I have heard a lot of things over the last few days which have left me not simply angry, but seething. These range from some young ‘woman’ claiming she was rioting because she was taking her taxes back (sic) to Ken Livingstone trying (and failing) to gain political points of the back of what’s been going on.
However, there was one thing that surpassed all of these. It was a simple sentence which somehow became lost in the madness that engulfed the country yesterday and was uttered by the brother of Michael Duggan. The individual whose shooting was the catalyst for all this kicking off. In the wake of the initial Independent Police Complaints Commission confirming that Duggan did not fire a shot at police officers before they killed him, his brother released a statement which included the following: ‘this is an outrage, someone must be held to account’.
Let’s get one thing crystal clear here. The fact he did not shoot at police is irrelevant because the only thing that counts is that he was knowingly in possession of a loaded weapon which is illegal in the UK. Now this isn’t an offence of the ‘I’m sorry I didn’t know how fast I was going officer’ this is one of the most serious offences anyone can commit under UK law because guns are designed for one purpose and one purpose only, to kill. And if you knowingly carry a gun then there can only be one reason, that at some point you expect to use it. A simple truth which does kind of taint any suggestion that you are a ‘decent’ man or a pillar of the community because the simple act of picking up a weapon and putting it in your pocket actually makes you a major and dangerous armed criminal.
Inevitably, there will be utterances that he was carrying it for ‘self-defence’ but that isn’t a reason, it’s actually a further admission of guilt. Because it provides further evidence of the type of life he was leading and the type of circles he moved in. Circles in which guns get shot and people die. And let’s not forget, it is Duggan and his gun carrying ilk who continue to hold large areas of London and beyond ransom on account of their mere presence on our streets. Indeed, if this sorry episode has one potential silver lining it’s that the good law-abiding people of this country might finally show the resolve to stand up and reclaim the streets from these vermin.
Yet there is another equally important issue here. This wasn’t a teenager, it was a 29-year-old man who had already served a period on remand and so the family must have known what he was like and exactly what kind of life he was living.
Yes, I’m sure he might well have been a decent bloke who loved his wife, kids and mum but he was also a criminal. A gun carrying criminal. So should we feel sorry for him, no. Should we feel sorry for the family, possibly.
But I’d have a lot more sympathy for them if they came out and admitted what every like-minded individual thinks; that the one and only person responsible for the death of Mark Duggan is Mark Duggan.
.
Since this blog was first posted two and a half years ago it has caused all kinds of reaction, some negative but the bulk supportive. That has continued in the wake of the verdict yesterday which ruled the killing lawful. The death of an individual in any instance is regrettable but the fact remains, had Duggan not knowingly and seemingly willingly allied himself to a culture of crime and violence, he would be alive today and his children would still have their father.
That is a fact and it is one those screaming for ‘justice’ would do well to remember before they start trying to apportion blame.
Dougie Brimson is an author and screenwriter who served 18 years as a member of the RAF. Details of his life and work can be found at www.dougiebrimson.com
Dougie, finally! I agree with every word you’ve written. I don’t feel sorry for happened to him, he shouldn’t have been carrying a gun, period.
Everyone seems to be focussing on the fact that he has four children and glossing over the very worrying fact that he was carrying a gun. Did he keep the gun in his house? His children could have found it, it could have been an altogether different story if they had.
We need to stop making excuses for these people. Crime is crime and should be dealt with swiftly and severely.
Absolutely. And what kind of example was he setting to his kids?
There are hopefully going to be some massive debates springing out of all this relating to the role of the family and community and the desire (if not need) to take our streets back from those who think crime and anti-social are acceptable and I’m hoping that the people of this country do not allow them to be constrained by political correctness.
Finally! Somebody talking sense!! You took the words right out of my mouth. I just found your blog via somebody posting a link to this facebook. I will be back! 🙂
Thanks Rebecca. Spread the word!!! 🙂
Refreshing reading.
Refreshing reading.
Nice Dougie. It is sad that you have to write this though; surely enough proof and justification for anyone should be found in the fact that he had a loaded gun. He made his bed
Exactly. Live by the sword and all that….
Nice Dougie. It is sad that you have to write this though; surely enough proof and justification for anyone should be found in the fact that he had a loaded gun. He made his bed
Exactly. Live by the sword and all that….
great read dougie as ever, people who complain about the police are usually criminals, ive at nearly 50 never had a problem with the police probably cos i obey the law and dont carry a gun!
great read dougie as ever, people who complain about the police are usually criminals, ive at nearly 50 never had a problem with the police probably cos i obey the law and dont carry a gun!
Well said. i couldn’t agree more. Carry a loaded weapon expect to suffer the consequences!
Well said. i couldn’t agree more. Carry a loaded weapon expect to suffer the consequences!
