Mark Duggan was assassinated, claims his mother

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

B-Man.

Original post by marcusfox

It's a matter of record that he was a professional criminal and just look at his pedigree.

Source?

Reply 21

marcusfox

Original post by B-Man.

Source?

My source? Last time I checked, carrying a gun [such as he had, for those who will quibble over semantics] is a crime.

But I must say, if you've not had any involvement in criminality before, getting a loaded gun and going off in a taxi somewhere with it is a hell of a way to start it off.

Eventually the truth will come out. Of course his family and friends deny he was a gangster/drug dealer - though not in definitive terms. What do you think "I'm not saying he was an angel. He had his fair share of problems with the police" could possibly mean?

I can find you plenty of things said by he Kray twins' family and friends on what decent blokes they were, too.

Duggan was an armed criminal. But regardless, there are still many who will continue to claim that he was innocent, regardless of his actions.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 22

diggy

Lol i never said that

but just because he's a drugs dealer doesn't mean nobody cares that he died nor does it give us the right to judge his life based on headlines

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

Reply 23

diggy

The welfare state can only do so much the point is we don't know why he chose that life

Saying that nobody cared that he died/shooting to kill isn't justified

Drug dealers are bad but the bankers stealing millions can go untouched when what they do has a profound effect on the country

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

Reply 24

diggy

Okay so what's your argument against what I've said ?

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100

Reply 25

B-Man.

Original post by marcusfox

My source? Last time I checked, carrying a gun [such as he had, for those who will quibble over semantics] is a crime.

You said he was a professional criminal, I asked for a source for that.

Original post by marcusfox

But I must say, if you've not had any involvement in criminality before, getting a loaded gun and going off in a taxi somewhere with it is a hell of a way to start it off.

Not if he was going to avenge the murder of a relative as you speculated in your post.

Original post by marcusfox

Eventually the truth will come out. Of course his family and friends deny he was a criminal - though not in definitive terms. What do you think "I'm not saying he was an angel. He had his fair share of problems with the police" could possibly mean?

Any one of a hundred things. He may have swore at police officers, he may have had fights on some nights. It doesn't mean he was a professional criminal.

Original post by marcusfox

I can find you plenty of things said by he Kray twins' family and friends on what decent blokes they were, too.

Irrelevant.

Reply 26

Zeffy

His mothers a moron

She should be more concerned with herself for letting her son grow up to be a drug dealing piece of **** scumbag than crying that the police put him down. Mark Duggan was a piece of filth. The world is better off without him and Pamela Duggan should hang her head in shame at giving birth to such a vile man.

Reply 27

marcusfox

Original post by B-Man.

You said he was a professional criminal, I asked for a source for that.

Original post by B-Man.

Not if he was going to avenge the murder of a relative as you speculated in your post.

Well, if we start from the supposition that he had no criminal record, and that he would have been on his way to kill someone, that would obviously have been something to add to the list of carrying a loaded firearm.

Original post by B-Man.

Any one of a hundred things. He may have swore at police officers, he may have had fights on some nights. It doesn't mean he was a professional criminal.

Well, carrying the gun in a sock implies that he knew already that it would go some way to disguising any forensic evidence that the gun would leave on him and him on the gun. Therefore it indicates that it wasn't his first firearms experience, or he associated regularly with those who handled firearms and knew their techniques.

Quite likely as it seems he had no problem obtaining the weapon in the first place.

Original post by B-Man.

Irrelevant.

Not really. If one thing is true in life, it is that friends and families of dead criminals, whether they end up dead in the commission of their crimes, killed by other criminals or just died of natural causes, are very often on hand to come out and say what a great guy they were, despite having committed some very heinous acts of violence

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 28

willbee

Original post by B-Man.

If you don't have a source for this don't spout that bull****.

:erm:

That's going to end well.

Pretty sure anyone who knows anything about the riots could confirm that.

And even if it wasn't confirmed by police that he was, generally when people think things like that it's cos it's true, and generally, the police don't know about most drug dealers either, cos you know, it's illegal.

I know a lot of people who don't have a criminal record but still engage in criminal activity. And as nasty as it sounds, considering his background and the fact that he was Desmond Noonan's nephew, I would be surprised if he had never engaged in criminal / gang activity.

Reply 29

B-Man.

Original post by marcusfox

Any police record he does have isn't going to be released until the investigation is over as the usual suspects will scream bloody murder that it predjudiced the investgation.

