Spot on, Nick. What if he had shot his gun and a passing child was killed? The police would have been hung out to dry for not acting soon enough. Now the militant-black community will rise up and riot every time one of their own is arrested, stopped and searched or rightly shot because of their wrongdoings. They want absolute carte blanche to do what they want without reproach. They expect different rules, different rights and greater freedom to act as they please. How do the police fight this mentality?
exactly! They know they can play the race card all day long. is it any coincidence that these riots have taken place in predominately black areas; Hackney, Peckham, Lewisham, New Addington etc. Cheers Blair for letting them all in
WSW splitting hairs there mate making the same point really. I'm glad you're so concerned about my future prospects but I can assure you I'll make a top notch MacDonald's employee. To me your post just seems to contradict itself. IA I'm not a graduate yet but I cook them dinner as I'm a rather good chef. It may be a belittled degree by some ignorant people but it has far more importance and relevance than many better respected degree's. Ponders, Nick. Maybe you should look at it more in terms of class than race as there predominately black areas are also poor socially impoverished area's. I suppose white middle class males are the most oppressed people in your books? In regards to Mark Duggan he may well be a thug but the whole situation was handled horribly with his name being released to the media before next of kin was informed and I for one don't want use to turn into a police state where shooting of criminals becomes common practice.
This is not the action of a police state. The carrying of a concealed firearm has always been an illegal act. I don't understand what the police were supposed to do about it, let him produce the weapon and fire it at them before they stopped him? Our police are not routinely armed and the specialist squads like the one that went to apprehend Mark Duggan do not know what they are going to come up against and respond largely to the attitude of the suspect. However, the story is yet to come out in full and I think the actions of the IPCC yesterday in releasing a half baked statement at a time when tensions are high on the streets of London was about as stupid as stupid gets. The fact that our media also then had the stupidity to inflame tensions by running it as a banner story shows the level of responsibility they take (none). A responsible society is one where all citizens take responsibility for their own action and have consideration for others. By carrying a gun Mark Duggan was not a responsible citizen. Equally by releasing the statement they did last night the IPCC is ruining their own credibility as a responsible body and suggesting that they have an agenda. I don't need to comment any further on the media.
We live and die by the decisions we make in life... Duggan chose to parade round London playing the 'gangster' with a firearm on his person. If you choose to live the life of a 'gangster' you must be prepared to die like one and he Imo has suffered the ultimate consequence of the choice he made... Make no bones about it, he weren't prowling the streets with a firearm for the fun of it. Given the opportunity he would've been looking to use it to terrorise, rob, intimidate and even murder. The one and only person i feel for is the Policeman who pulled the trigger, dispatching that waste of space. That poor bloke will be put through the mill by the joke that is the IPCC and for what...? Doing what he's been trained to do...? Taking decisive action in a highly stressful situation in order to preserve the lives of himself, his colleagues and innocent members of the public. What an absolute disgrace. He should be given a bloody medal Imo...!!
Scratching, with the bungling over the story I'll wait a while before condemning Duggan. But yes police shooting people on the street does worry me greatly and I hope it does not stop being an uncommon thing. Don't worry Franco the officer will be fine on the IPCC side of things (whether he deserves to be or not). Since 1998 there has been over 333 deaths in police custody and not a single officer has been convicted.
Erm! bit of food for thought for those young rioters, when the police come knocking! ps. just heard that several of these rioters have appeared in a Croydon court and their mother's are in tears, no sympathy you was warned KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILDREN ARE!
Since 1998 I wonder how many deaths have been reported on railway lines? are you saying that Train Drivers are killers? How many of those 333 were alcohol related.
Nearly three quarters have been related to alcohol or drug doesn't necessarily mean they were treated right though. I'm not trying to suggest that in all or even the majority of these cases the police are at fault but some of them and there is an unwillingness to convict officers. For example four of the deaths were classed as positional asphyxia from the restraint use by the police.
Does this mean when we get these rioters down the cells, that their screams will not be heard? please log in to view this image
"positional asphyxia from the restraint use by the police" so if the Police were not forced to use restraint these people would have been fine then? As I understand it, restraint is NOT the preferred option ? How many times has restraint been used which has NOT lead to a death?