I too feel sorry for his parents, but part of me wonders why, if parents are the very people who are supposed to instill moral decency, right from wrong, in their children from day one, we still have so many young people who clearly dont live by those values?
I am dont believe we are justifying this death at all.
I think everybody is behaving wildly.Police and criminals.
Police should be trained as how to deal with armed people.
People like Duggan, angry and frustated man carrying a gun YES I agree.
but the question is ……..can we kill everybody who is carrying a gun.
How would you deal with some pointing a fire arm at you then?
Ask him to put it down? Bargain with him? Or just wait for him to open fire?
It amazes me how people are quick to judge on things like this when many have never even seen a real gun let alone had one pointed at them. I have, albeit an empty one- and it’s bloody terrifying.
Yes
I am dont believe we are justifying this death at all.
I think everybody is behaving wildly.Police and criminals.
Police should be trained as how to deal with armed people.
People like Duggan, angry and frustated man carrying a gun YES I agree.
but the question is ……..can we kill everybody who is carrying a gun.
How would you deal with some pointing a fire arm at you then?
Ask him to put it down? Bargain with him? Or just wait for him to open fire?
It amazes me how people are quick to judge on things like this when many have never even seen a real gun let alone had one pointed at them. I have, albeit an empty one- and it’s bloody terrifying.
Yes
fukin evil skinhedz pink pigs
Excellent reasoning. And so wonderfully put.
(p.s: that was called sarcasm. Do you know what that is?)
fukin evil skinhedz pink pigs
Excellent reasoning. And so wonderfully put.
(p.s: that was called sarcasm. Do you know what that is?)
I don’t disagree with all that you have said- just large parts of it. I don’t care whether or not he carried a gun, the simple fact is he didn’t shoot it and that counts for a lot. Like you said, he had the gun, loaded, and a gun has one purpose only, to kill. Which suggests that he was as a person prepared to shoot it, so why didn’t he? Surely if he purposefully posed a threat he would have just shot before he was shot?
Regardless of this, since when do we have the right to play god and decide who gets to live or die? Whose children get to have a father? It’s disgusting that you agree with what has happened because all you have based this article on has been assumed, not confirmed. He sure as hell isn’t the first innocent man to be killed by the police. Ian Tomlinson, for example. Don’t be so naiive as to think that the police are angels that would never put a foot wrong. It might be you that is killed by one, one day. Ian Tomlinson didn’t do a thing.
The fact he did not shoot it doesn’t actually count for anything if he had it in his hand and one of the officers felt that either he, his colleagues or the public were under threat. In such instances -which, according to reports, is exactly the case here- the officers are justified UNDER LAW in opening fire. And if you know anything about guns, you know that you are taught to shoot to kill, not wound.
As for why he never fired, maybe we will never know but it is interesting that there has been none of the public shouting and screaming about his ‘murder’. Why could that be? Could it actually be because everyone who saw it realised that the police acted perfectly legitimately?
if you have read any of my books, you will know that my opinions on many aspects of policing are far from supportive and I have certainly been on the receiving end of their ‘justice’ in my time but the fact remains, they are in the front line of the law against drugs, gang culture and above all, gun crime. And they not only deserve our respect, but when they justifiably shoot someone knowingly carrying a loaded firearm, then they deserve our support.
They certainly have mine.
Got to agree with Dougie here, sorry ‘A’ but who was Mr Duggan to decide who lived and died?
Would you have preferred if he had shot a police officer or an innocent bystander before they opened fire? Would there be all this trouble if a policeman had died?
Everyone is quick to shout about the criminals human rights and his poor family, but what about the policemans human rights and his rights to protect himself and the general public? What about the policemans wife/husband and children?
It seems the police are damned if they do and damned if they dont, and regardless of what they do they are criticised by the people they serve to protect, the vast majority of which have never been put in a position as stressful as that of an armed police officer.
Personally i hold police officers in the highest regards and believe the British Police to be some of the best in the world and challenge any person who thinks oterwise to do there job, to work all hours dealing with the scum our society seems to breed, with limited powers, limited funding, limited backing from the powers that be and very rarely any thanks from the public!
I must respond to the question Why he never shot/fired we will never know.
Err we do know, he was heavily out gunned with real men, not walking up behind someone and popping them in the back of the head.
In other words he’s arsehole left tottenham hale that afternoon.
“A” you are a lost soul, this is what happens when you have been living in the sticks, do try and catch up with the rest of the world.
I don’t disagree with all that you have said- just large parts of it. I don’t care whether or not he carried a gun, the simple fact is he didn’t shoot it and that counts for a lot. Like you said, he had the gun, loaded, and a gun has one purpose only, to kill. Which suggests that he was as a person prepared to shoot it, so why didn’t he? Surely if he purposefully posed a threat he would have just shot before he was shot?