Then don't claim that he was professional criminal beforehand.

Original post by marcusfox

Applying Occam's Razor usually gives good results. Known to the police, obviously under surveillance, with intelligence that deemed it necessary to send armed officers to follow him, in possession of a loaded gun... or an innocent man who was the victim of circumstance?

Irrelevant, I didn't say that he was innocent.

Original post by marcusfox

You are aware of this fact too, are you a professional criminal?

Original post by marcusfox

Quite likely as it seems he had no problem obtaining the weapon in the first place.

Again, that's not evidence that he is a professional criminal. Most people are aware of who sells drugs in their area and thus who can get hold of a firearm, especially if you live in the area he did. It does not prove in any way that he had a criminal history.

Original post by marcusfox

Not really. If one thing is true in life, it is that families of dead criminals, whether they end up dead in the commission of their crimes, killed by other criminals or just died of natural causes, are always on hand to come out and say what a great guy they were.

Nothing that I said contradicted this, so therefore it's irrelevant to our discussion.

Reply 30

willbee

Original post by marcusfox

Any police record he does have isn't going to be released until the investigation is over as the usual suspects will scream bloody murder that it predjudiced the investgation.

Applying Occam's Razor usually gives good results. Known to the police, obviously under surveillance, with intelligence that deemed it necessary to send armed officers to follow him, in possession of a loaded gun... or an innocent man who was the victim of circumstance?

Well, if we start from the supposition that he had no criminal record, and that he would have been on his way to kill someone, that would obviously have been something to add to the list of carrying a loaded firearm.

Well, carrying the gun in a sock implies that he knew already that it would go some way to disguising any forensic evidence that the gun would leave on him and him on the gun. Therefore it indicates that it wasn't his first firearms experience, or he associated regularly with those who handled firearms and knew their techniques.

Quite likely as it seems he had no problem obtaining the weapon in the first place.

Not really. If one thing is true in life, it is that friends and families of dead criminals, whether they end up dead in the commission of their crimes, killed by other criminals or just died of natural causes, are very often on hand to come out and say what a great guy they were, despite having committed some very heinous acts of violence

I thought he was unarmed. Unarmed and surrounded and shot twice. That's why there was a protest about it which then sparked the riots, supposedly.

Though I don't think anyone believes it was linked to Mark Duggan's death anywhere else. I think it was people copying what they'd seen on the news with the international riots and revolutions, I think it was maybe a little bit to do with police-youth relations in the cities, I think it was a lot to do with thrill-seeking and looting stuff, and I think it was a lot to do with an excuse to smash ****.

I mean, we even had a bit of rioting in Nottingham, and apparently a Nando's got burned down. I'm pretty sure that had nothing to do with Mark Duggan's death...

Reply 31

for_healing_only

"assasinated" that women is a serious nut job. She was also the one who lead their mini campaign to the police station to get answers.
I remember thinking at the time that the family must be thick if they thought that the police could give them answers within a month seeing as even forensic reports take months most of the time due to lack staff/funding. This is not like CSI where you can scan a bullet & force confesions from people so quickly that everything is revealed nicely in one hour :biggrin:

.

When my friend was stabbed it took months for the reports to come back and for the familly to be updated. Did they complain no (well yes to us, his Dad moaned like every day about the delays. But not to the police),yet Duggans mother instantly pulled the black card and unfair treatment speel that we hear all the time :rolleyes:

.

If he was carrying a gun then c'est la vie, crap begets crap and he had it coming. But to be so self involved or attention seekign to say assasinated the women needs to see someone about her delusion of grandieur :tongue:

Reply 32

dennisraymondsmith

Original post by marcusfox

It's a matter of record that he was a professional criminal and just look at his pedigree. He gave up his entitlement to due process when he confronted armed policemen. When faced with such a situation, as a criminal and just like anyone else he must realise he is in mortal danger and needs to tread very carefully doing just as one is told and slowly.

Try to behave so as to change the dynamics of the situation and you will be dead. It does not matter who fired first, or whether the shot person fired at all. Police officers are not obliged to place themselve in mortal danger and things can move fast. There can be no re-runs. It's not a film.

So Duggan was killed in an armed confrontation with police officers. I do not advocate that our police (note the possesive pronoun) should go out dispensing summary justice. Of course I don't. However, as it has turned out, the public fortuitously perhaps has had a good result. Society is much better off without him when you consider all the fear and distress he has caused in his life. Add to that the unknown level of distress, fear and pain he would have undoubtably caused had he survived and a good job was done that day.

