most frustrating things about this case - for Duggan's family, for the Met* and for the public, whether they support the police, hate them or whatever - is that no-one apart from the officers involved is ever going to know for sure exactly what happened. Which is why the idea that officers should have to carry or wear some sort of black-box recorder every time they undertake a potentially hazardous arrest like this is such a good idea.

*actually, if the worst-case scenario is true it's clearly in the Met's interest for this not to come out
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"They are obv releasing this early to dispel the "4 shots / execution" rumour."
Click to expand...
Possibly but it also makes it clear that there was no truth in the rumour (whether started by the police or not) that Duggan fired first. Or at all I guess.

"The fact that he was shot implies that the either 1, the police thought he was a threat, and shot him, or 2, that they didn't think he was a threat, and shot him anyway."
Click to expand...
Well presumably (hopefully) it's 1. The question is how reasonable were they in believing this. As far as I know there have been no statements about this - apart from the thing about him (Duggan) shooting first. Unless I've missed something, the stories I've read say in a nutshell "a man was arrested and died in the course of that arrest".

"Consequently, there is no reason to expect that the IPCC would decide this on the basis of the ballistic test--which was, in fact, the implication of your claim."
Click to expand...
Which claim would that be?
 
shiels

shiels

_
grizzleb said:
This is the result of social problems that have been building up in this country for a couple of generations.

The so called underclass have effectively formed a scapegoat that is entirely acceptable for the political classes to deploy as it doesn't form around racial lines, and exploits some of the worst tropes about 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor that should have been left to rot, where they belong, in the days of the poor law.

Yes, this is 'criminal' activity, and it's often justified (or not rather) by participants in crude terms of boredom, lack of money, bare anger, etc.

To take this at face value is to ignore that social/political factor do have influence people's lives. These people often can't put words to this, or really even have any critical framework to view their situation. Yes it's shitty behaviour, but it's just the eruption of violence from an area of society that has been cast as not worthy of dealing with for the last 30 years.

Fair enough, be angry at what's gone on, but I doubt most people on here have grown up in a fucking waste shithole where every second person is on smack and everyone at school is always brawling; everyone's parents are alkies or junkies. These impoverished places really are fucking shitholes...

Who bothers to take seriously what these people say? They are inarticulate and don't vote so they just get ignored. But it doesn't take a genius to see their conditions are shit. And if you call people scum for 20 years, it's no surprise that they live up to that expectation. Just chuck them onto the streets I suppose, that should do the trick.
Click to expand...

Chavs-frontcover.jpg


I'm just a chapter into this, but it seems promising in addressing a lot of the things you've just mentioned..
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
Which claim would that be?
Click to expand...

That it is strange to take the line that it doesn't mean that he drew his gun, given that the IPCC statement didn't address it.

the stories I've read say in a nutshell "a man was arrested and died in the course of that arrest".
Click to expand...

But where are these stories coming from? It's impossible to separate fact from bullshit at this stage. Journalists print each other's rumours, and print other people's rumours--all the time. It's their whole business model! Why do they suddenly the objective view point in all this? All anyone has at this point is their prejudices and speculation.
 
G

gumdrops

Well-known member
seen a few interviews with rioters today where they seem to be trying (not very well tbh but hey that doesnt mean the anger isnt real, not their fault they cant articlate it, its michael goves) to ascribe political reasons to what theyre doing. but instead of the police, they should say theyre against capitalism, or sports brands exploiting them, cos their actions have little to do with the police brutality. i was wrong to dismiss the early chattering classes comments about it being very much to do with the recession and problems that have been simmering for a good while now. this is a classic haves and have nots war. and these kids dont want to be in the latter camp. they just dont care who gets hurt/dies/burns/beaten/loses their livelihood etc etc, they just want to go shopping.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
I keep thinking that it's amazing how prescient John Robb / Global Guerillas was... The future has arrived, in England.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"That it is strange to take the line that it doesn't mean that he drew his gun, given that the IPCC statement didn't address it."
Click to expand...
What I mean is that's not the immediate thing that comes to mind to me after the ballistic report. The ballistic report proves that he didn't fire, that's all but it's something. To immediately suggest that there is another possibility which is almost equivalent on the back of that report seems to suggest an agenda. Supposing it was proven beyond doubt that he didn't try to fire, I don't think that the automatic response to that is to suggest another scenario in which the police were within their rights to think he was about to fire, when there is no reason to believe in that scenario.
edit: you mean didn't draw his gun I think

"But where are these stories coming from? It's impossible to separate fact from bullshit at this stage. Journalists print each other's rumours, and print other people's rumours--all the time. It's their whole business model! Why do they suddenly the objective view point in all this? All anyone has at this point is their prejudices and speculation."
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that's true about the story I said above is it though? ie

"a man was arrested and died in the course of that arrest"

No-one is contesting that right?
 
Last edited:
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
I'm not sure that's true about the story I said above is it though? ie
Click to expand...

No, you're right--I misread that as arrested and then was killed.

What I mean is that's not the immediate thing that comes to mind to me after the ballistic report.
Click to expand...

But it's the immediate thing that comes to mind before the report--isn't it? Police shot someone, so they must have though he was a threat (or they just deliberately killed him).

The IPCC report establishes that Duggan never fired on the police, but that's it. Given that he never fired on the police... well, that's it! That's all it proves. There's no evidence to suggest that the IPCC ever set out to prove anything with the ballistic test other than who fired what.

To immediately suggest that there is another possibility which is almost equivalent on the back of that report seems to suggest an agenda.
Click to expand...

How? Isn't it just, like, the obvious? No one from the police ever said that Duggan fired at them, as far as you know--that's just an assumption that everyone is making based on rumour.
 
Sectionfive

Sectionfive

bandwagon house
The lads are out on Sky news and the Millwall crew are sing "no one loots us"...

Did ye see the clip of yer man running out of the shop with the carpet sample rack.
 
vimothy

vimothy

yurp
IdleRich said:
Supposing it was proven beyond doubt that he didn't try to fire, I don't think that the automatic response to that is to suggest another scenario in which the police were within their rights to think he was about to fire, when there is no reason to believe in that scenario.
Click to expand...

Right, but why have we set up a situation where the test is did Duggan fire at the police? Who from the police actually claimed that he did? No one knows. If you read the initial articles carefully, they don't say that the police claimed that either.

You are presented with one rumour, that the police were fired on. This turns out to be false, so you choose to weight another rumour. But it's all speculation.

edit: you mean didn't draw his gun I think
Click to expand...

Hahaha, getting complicated!

I meant that your claim was that it is strange to assume that he did draw his gun, given that the IPCC report doesn't say that did draw his gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top