Regardless of this, since when do we have the right to play god and decide who gets to live or die? Whose children get to have a father? It’s disgusting that you agree with what has happened because all you have based this article on has been assumed, not confirmed. He sure as hell isn’t the first innocent man to be killed by the police. Ian Tomlinson, for example. Don’t be so naiive as to think that the police are angels that would never put a foot wrong. It might be you that is killed by one, one day. Ian Tomlinson didn’t do a thing.
The fact he did not shoot it doesn’t actually count for anything if he had it in his hand and one of the officers felt that either he, his colleagues or the public were under threat. In such instances -which, according to reports, is exactly the case here- the officers are justified UNDER LAW in opening fire. And if you know anything about guns, you know that you are taught to shoot to kill, not wound.
As for why he never fired, maybe we will never know but it is interesting that there has been none of the public shouting and screaming about his ‘murder’. Why could that be? Could it actually be because everyone who saw it realised that the police acted perfectly legitimately?
if you have read any of my books, you will know that my opinions on many aspects of policing are far from supportive and I have certainly been on the receiving end of their ‘justice’ in my time but the fact remains, they are in the front line of the law against drugs, gang culture and above all, gun crime. And they not only deserve our respect, but when they justifiably shoot someone knowingly carrying a loaded firearm, then they deserve our support.
They certainly have mine.
Thanks Rebecca. Spread the word!!! 🙂
I must respond to the question Why he never shot/fired we will never know.
Err we do know, he was heavily out gunned with real men, not walking up behind someone and popping them in the back of the head.
In other words he’s arsehole left tottenham hale that afternoon.
“A” you are a lost soul, this is what happens when you have been living in the sticks, do try and catch up with the rest of the world.
An excellent article and very well put. I have to say that I agree with everything that you have written and it makes a welcome change – a breath of fresh air – from the other coverage of this event. There seems to be an oppressive atmosphere of fear of offending Duggan’s supporters and an unwarranted sanctification (beatification?) of him in the coverage in many newspapers and blogs. Not the case, I’m glad to see, with your piece. I look forward to reading more of your articles.
Regards,
Declan May
declanmay.com
An excellent article and very well put. I have to say that I agree with everything that you have written and it makes a welcome change – a breath of fresh air – from the other coverage of this event. There seems to be an oppressive atmosphere of fear of offending Duggan’s supporters and an unwarranted sanctification (beatification?) of him in the coverage in many newspapers and blogs. Not the case, I’m glad to see, with your piece. I look forward to reading more of your articles.
Regards,
Declan May
declanmay.com
Brilliant article.
Mark Duggan hung around with the scum who looted, terrorised and murdered all the innocent people caught up in this vile act.
Hope he rots in hell.
Satan called he said that Duggan is already in the shit and may be expelled.
Brilliant article.
Mark Duggan hung around with the scum who looted, terrorised and murdered all the innocent people caught up in this vile act.
Hope he rots in hell.
Satan called he said that Duggan is already in the shit and may be expelled.
Mark Duggan. You will not be missed.
Mark Duggan. You will not be missed.
Yeah I generally agree. There seems to be no end of “friends and family” pledging the rest of their lives to “getting justice for Mark” . You have to wonder whether they might have been better off helping him leading a better life during the 29 years he was alive.
Whilst I have little sympathy for Duggan personally, I am uncomfortable with the police shooting anybody. I havn’t looked into this case very deeply, because the whole saga made me too angry at the time, but didn’t the cabby claim there was no gun? I think the inquest heard that Duggan’s DNA/prints were not on the gun he was accused of having, but they were on the box in which he had allegedly been carrying the weapon. No tears for Duggan from me, but don’t want to see the UK get like the states, where the police shoot people all the time.
Please shootings are rare and we have nothing to worry about. When was the last time any one you know had a gun stuffed in their face.
Cabbie would not have been sitting in the vehicle as a bystander watching, he would of been the first dragged out to protect him from any possible hostage situ or harm, so Mr Patel is talking bollocks.
The gun may not have had DNA or fingerprints, because the other scum who gave him the gun no convicted and sentenced nicely packaged it for him, Duggan had no reason or need to handle the gun, when he was stopped he lobbed the box with the gun over the fence. Which he mercifully paid with his life.
Yeah I generally agree. There seems to be no end of “friends and family” pledging the rest of their lives to “getting justice for Mark” . You have to wonder whether they might have been better off helping him leading a better life during the 29 years he was alive.
Whilst I have little sympathy for Duggan personally, I am uncomfortable with the police shooting anybody. I havn’t looked into this case very deeply, because the whole saga made me too angry at the time, but didn’t the cabby claim there was no gun? I think the inquest heard that Duggan’s DNA/prints were not on the gun he was accused of having, but they were on the box in which he had allegedly been carrying the weapon. No tears for Duggan from me, but don’t want to see the UK get like the states, where the police shoot people all the time.
