She said: "You (the police) killed my son in cold blood. I just want the police to admit that they killed my son. Why didn't the police shoot him in the foot instead of the chest?"/facepalm
More than 1,000 people are expected to attend a funeral service for Mr Duggan, 29, in Tottenham tomorrow. His death at the hands of a Metropolitan Police firearms officer sparked last month's riots.I vacillate between wishing the media wouldn’t give these underclass scum the oxygen of publicity for their blustering self-pity and blame-shifting, and wishing they’d give them even more rope to hang themselves with their own words…
Mrs Duggan said she was on medication after her health had deteriorated and feared she might not have the strength to attend her son's funeral.Oh sure you will!
You can’t pass up your chance to appear in the media a-weepin’ and a-wailin’ at the graveside, can you? Isn’t it every gangsta's mother’s dream, on these sorts of estates?
Mr Duggan's brother, Shaun Hall, 42, said: "The police were clearly operating a shoot-to-kill policy that day. They are supposed to disable, not kill, suspects. If they hadn't shot and killed Mark there would have been no riots."If your brother hadn’t had a loaded weapon on him, and a reputation for being the sort to use it, there’d have been no shooting…
I have sufficient contempt for this post to withhold constructive comment but I do share your confidence that these 30 silver pieces will be welcomed in Gadget trade.
ReplyDeleteThey are supposed to disable,
ReplyDeleteSince when?
Gadget advice is available for dealing with comment not to a blogger's liking and include alterations/deletions.
ReplyDeleteNo police force outside the most lurid death-squad fantasy land operates a shoot-to-kill policy. Neither do they operate a shoot-to-wound policy. They operate a shoot-to-incapacitate policy. That means, effectively: aim at the target in such a fashion that he will most rapidly be rendered incapable of returning effective fire. That means centre of mass, almost always. If you have a scoped-up long gun and a stationary target under 200 yards or so, it means a brainstem shot through the medulla oblongata, which basically cuts the puppet strings. If you get shot in the chest there is a very strong chance you will die. If you get shot through the base of your skull you are dead before your feet even get the message. Shooting the gun out of someone's hand is Hollywood bullshit. If confronted with an armed attacker, your primary goal is to eliminate the threat. If he ends up groaning in an ambulance with a shattered shoulder, fine. If he ends up with a sheet over what's left of his face, fine. If he ends up finely laminated over the wall behind him, fine. If he disappears in a pretty pink mist and drifts down over the surrounding houses, fine. Threat over. End of.
ReplyDelete"If your brother hadn’t had a loaded weapon on him, and a reputation for being the sort to use it, there’d have been no shooting… "
ReplyDeleteIF that is indeed what happened. AFAIK we don't know what did happen...
All we seem to know is that a police radio was hit by a police bullet...a fact which tells anyone who has ever carried or used a firearm pretty much what happened...as does the fact that the police have admitted that they lied..oops I mean 'revised their original statements'.
MTG is now so anti-police he has become pro-gangster.My enemies enemy is my friend?
ReplyDeleteThe point is that if the police hadn't intercepted Duggan he may have killed someone else and then the hand-wringers would have still criticised us.
Awaits witty retort using long and clever words which mean nothing.
"and a reputation for being the sort to use it"
ReplyDeleteWe execute people on hearsay now?
"The point is that if the police hadn't intercepted Duggan he MAY have killed someone else"
ReplyDelete'May'...or he may have continued his journey or he have may have given all his possessions to the Poor and joined a monastery.
We'll never know.
Policey men aren't supposed to execute people on 'mays'. There has to be a clear and present danger or at least the risk of a clear and present danger (or whatever the legal phrasing is).
A brazilian electrician MAY have the technical knowledge to build a detonator...may..
A white drunken loser with a heart condition MAY be a cunning terrorist in disguise.
Of course I don't know the circumstances of the man's death. I also don't know why the police felt obliged to shoot; I presume there was credible information that this man posed a danger at some point.
ReplyDeleteBut what I do hope is that the message is getting across that armed confrontation with the police, rightly or wrongly, ends up with death. So for every 'brave' gun-toting 'soulja' out there the information may finally seep into their thick skulls. Wave guns around and people will be killed, and it's a fair bet it is the one doing the waving who goes down first.
"But what I do hope is that the message is getting across that armed confrontation with ARMED police, rightly or wrongly, ends up with death"
ReplyDeleteEdited for accuracy cos if the coppers are 'unarmed' (ie only totting their kungfu stix and mace) then they'll cower way out of harm's way as they proved during the riots.
The days of PC Miles are long gone.
Why didn't the police shoot him in the foot instead of the chest?
ReplyDeleteOh for fuck's sake. I know she's the grieving mum and all that but that doesn't justify talking complete nonsense. Even ignoring the fact that a foot is a small target and shooting at one could well mean mean missing and having rounds going fuck knows where, there's a very good reason for the cops not shooting at his feet: he was in a taxi and they wouldn't have been able even to see his feet unless he was lying down and sticking them out the fucking window.
Saint Mark the Martyr. A new Progressive icon is born.
ReplyDeletea-weepin’ and a-wailin’
ReplyDeleteShouldn't there be a h/t to Glenda Slagg?
You don't shoot to disable! You shoot for the biggest target, the chest area.
ReplyDeleteI remember seeing a firearms expert on the telly saying what David Gillies has said above. You can't shoot to incapiciatate, you can just shoot someone and they might die or they might not. If you shoot at somebody, you do so in the expectation that it might kill them. Only on TV can you "shoot to wound".
ReplyDeleteI think they should have shot him in the hand like in the A Team.
ReplyDeleteOr used the force like Obi Kenobi in Star Wars.
I don't think that but some of the chavs probably do.
".....I don't think...."