CAFC101 in 2008/9 there were 880,000 crimes of violence against the person, in 2009/2010 there were 690 murders in England alone, that is nearly 2 a day. If people die in police custody it should be investigated and I think you are wrong in stating that no-one has been prosecuted for these - there have been one or two very high profile cases in recent years. What you must remember is that to be in police custody in the first place is usually the result of an offence being committed whether it is drunk and disorderly or murder. Fortunately society has managed to grow from the caveman state by developing rules for behaviour and in order to manage those rules for behaviour, since the early 19th century we have employed people to manage the process on our behalf. Police themselves are human and like all of us are prone to err, they are not perfect but they are a true reflection of the society that we occupy as are the police in states like Syria, China, the USA and Russia. None are perfect some are less perfect than others but all reflect our society. I travel and have traveled widely around this small planet and recognise that that whilst our police are not perfect they reflect the society in which I prefer to live.
SVC, no officer has been convicted, some have been brought to court (the data I have got is from December 2010 so if one has been convicted since then, then I apologise). In essence it say's as much about our juries as the ICPP. I wasn't attempting to suggest that the police are terrible just that the officer in question is in a relatively secure position regardless of what actually happened. AH I think while that is true we all know the police aren't perfect and restraint is often used when unnecessary. But as said I wasn't trying to suggest the police were particularly brutal with those figures, I myself have a far higher opinion of your average officer than many of my peers, just that the officer is relatively safe.
101, have you considered the possibility that no crime was committed. I'm sure every occurrance was independently investigated.
From the article I've been using; Prosecutions were recommended against 13 officers based on "relatively strong evidence of misconduct or neglect", but none resulted in a guilty verdict. Calling for further research, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said juries were unwilling to convict police officers. Len Jackson, IPCC interim chair, said: "It is clear to us there is some real difficulty in this area." The IPCC had a responsibility to investigate and present a file to the CPS "if we feel there are any matters potentially of a criminal nature", he said. But then it was up to the criminal justice system. "We have a jury system that is as good as anything in the world, but it is clear that juries quite often find it difficult to convict police officers."Prosecutions were recommended against 13 officers based on "relatively strong evidence of misconduct or neglect", but none resulted in a guilty verdict. Calling for further research, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said juries were unwilling to convict police officers. Len Jackson, IPCC interim chair, said: "It is clear to us there is some real difficulty in this area." The IPCC had a responsibility to investigate and present a file to the CPS "if we feel there are any matters potentially of a criminal nature", he said. But then it was up to the criminal justice system. "We have a jury system that is as good as anything in the world, but it is clear that juries quite often find it difficult to convict police officers." http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/03/deaths-police-custody-officers-convicted WSW that is a possibility but one of which I believe is extremely highly unlikely, I clearly have far less faith in the system than you do.
Ah, that'll be the old "beyond reasonable doubt" factor rather than the "relatively strong evidence" factor coming into play. 101, I doubt it, I have very little faith in the system, both police and courts but if I agreed with you we wouldn't be having this discussion. However I don't subscribe to your (and Sir Johns) assumptions that there is an underlying cause. Can I just add this which I picked off another site just now: <I listened to a Scottish Professor of Psychology being interviewed on BBC radio last night. To paraphrase⦠Interviewer: âClearly professor, these rioters have a common purpose, a common goal. They want to let society know of their frustrations and that they are driven by a strong desire and common purpose. Can you explain how their minds are working and what exactly they are seekingâ Professor: â I think that what they are seeking is the acquisition of a large-screen, high definition television set, hopefully with 3-D capability. Interviewer: âEr, pardon,â Professor: âLetsâs face it; theyâre not targeting bastions of capitalism; I mean, theyâre not throwing paint and bricks at banks. What they are doing is smashing they way into Dixons & Currys and walking off with television sets and I-phones. Interviewer: But the common motive behind the riotingâ¦the true cause is? Professor: âLike I said, they want to steal a television set. Interviewer: â Er, thanks, Professor. > Do you see where I'm coming from?