Please shootings are rare and we have nothing to worry about. When was the last time any one you know had a gun stuffed in their face.
Cabbie would not have been sitting in the vehicle as a bystander watching, he would of been the first dragged out to protect him from any possible hostage situ or harm, so Mr Patel is talking bollocks.
The gun may not have had DNA or fingerprints, because the other scum who gave him the gun no convicted and sentenced nicely packaged it for him, Duggan had no reason or need to handle the gun, when he was stopped he lobbed the box with the gun over the fence. Which he mercifully paid with his life.
To be honest I do not agree with most things that are on this article.
1.The Police Commission clearly stated that Duggan DNA was not on the gun for starters.
2. Taking a persons life whether you are a Police officer or not IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE especially when a person has approached without malicious intent. I have said this for both Lee Rigby’s death and for Mark Duggans death.
3. Most of this things that was put up here in regards to his is and has always been speculation as there no evidence of “…Duggan and his gun carrying ilk who continue to hold large areas of London and beyond ransom on account of their mere presence on our streets”. Its very easy to make comments like this without any form of evidence.
1. but it was all over the box the gun had been in therefore, he was carrying and armed.
2. If the officer felt he was under threat, he was justified in shooting. Clearly he did (as the jury agreed).
3. Have you been to Tottenham lately? He was firmly on the radar as a gang member and drug dealer. Why else do you think they were all over him? It was hardly random was it!
To be honest I do not agree with most things that are on this article.
1.The Police Commission clearly stated that Duggan DNA was not on the gun for starters.
2. Taking a persons life whether you are a Police officer or not IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE especially when a person has approached without malicious intent. I have said this for both Lee Rigby’s death and for Mark Duggans death.
3. Most of this things that was put up here in regards to his is and has always been speculation as there no evidence of “…Duggan and his gun carrying ilk who continue to hold large areas of London and beyond ransom on account of their mere presence on our streets”. Its very easy to make comments like this without any form of evidence.
1. but it was all over the box the gun had been in therefore, he was carrying and armed.
2. If the officer felt he was under threat, he was justified in shooting. Clearly he did (as the jury agreed).
3. Have you been to Tottenham lately? He was firmly on the radar as a gang member and drug dealer. Why else do you think they were all over him? It was hardly random was it!
Interesting point of view Dougie. I’ve written a piece about it myself at my website and have been glued to news tonight. My opinion is that the family need to be a little more honest about what they consider Mark Duggan was about. Was he involved in gangs? Did he have a gun? Did he move in those circles? They seem to be painting him as a peaceful family man. If so, why do they think Trudent Officers were following that day? I need to know more from them about the real Mark Duggan.
Interesting point of view Dougie. I’ve written a piece about it myself at my website and have been glued to news tonight. My opinion is that the family need to be a little more honest about what they consider Mark Duggan was about. Was he involved in gangs? Did he have a gun? Did he move in those circles? They seem to be painting him as a peaceful family man. If so, why do they think Trudent Officers were following that day? I need to know more from them about the real Mark Duggan.
Yeah, right. Coming from a hooligan and psycho that’s bollox. You and your hoolie mates were “vermin” too in the day, remember? It’s a larff you respecting cops when you used to fight them on the streets. Hypocrite cunt.
Hardly a psycho… but yes, you’re right. Hooligans were and indeed, are vermin as I have written many, many times so there is no hypocrisy. At least not on my part.
However, unlike Duggan and the filth who inhabit that world, football hooligans don’t carry guns on the streets and yes, I have the utmost respect for the police who have to deal with them. As again, I have written many times.
Yeah, right. Coming from a hooligan and psycho that’s bollox. You and your hoolie mates were “vermin” too in the day, remember? It’s a larff you respecting cops when you used to fight them on the streets. Hypocrite cunt.
Hardly a psycho… but yes, you’re right. Hooligans were and indeed, are vermin as I have written many, many times so there is no hypocrisy. At least not on my part.
However, unlike Duggan and the filth who inhabit that world, football hooligans don’t carry guns on the streets and yes, I have the utmost respect for the police who have to deal with them. As again, I have written many times.
I could not give a fuck if he had thirty children this is personal responsibility.
carry a gun, the cause of death will be a gun.
I can sleep better knowing he is extinct, the chances of my friends or associates getting hit in a cross fire is ZERO.
Thanks to the hard work of all operational officers who slept in their cars over night to make sure that nothing was missed.
Agree totally
I could not give a fuck if he had thirty children this is personal responsibility.
carry a gun, the cause of death will be a gun.
I can sleep better knowing he is extinct, the chances of my friends or associates getting hit in a cross fire is ZERO.
Thanks to the hard work of all operational officers who slept in their cars over night to make sure that nothing was missed.
Agree totally
Oh my god, this is pissing me off.
He had a gun, the arse wipe that supplied the gun has been convicted and sentenced.