Ostensibly he was on his way somewhere with an illegal weapon, loaded and ready to go, and it is suggested that that was to avenge the death of a relative.

You see no matter what St Mark chose to do, society was not prepared to execute him. He carried with him an absolute guarantee of his survival. This time he miscalculated.

If society decides that it is to organise itself in such a cock-eyed manner then society must be prepared to accept the consequences.

Bruv seriously please stop talking , you don't know mark,you don't know what happened,you don't know any of his people . You just read the paper . Its not your fault though , most people do the same thing but please leave it alone

Reply 33

dennisraymondsmith

Original post by marcusfox

Bruv your quoting a newspaper . Read my first post.
The newspapers lie .
Yes he had problems with the police in the past but nothing like what these papers are talking about .
He was no drug dealer or gangster .
Wasn't even a gang member for crying out loud

Reply 34

jacketpotato

If you are a gang member carrying round a gun, you take the risk that you are going to get shot. The police had intelligence he was going to commit a crime and he was armed. The police can't get it right every time; they got it wrong on this occasion but I'd rather a scum-bag like Duggan gets shot then risk an innocent police officer getting shot.

Its unfortunate but its Duggan fault. He shouldn't have been carrying a gun.

Reply 35

NutterFrutter

He was armed and he was killed because of it.

I don't see an issue? :beard:

Reply 36

marcusfox

Original post by B-Man.

Then don't claim that he was professional criminal beforehand.

Why not?

We are entitled to take that view that he was a professional criminal because he was carrying an illegal weapon, obviously under surveillance, police intelligence that he was doing so that necessitated being followed and stopped by armed police because that is by far the most likely scenario.

Why would you waste a surveillance team, Operation Trident team and a set of firearms officers on someone who was not?

Coupled with the fact that he hung out with professional criminals, gangsters and even had gang members drop off flowers at his funeral, etc

There is no proof of evolution, it is merely a theory but we follow it because it is the most likely explantion for what we see in the world today, given the information we have available to make that decision. Of course there is no proof, so just like there are Creationists railing against it, there are those who will scrape the bottom of the barrel trying to justify any argument against even the merest suggestion that Mark wasn't an absolute saint until proven otherwise.

You would of course disagree. But if it talks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, i'm entitled to presume it is a duck unless someone else proves otherwise.

Original post by B-Man.

Irrelevant, I didn't say that he was innocent.

Not irrelevant, we were following the line where the alternative to him being a 'professional criminal' is that he is somehow a victim of circumstance.

Original post by B-Man.

You are aware of this fact too, are you a professional criminal?

The mere knowledge of the fact, taken in isolation does not. But were I to carry a gun in a sock because I was aware of this, it would make it likely that I was one, and if that was the only information people had about my character, people would be entitled to assume that I was a professional criminal.

Original post by B-Man.

It's one more piece of evidence that he did. See first paragraph. Not only did he know where to get hold of a gun, he did so.

Because the only alternative to saying that he had a criminal history is to say that he did not have one. First you analyse the argument from each side and come to your own conclusions.

Taken with all that we know above, to obtain a gun and carry it loaded in a sock as a first offence is such a serious act of criminality, and if we further suppose that he was carrying it, on his way to do someone in, are we supposed to believe he had done nothing criminal beforehand? Good luck trying to convince us as that.

Original post by B-Man.

Nothing that I said contradicted this, so therefore it's irrelevant to our discussion.

Just because you aren't contradicting it, doesn't mean it is irrelevant to the discussion. Indeed it can be used to disregard many of those saying what a stand up guy he was and leave us with what we know, the main thing being - he had a gun in his possession.

Reply 37

marcusfox

Original post by dennisraymondsmith

Bruv your quoting a newspaper . Read my first post.

'Bruv'? What are you, some sort of gangster wannabe?

The only part where I quoted a newspaper was the Guardian, who in fact have written a piece supporting Duggan.

Original post by dennisraymondsmith

The newspapers lie .

Criminals lie.

Original post by dennisraymondsmith

Yes he had problems with the police in the past but nothing like what these papers are talking about .
He was no drug dealer or gangster .
Wasn't even a gang member for crying out loud

Perhaps you would like to enlighten us as to what exactly those 'problems with the police' were then?

