[B-Man.]

(Original post by marcusfox)
x

So after all that rambling we can deduce that you think he was a professional criminal but initially passed that off as a factual statement. Thanks for clarifying.

[unclej]

(Original post by diggy)
Be fair we the public know nothing about his life,what if he had to deal drugs to put food on the table,maybe he was sick of signing on at the job center and wanted better for his life and dealing was the only way

And of course people cared that he died

Normally in a situation like this think to yourself this is somebody's brother,son,nephew uncle maybe even father when something happens you've got to do what you've got to do so nobody had the right to judge

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

First part was sarcasm you doughnut.

[fluttershy]

Not surprised the media and the like will try and stir this up again. I think that politician who said about "divide and conquer" was right, but it's not the majority doing it to the minorities, it's the minorities (as in those with the power, the 1% if you want) doing it to the majority. I think too often black and whites, Christians and Muslims, men and women, young and old and all that are played against each other as it helps prevent people uniting against a common enemy.
It reminds me of "The Life of Brian" where they are more interested in fighting the other anti-roman groups than the romans. Comedy so often has deep parallels with real life.

[diggy]

Sarcasm doesn't translate well through the internet

There's no need to refer myself to a pastry of any form

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

[DotComBoom]

I think it's very irresponsible of her to make such bold claims, exactly a year on from his death and the ensuing riots.

It is bound to stoke up some vitriol.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by B-Man.)
So after all that rambling we can deduce that you think he was a professional criminal but initially passed that off as a factual statement. Thanks for clarifying.

Nope, it is a fact. That fact is a matter of record. You can scrape the bottom of the barrel to disregard as many facts as you like, but you are not able to disregard the fact that he was off somewhere with an illegal gun, so that's criminal. He was also well known to the police as there was presumably something he had done before that caused them to put him under surveillance and have him stopped by armed police. They didn't do it on the offchance they might get a result. That he is a criminal there can be on doubts. Whether or not that makes him a professional criminal or not in your eyes is a semantic distinction, as he ended up the way he has done indicates he was decidedly amateur in his methodologly.

[rawkus]

(Original post by 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 .

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 .


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

Did the police stab your friend? Because from where I am sitting they aren't at all comparable since the police don't know why whoever stabbed your friend but they should know why one of their own shot Mark Duggan considering that dispatching armed police shows that it was part of a larger and ongoing investigation.

Do you not think that you are being deliberately silly in thinking it odd that a mother who has just found out that her son was shot dead by police and had no answers would then demand to know what on earth was going on? You don't need forensics to know what the investigation leading up to the shooting involved.

Granted words like "assassinated" are assuming facts in an uncertain and so far unclear case and are just as bad as the masses of people assuming that his associations with gang members means that it is therefore fact that he himself was a hardened criminal. At last the mother however has the excuse of being motivated by grief and a lack of answers where as the public seem motivated by nothing more then blood lust and an idea that someone whom they know very little of has been served his just deserts.

[rmpr97]

(Original post by diggy)
Be fair we the public know nothing about his life,what if he had to deal drugs to put food on the table,maybe he was sick of signing on at the job center and wanted better for his life and dealing was the only way

And of course people cared that he died

Normally in a situation like this think to yourself this is somebody's brother,son,nephew uncle maybe even father when something happens you've got to do what you've got to do so nobody had the right to judge

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

You serious, we're justifying criminality because 'they need to feed the family?'

You serious? So if I burgle your house, loot all your goods, then you know lets mix it up with some bank fraud and every time your pay goes into there I just nick that, you'd let it slide because you know, I need to feed the family?

Please shut up and don't spout that type of bull****.

[dennisraymondsmith]

(Original post by marcusfox)
'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.



Criminals lie.



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

I'm not going to go into all of that on here but please stop talking about things you know nothing about .and stop stating opinions or newspaper quotes as facts and i mean no disrespect to you . Do you think everyone that knew mark are wearing our rose tinted blinkers or something ? We are not deluded .
Anyway im going now . peace

[dennisraymondsmith]

Would just like too add i don't know why these looters decided to hijack the graceful protest that was happening but it had nothing to do with mark .
They were just thugs using that as an excuse to behave like thugs

[dennisraymondsmith]

*peaceful*

[marcusfox]

(Original post by dennisraymondsmith)
I'm not going to go into all of that on here but please stop talking about things you know nothing about .and stop stating opinions or newspaper quotes as facts and i mean no disrespect to you . Do you think everyone that knew mark are wearing our rose tinted blinkers or something ? We are not deluded .
Anyway im going now . peace

We know he was a criminal. That is not in dispute. Just how much of a criminal he was is the subject of much discussion, and if you know exactly the sort of things he was involved in, but don't wish to disclose then that's entirely up to you, but nevertheless it's entirely valid to say he was into serious criminal behaviour given the circumstances. The fact that you would say that you don't want to in into it, but nobody is looking at him through rose tinted glasses would seem to indicate that he has at least been in trouble with the police for minor stuff and there is more to come on that when his record is made public knowledge.