AND just before he was stopped he text his slapper and said that he was being followed by the FEDS, bosh take that prick. its police officers not feds we are not in shit hole america there are no FEDS dick head, sorry i forget he was extinct i was writing this in the hope that he would see it.
The family typically talk bollocks peaceful family man, err which peace which man.
Had the police arrested him, rather than entering a “stand off” (although seeing as Mark was unarmed during the “stand off” I’m not sure if that’s the word), then he would have been held to account.
Had the police shot him once in the arm to disable (although seeing as, again, Mark was unarmed, I’m not sure what the need would have been to disable) , then he would have been held to account.
In both instances, Mark would now be in prison. He would have been held to account. He would have been exposed and hopefully, there may have been rehabilitation.
But the fact of the matter is that Mark was shot twice. Once in the bicep, and once in the chest. Whilst he was unarmed. At best, we have a display of gross, tragic, punishable misjudgement. At worse, we have a life wiped out for the crime of being deemed unfit for society. No one would argue that he wasn’t a criminal. But in civil society, criminals are sent to prison, not killed in the street. This isn’t Nazi Germany. This is the UK.
There are fallacies throughout this blog:
1. “The fact he did not shoot at police is irrelevant because the only thing that counts is that he was knowingly in possession of a loaded weapon which is illegal in the UK”
The police never saw him with a gun. The chances are that he did have a gun in the taxi, but at no point were the police in danger of being shot, despite their claims. Being in possession of a loaded weapon isn’t, in all cases illegal. As we know from people who hunt. So your argument is flawed. Having a gun isn’t ALWAYS a crime, thus the response to a man who did have a gun but threw it away from his person should not have been to shoot him dead.
2. “Inevitably, there will be utterances that he was carrying it for ‘self-defence’ but that isn’t a reason, it’s actually a further admission of guilt.”
Again, this is fallacy. It is also elitist. A few years ago, a man who was armed, shot a burglar in the UK. He was applauded for using self defence. This didn’t happen in the context of gun-toting friends, or gangsters. Now I’m not saying that Mark did or didn’t travel in dodgy circles, but your asusmption, with no proof is based on classism and assumption.
3. “Yet there is another equally important issue here. This wasn’t a teenager, it was a 29-year-old man who had already served a period on remand and so the family must have known what he was like and exactly what kind of life he was living.”
In the context of the law, this means nothing. Mark was known as a low-risk criminal. A criminal yes, but largely petty. Any further assumptions about his lifestyle are indeed assumptions. Had Mark not been killed, he may have been charged with possession of a firearm, and maybe we would have slept safer in our beds.
The thing is, if you believe that extra-judicial justice should be carried out because, in spite of laws or human rights, you think that a man can be gunned down in murky circumstances than that’s your opinion of have, and yours to defend.
But what you’ve done in this blog post is create a series of flawed logic that an uncritical readership may not dissect. And for that reason, I hope you keep my comment here, so another voice can be heard.
Justice had been served. Mark was stopped, his arms-threat was neutralised. By his own doing. He was shot in the arm to prevent escape. At that point, he could have been tried, found guilty and imprisoned. But he would have been alive. And if it was your son, your brother, your father, your nephew or you yourself, that would make the difference.
So compassion for Mark’s family, who have needlessly lost a relative.
Isn’t hindsight and perceived expertise in close quarter fire arms techniques a wonderful thing (sic).
And why should I have compassion for Duggan’s family when he, by his own actions and choice of lifestyle, clearly showed little or no regard for them himself? Indeed, to take that further, not once I have I heard anyone close to him condemn him for his chosen career which speaks volumes.
Wow! This is remarkable special pleading… So he may have been going hunting then? Or he may (from his taxi) have been trying to stop a burglar of his property? Not quite.
The facts of the case as I understand them are (a) that Duggan was in possession of an illegal gun supplied by a certain Mr Hutchinson-Foster who has been since convicted for the supply of this weapon (b) that the police were aware that Duggan had a weapon and followed him and (c) that the policeman who shot Duggan claimed that he opened fire because he thought that Duggan was holding a gun and could open fire.
That Duggan is not a gangster is ludicrous in the circumstances. It is shame he was shot (even if he himself was carrying a gun – presumably with the possibility of him using it) but it is also true that he was endangering other people by his actions and that people who live by the sword stand at risk of dying by it.
You can spout as much nonsense as you want but this is all obvious to 99% of people (hopefully of all ethnicities).
Bollocks
Had the police arrested him, rather than entering a “stand off” (although seeing as Mark was unarmed during the “stand off” I’m not sure if that’s the word), then he would have been held to account.
Had the police shot him once in the arm to disable (although seeing as, again, Mark was unarmed, I’m not sure what the need would have been to disable) , then he would have been held to account.