Reply 38

rawkus

Original post by Skip_Snip

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/duggans-mother-son-assassinated-205921587.html

Hmm ... sure, we don't know all the facts, there are unanswered questions, but there are unanswered questions on both sides, wasn't he without a doubt a big time drug dealer? So it's not like he was smelling of roses and innocent, so she shouldn't really make such sweeping statements almost a year later, does she want a repeat of the riots?

no it wasn't proved without a doubt. this is from an independant website which documents gang activity in London

"Firstly, please do not draw the conclusion that Mark Duggan, 29, was a gang member for having appeared on this page. Like Kelvin Easton he was a friend and associate of those from Broadwater Farm, and including the Star Gang. Just because someone is involved with or associated with the Star Gang, or any urban street movement for that matter, it does not necessarily mean that they are involved in criminality. Mark Duggan's associations and connections do not confirm rumours and speculation that has flooded internet chat rooms and tabloid newspapers. Regardless of his associations, the facts are that Mark Duggan had no recent convictions, he was a loving father to four children, a family man, and he was unarmed when police officers shot him dead.

Comments from the Metropolitan Police and IPCC immediately presented inaccurate information to the entire nation that Mark Duggan was armed and had fired at police, statements which were later found to be untrue. Very few, if any, media coverages of the case explored the man himself. Instead, what some may see as a smear campaign was in effect, perpetuated by those seeking justification for their actions. Several tabloids alleged that Mark Duggan was a gangland boss, police alleged that he was a drug dealer and an extremely dangerous criminal, whilst the Sun unearthed his familial links with Manchester gangster Desmond 'Dessie' Noonan, who was Mark's uncle. Regardless of any associations Mark Duggan may have held, it does not justify the actions of the the Metropolitan Police officers at the scene who had NO RIGHT to shoot and kill an unarmed man.

His death was cited as the trigger for large scale disorder, rioting and looting which occurred in the Tottenham area on the 6th and 7th of August 2011. The investigation into the murder of Mark Duggan has to date been very suspicious and has caused concerns. There are larger scandals, people feel, which are lurking with regards to cover ups and corruption within the Metropolitan Police. The date for the enquiry looks to be drifting further away. Many people believe that the enquiry will continue to be delayed for as long as it takes people to forget about this incident, however, due to such an extreme and highly publicised aftermath this is one enquiry that will be hard for those in power to erase from memories. In 2005 another young man was shot dead in similar circumstances, Azelle Rodney was murdered by police officers in the London Borough of Barnet. The enquiry date is set for September 2012 after continuous delays, seven years after the event.

The police will be shielded evidently, since 1995 over 50 officers in the UK have been involved in firearms deaths of members of the public. To date only two of those officers have been named. For a fairer representation of the man Mark Duggan was see the moving video, containing photo's of Mark, in Frisco's Mark Duggan tribute video below. The second video gives more context to the riots which occurred following Mark's death, titled Tottenham Rebellion."

It is true that when the police shoot someone, a wealth of misinformation is leaked to the press in order to discredit the dead person and to minimise any potential damage to the met in the ensuing scandal. We saw this with the death of Jean Charles de Menezes when the police released a statement claiming that he had looked at the police and proceeded to run away and jump the train barriers. This was later proven to be false. Equally the police claimed that Mark Duggan had first opened fire on them and this was proven to be false.

One must ask ourselves, why out of the many pictures that there must have been of Mark Duggan, why was only one (the one where he had his fingers in a gun pose) used the most? That picture is used to justify the image that he was a big time gangster despite the fact for all they know it could have been a spontaneous show of bravado rather than symboling that he will shoot people. I am as far detached from the sort f environment that Mark Duggan was probably surrounded by yet I'm sure that you could unearth pictures of me making a similar pose (thought it would be taking the piss as opposed to showing off.)

I don't think his Mum is calling for more riots. She has lost her child of whom no doubt even at his age she felt that she had a responsibility to protect and she has received little help, advice, insights or counselling from the police. I'm sure none of this does anything to help her state of mind and of course the sometimes shady nature of the investigation only contributes to her suspicions.

website: https://sites.google.com/site/londonstreetgangs/gang-lists/north-london-gangs/broadwater-farm-bloodline

Reply 39

Skip_Snip

Original post by rawkus

Just because someone is involved with or associated with the Star Gang, or any urban street movement for that matter, it does not necessarily mean that they are involved in criminality.