Are you saying that the newspaper quote from that person who allegedly knew him is misquoted, false or otherwise not a fact?

[n00]

(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.

Wow. The propaganda machine has done a good job on you. He had no gun there was no armed confrontation and yeah maybe we are all better off without him but what about all the fear and distress the police have caused?

[HARRY PUTAH]

The more gangster trash they shoot the less problems we shall have.

Pity they couldn't shoot most of the rioters last summer, crime would have been down 60% at least.

[marcusfox]

If we are to believe that we need to believe the issue of the gun was made up, or planted, cctv they say they have of him getting the gun was faked, all that time, effort and money just to assassinate a black guy. It's like asking us to believe in the gunman behind the grassy knoll.

An armed confrontation is what happens when the police stop the taxi you are in and point guns at you. They are armed. Whether or not you are armed, you have an armed confrontation, regardless of whether or not you end up being shot.

[dennisraymondsmith]

(Original post by marcusfox)
We know he was a criminal. That is not in dispute. Just how much of a criminal he was is the subject of much discussion, and if you know exactly the sort of things he was involved in, but don't wish to disclose then that's entirely up to you, but nevertheless it's entirely valid to say he was into serious criminal behaviour given the circumstances. The fact that you would say that you don't want to in into it, but nobody is looking at him through rose tinted glasses would seem to indicate that he has at least been in trouble with the police for minor stuff and there is more to come on that when his record is made public knowledge.

Are you saying that the newspaper quote from that person who allegedly knew him is misquoted, false or otherwise not a fact?

How do you know he was into serious criminal behavior ?
This is the thing he was NOT into serious criminal behavior
This is why people who knew mark like myself just laugh . Because people like you READ THE ****IN PAPER ,who think they know what they are talking about but they don't .
Yes he used to chill on the estate .
Yes he knew members of star gang but he was NOT a member .
When you know people who you grow up with you know them you can't change that but knowing people does not make you a gang member or a gangster .
Im not gonna let you troll me anymore but your a pussy because you dont have any facts . Bring some facts then come and talk to me you prick

[marcusfox]

(Original post by dennisraymondsmith)
How do you know he was into serious criminal behavior ?
This is the thing he was NOT into serious criminal behavior
This is why people who knew mark like myself just laugh . Because people like you READ THE ****IN PAPER ,who think they know what they are talking about but they don't .
Yes he used to chill on the estate .
Yes he knew members of star gang but he was NOT a member .
When you know people who you grow up with you know them you can't change that but knowing people does not make you a gang member or a gangster .
Im not gonna let you troll me anymore but your a pussy because you dont have any facts . Bring some facts then come and talk to me you prick

Gun fact. Good enough for you?

[unclej]

(Original post by DotComBoom)
I think it's very irresponsible of her to make such bold claims, exactly a year on from his death and the ensuing riots.

It is bound to stoke up some vitriol.

i think it has something to do with her feeling that the death of her son was overshadowed by the riots.
i can understand, people need to remember his death, but i dont think she needed to be so contraversial (but then again i'm yet to see a source of her saying this)

[dennisraymondsmith]

(Original post by marcusfox)
Gun fact. Good enough for you?

Show me a picture of this gun , show me a picture of the gun on his body or near the scene if not SHUTUP

[marcusfox]

(Original post by dennisraymondsmith)
Show me a picture of this gun , show me a picture of the gun on his body or near the scene if not SHUTUP

Don't need to. A gun was recovered at the scene. Now it was either brought by Mark or planted by the police.

Even without having to consider the cctv they said they have and his fingerprints they say were on the box it came from, I know what is more likely. You are asking us to believe a conspiracy that they just wanted to kill him, so they set up the surveillance, the op to follow and stop him and that the gun was planted.