In both instances, Mark would now be in prison. He would have been held to account. He would have been exposed and hopefully, there may have been rehabilitation.
But the fact of the matter is that Mark was shot twice. Once in the bicep, and once in the chest. Whilst he was unarmed. At best, we have a display of gross, tragic, punishable misjudgement. At worse, we have a life wiped out for the crime of being deemed unfit for society. No one would argue that he wasn’t a criminal. But in civil society, criminals are sent to prison, not killed in the street. This isn’t Nazi Germany. This is the UK.
There are fallacies throughout this blog:
1. “The fact he did not shoot at police is irrelevant because the only thing that counts is that he was knowingly in possession of a loaded weapon which is illegal in the UK”
The police never saw him with a gun. The chances are that he did have a gun in the taxi, but at no point were the police in danger of being shot, despite their claims. Being in possession of a loaded weapon isn’t, in all cases illegal. As we know from people who hunt. So your argument is flawed. Having a gun isn’t ALWAYS a crime, thus the response to a man who did have a gun but threw it away from his person should not have been to shoot him dead.
2. “Inevitably, there will be utterances that he was carrying it for ‘self-defence’ but that isn’t a reason, it’s actually a further admission of guilt.”
Again, this is fallacy. It is also elitist. A few years ago, a man who was armed, shot a burglar in the UK. He was applauded for using self defence. This didn’t happen in the context of gun-toting friends, or gangsters. Now I’m not saying that Mark did or didn’t travel in dodgy circles, but your asusmption, with no proof is based on classism and assumption.
3. “Yet there is another equally important issue here. This wasn’t a teenager, it was a 29-year-old man who had already served a period on remand and so the family must have known what he was like and exactly what kind of life he was living.”
In the context of the law, this means nothing. Mark was known as a low-risk criminal. A criminal yes, but largely petty. Any further assumptions about his lifestyle are indeed assumptions. Had Mark not been killed, he may have been charged with possession of a firearm, and maybe we would have slept safer in our beds.
The thing is, if you believe that extra-judicial justice should be carried out because, in spite of laws or human rights, you think that a man can be gunned down in murky circumstances than that’s your opinion of have, and yours to defend.
But what you’ve done in this blog post is create a series of flawed logic that an uncritical readership may not dissect. And for that reason, I hope you keep my comment here, so another voice can be heard.
Justice had been served. Mark was stopped, his arms-threat was neutralised. By his own doing. He was shot in the arm to prevent escape. At that point, he could have been tried, found guilty and imprisoned. But he would have been alive. And if it was your son, your brother, your father, your nephew or you yourself, that would make the difference.
So compassion for Mark’s family, who have needlessly lost a relative.
Isn’t hindsight and perceived expertise in close quarter fire arms techniques a wonderful thing (sic).
And why should I have compassion for Duggan’s family when he, by his own actions and choice of lifestyle, clearly showed little or no regard for them himself? Indeed, to take that further, not once I have I heard anyone close to him condemn him for his chosen career which speaks volumes.
Wow! This is remarkable special pleading… So he may have been going hunting then? Or he may (from his taxi) have been trying to stop a burglar of his property? Not quite.
The facts of the case as I understand them are (a) that Duggan was in possession of an illegal gun supplied by a certain Mr Hutchinson-Foster who has been since convicted for the supply of this weapon (b) that the police were aware that Duggan had a weapon and followed him and (c) that the policeman who shot Duggan claimed that he opened fire because he thought that Duggan was holding a gun and could open fire.
That Duggan is not a gangster is ludicrous in the circumstances. It is shame he was shot (even if he himself was carrying a gun – presumably with the possibility of him using it) but it is also true that he was endangering other people by his actions and that people who live by the sword stand at risk of dying by it.
You can spout as much nonsense as you want but this is all obvious to 99% of people (hopefully of all ethnicities).
Bollocks
100% agree. If your gonna do the crime…………….
100% agree. If your gonna do the crime…………….
Smporteous, your assertion is correct. If you’re gonna do the crime, you should do the time. He should be doing time right now. But he’s not. He’s dead.
And Dougie, I find the lack of compassion for those grieving for a relative quite shocking. His criminality does not make all of them criminals. And even if they were, they have every right to grieve. These aren’t animals in a zoo. They’re human beings.
I’m not going to give you my opinions on what I believe about his lifestyle. Because it isn’t proven, and it isn’t irrelevant. Because all crimes are punishable, and his crimes should also have been punishable. But what happened to him is beyond the realms of reasonable justice.
I don’t call for the veneration of Mark – he was a criminal. What I call for is the basic understanding that a man’s life was needlessly obliterated. In any circumstances, that is tragic. But when that man has children, it is more so. You may not think he had a right to life, but those children had a right to have a father. Unless we are condemning them by association too?
Your language is that of “an eye for an eye”. He didn’t care about his family, so I don’t have to. He carried a gun, so he should expect to be shot at. I think this is dangerous. If he didn’t care for his family, then we must. If he carried a gun, then we must not use lethal force to neutralise and already neutralised threat. Because, as law-abiding people, our job is to be the bigger, more peaceful man. And to seek understanding and peace to ensure these sorts of crimes happen less frequently. That can never be achieved through death. History has taught us that.
Maybe he should have thought about his children when he adopted the lifestyle he did, when he collected a gun, etc, etc.
And no matter what arguments you put forward, the jury decided it was a justifiable shooting and that’s good enough for me.
As has been said you carry a gun no matter if you get rid over a wall or if it’s in a box you run the risk of being killed, the police don’t know he does not have another, and for trying to shoot some one in the arm wtf it’s not a video Game! Center of mass is the point of aim!
Answer this: if the police had not shot him or not stopped him and he shot some one you knew and you then found out the police could have stopped him what would you feel and how angry with police would you be?
As has been said you carry a gun no matter if you get rid over a wall or if it’s in a box you run the risk of being killed, the police don’t know he does not have another, and for trying to shoot some one in the arm wtf it’s not a video Game! Center of mass is the point of aim!
Answer this: if the police had not shot him or not stopped him and he shot some one you knew and you then found out the police could have stopped him what would you feel and how angry with police would you be?
That’s a ridiculous question. He didn’t have a gun during the confrontation. If he confronted the police with a fire arm, I would expect the police to shoot to disable. If that wasn’t possible, and there was serious risk to the life of the officer, then a shoot-to-kill from the police would be understandable.
But a person who approaches the police UNARMED should not have been shot to kill. They should be stopped, arrested tried and, if found guilty, sent to prison.
As it stands, unless Mark was able to shoot lasers from his eyes, the police, nor any member of the public would have been a risk of death at the hands of Mark Duggan, as the gun was no longer in his possession when the confrontation took place.
You don’t shoot to disable, you shoot to kill. It’s real life, not the movies.
And if the police were certain he had a gun in his possession (which they were) and he had something in his hand when he got out of the car, it was a reasonable assumption to make that whatever it was he was holding was that gun. If the officer subsequently believed at any time that he was about to be fired on, he was totally justified in shooting to protect his own life.
That’s a ridiculous question. He didn’t have a gun during the confrontation. If he confronted the police with a fire arm, I would expect the police to shoot to disable. If that wasn’t possible, and there was serious risk to the life of the officer, then a shoot-to-kill from the police would be understandable.
But a person who approaches the police UNARMED should not have been shot to kill. They should be stopped, arrested tried and, if found guilty, sent to prison.
As it stands, unless Mark was able to shoot lasers from his eyes, the police, nor any member of the public would have been a risk of death at the hands of Mark Duggan, as the gun was no longer in his possession when the confrontation took place.
You don’t shoot to disable, you shoot to kill. It’s real life, not the movies.
And if the police were certain he had a gun in his possession (which they were) and he had something in his hand when he got out of the car, it was a reasonable assumption to make that whatever it was he was holding was that gun. If the officer subsequently believed at any time that he was about to be fired on, he was totally justified in shooting to protect his own life.
Spot on pal .. Unfortunately you air these type of sentiments your seem a racist … I would still feel the same if the gentleman was of my ethnic origin !!
Spot on pal .. Unfortunately you air these type of sentiments your seem a racist … I would still feel the same if the gentleman was of my ethnic origin !!
Duggan si scum better of dead
Duggan si scum better of dead
Mark Duggan. Quiet family man. Father. Partner. Seemingly a Saint.
Perhaps people would like to know what his partner was doing when the Met broke down her door, as Mark was lying dead in the street.
Have a guess.
It may have involved sh*gging one of his best friends.
Allegedly of course. And I allegedly got this info from someone allegedly within the Met.
The World is a better place with the likes of Mark Duggan underground.
I’m sick & tired of elements of the public sticking up for scum like that, as if he led a life like the rest of us.
What goes around comes around.
Mark Duggan. Quiet family man. Father. Partner. Seemingly a Saint.
Perhaps people would like to know what his partner was doing when the Met broke down her door, as Mark was lying dead in the street.
Have a guess.
It may have involved sh*gging one of his best friends.
Allegedly of course. And I allegedly got this info from someone allegedly within the Met.
The World is a better place with the likes of Mark Duggan underground.
I’m sick & tired of elements of the public sticking up for scum like that, as if he led a life like the rest of us.
What goes around comes around.
Dougie good blog with some interesting opinion and comments.
A couple of points as someone whose previous job was exactly this kind of work.
We are not trained to “Shoot to kill’ but you are trained to aim at the main body mass. The purpose being to eliminate the threat presented. All teams of this kind carry extensive first aid equipment and Medics (TCOs) trained to the same level as Ambulance staff. this is for the sole purpose of giving immediate aid to Anyone that is shot during a stop.
I have a rather wry smile at the armchair experts who talk of shooting an arm. Try it at 10m, on the run with a Glock 17 and in the heat of an armed stop with the intelligence that you are facing a determined and violent criminal! Good Luck.
As the court quite rightly concluded it is the officers ‘Honestly held belief’ at the exact moment he pulls the trigger that is important. If he perceives that there is an ‘imminent threat to life’ he can use force to counter that threat.
A couple of further questions that will never be answered; Who’s and How many lives were saved by the interception of this illegal firearm. (The fact that he had a gun with him is only disputed by the family as to admit the truth would tarnish their picture of a peace loving family man, eg another man has already been convicted of supplying Duggan with the gun)
;and, if the Police planted the gun as claimed by some, shouldn’t we be looking at the incompetence of that officer? To take a gun out of a shoebox in the back of a taxi in broad daylight, in public, (Risking career, family and several years in prison by the way) and then throw or put it 20ft from the body of the offender seems to be little stupid if you ask me 🙂 (and yes Dougie, for the less educated that is also sarcasm!!)
Finally here is a quote from a Channel 4 news item (not known for their support of our thin blue line); “……..Police officers in England and Wales opened fire just five times for the year 2011/12. Out of these incidents, two people were killed, including Duggan. No-one was shot dead by police in 2012/13.” http://www.channel4.com/news/police-fatal-shooting-trigger-happy-fact-check
So I wouldn’t worry too much about a Police/Government assassination policy as I read in a comment to a Daily Mail article recently!!
Great post Andy and some excellent points.
My ‘shoot to kill’ reference dates back to my military days when the ‘shot to disable’ question was frequently mooted and universally laughed off by our instructors. Like you, we were always taught to shoot at the main body mass which, as you will be aware, will usually result in death when the round is a 7.62 (or 5.56 if delivered by an SA80). Indeed, it does amuse me that the majority of the ‘experts’ who put forward opinions on the use of guns having almost certainly never even held a firearm let alone used one, probably believe that a bullet simply passes through the body leaving nothing but two little holes.
The reality, as you know, is very different.
I agree overall. But I must mention that my gun is designed for Clay Pigeon shooting, and I am no ‘Dangerous armed criminal’..
Perhaps this article would benefit from some re-wording..
I agree overall. But I must mention that my gun is designed for Clay Pigeon shooting, and I am no ‘Dangerous armed criminal’..
Perhaps this article would benefit from some re-wording..
Finally someone talking some sense! Not only did he have a dangerous weapon on him regardless of shooting it. All of his so called ‘friends’ decided to riot and raid innocent peoples businesses shows what type of people they really are. And yes anyone unlawfully carrying a gun who gets shot I do not have any sympathy for its the police that deserve respect and sympathy working all hours while all these money grabbers steal. Makes me sick!
Finally someone talking some sense! Not only did he have a dangerous weapon on him regardless of shooting it. All of his so called ‘friends’ decided to riot and raid innocent peoples businesses shows what type of people they really are. And yes anyone unlawfully carrying a gun who gets shot I do not have any sympathy for its the police that deserve respect and sympathy working all hours while all these money grabbers steal. Makes me sick!
Wow, wish I’d got this much comment when I wrote about this subject last month. Interesting article, very good.
It’s certainly something which get people fired up!
Wow, wish I’d got this much comment when I wrote about this subject last month. Interesting article, very good.
It’s certainly something which get people fired up!
One less oxygen thief!!
One less oxygen thief!!
I bet the legal team fuelling this are making a packet from the public purse
Undoubtedly.
Mark Duggan was scum, if he was illegally killed, that’s bad but no great loss.
You won’t get any argument from me on the first count. Or the last.
Mark Duggan was scum, if he was illegally killed, that’s bad but no great loss.
You won’t get any argument from me on the first count. Or the last.
Great that this scum was killed – saved the taxpayer the prison costs. A jury found that he was killed lawfully. The Justice system that we have given to the World has spoken and they were right – you cannot get better than being tried by your peers. We should adopt 3 strikes and you are out for all offences. If you get caught for 3 late annual returmns on a Company then tough. ( As a consession perhaps only 1/2 point for minor offences).!
Great that this scum was killed – saved the taxpayer the prison costs. A jury found that he was killed lawfully. The Justice system that we have given to the World has spoken and they were right – you cannot get better than being tried by your peers. We should adopt 3 strikes and you are out for all offences. If you get caught for 3 late annual returmns on a Company then tough. ( As a consession perhaps only 1/2 point for minor offences).!
Its such as you read my mind! You seem to understand so much
approximately this, such as you wrote the book in it
or something. I believe that you just can do with some percent to drive
the message house a bit, but instead of that, this is great blog.
An excellent read. I will certainly be back.