ReplyDeleteAnon extinguishes doubt, be it of mere molecular width, that plod ever exercises a God given faculty.
XX Mrs Duggan said she was on medication XX
ReplyDeleteAnd now she is suing because the police, reportedly, shot the bastard who was her dealer?
I am sure he had a few contacts who will still be happy to help with her...."medication".
Ah tell yoo wot though s'beeeyootiful funeral, got an 'orse drawn 'earse an loadsa beeyootiful flarrs all paidfer by yoo lot. Lotsa respeck shown by all 'da soljas' too.
ReplyDeleteIf the guy was well known as a gun-toting gangster there was only one way the encounter was going to end. Not saying that is morally right or wrong, just that the outcome was predetermined so I'm not blaming the officers involved in the actual shooting.
ReplyDeleteCould he have been arrested in a situation of lower risk to all concerned? Probably, so perhaps those higher up the ladder need to engage their brains a bit more the next time...
*standard disclaimer police story could have been an entry in creative writing contest/I have no sympathy for shot gangsters in case that is not clear*
Couldn't bear the thought of you losing any sleep Jiks.
ReplyDeleteTell you what, we will make it standard procedure to plant a gun in a sock on anybody we top and spread the word he was a gangsta soulja.
We're striking the wrong tone here.
ReplyDelete"Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee."
Mr. Duggan's death merely dimishes me less than others. Tragically, our police and justice system is so bad, however, that killing him extra-judicially may have been the least-worst possible outcome.
Clearly, he terrified people. Probably, the officers assigned to arrest him made an error. But no police force in the world aims to shoot suspects in the foot.
What diminishes us the most is that no journalist dares call the woman a fool. MPs and journalist and editors are the officer class in our society. Were an army cursed with such cussed cowards as officers, they would be a racing certainty to mutiny.
"I have sufficient contempt for this post to withhold constructive comment..."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry if you got the impression this was an anti-police blog from the raving of some of the commenters over at Gadget's, but it isn't.
I criticise the police when they deserve it, but not when they don't.
"Since when?"
Well, quite!
"No police force outside the most lurid death-squad fantasy land operates a shoot-to-kill policy."
More's the pity...
" Shooting the gun out of someone's hand is Hollywood bullshit."
Indeed, but sometimes, life imitates art.
An amazing shot, to be sure. But not, I think, a wise one.
"IF that is indeed what happened. AFAIK we don't know what did happen..."
ReplyDeleteUnless you want to believe that the police planted the gun, and also arranged for a false trail in the media (social and MSM) and in the community about his reputation, then yes, we do indeed know those facts.
"We execute people on hearsay now?"
No, but it's not too sensible to treat someone of his background as any other traffic stop, is it?
"... what I do hope is that the message is getting across that armed confrontation with the police, rightly or wrongly, ends up with death. "
Looking at the pictures taken at the funeral, a very forlorn hop, sadly...
"...there's a very good reason for the cops not shooting at his feet: he was in a taxi and they wouldn't have been able even to see his feet unless he was lying down and sticking them out the fucking window."
:D
"Ah tell yoo wot though s'beeeyootiful funeral, got an 'orse drawn 'earse an loadsa beeyootiful flarrs all paidfer by yoo lot."
ReplyDeleteIt truly was The Funeral That Taste Forgot, wasn't it? *shudders*
"Mr. Duggan's death merely dimishes me less than others."
Coming home last night, I saw a hedgehog road casualty in the gutter. It's death diminishes me more than his.
It at least had a beneficial effect on our environment. And was harmless.
"What diminishes us the most is that no journalist dares call the woman a fool. "
Not only that, but as you'll see later today, the MSM gives the 'community' space to wallow in their victimhood and cast aspersions far and wide. Nothing's ever their fault.
Take a long look at ACO's vastly superior interpretation of the Duggan killing and related matters.
ReplyDeleteNeither ACO nor myself are anti police. I would only speak for one here were it not for my certainty that ACO and I are driven by the same motivation to speak out against State corruption.
Intentional mischief can and does make more of a simple cause and the naive will always believe the worst, JuliaM.
It became your choice to smear me with the same propaganda reserved for police critics, only when your last response made it convenient to do so.
Make a truthful distinction between between fact and fiction and resist self serving gangs leading you by the nose. Otherwise your blogging descends into a pointless activity, if it has not already done so.
And do keep in mind that a State uniform is no guarantee of honesty, anymore than celebrity will initially provide the undeserving with a false veneer of respectability.
"Coming home last night, I saw a hedgehog road casualty in the gutter. It's death diminishes me more than his."
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to mistake for wit, a naked crudity more vile than a string of the worst obscenities.
...the MSM gives the 'community' space to wallow in their victimhood and cast aspersions far and wide
ReplyDeleteThe copy I saw seemed to report the facts of the funeral and how you read the quoted remarks depends on your powers of interpretation, I suppose.
"Coming home last night, I saw a hedgehog road casualty in the gutter. It's death diminishes me more than his."
ReplyDeleteOn behalf of my entire family, I'd like to extend my condolences to the family of the hedgehog.
"
ReplyDeleteNo, but it's not too sensible to treat someone of his background as any other traffic stop, is it? "
Background? You mean his previous convictions for crimes of violence and possession with intent?
Oh hang on, he didn't have ANY previous convictions for violence did he? In fact he had no convictions for anything ( according to the MSM).
If the policey men had reason to believe he had a gun in his possession then of course they shouldn't have treated him like any other traffic stop...no one is saying otherwise, well no-one besides his retarded family (shoot him in the foot? Do get 'real', dear).
"Unless you want to believe that the police planted the gun"
Perish the thought. Our Brave Boys In Blue would never do such a thing...would they? No police man has ever tampered with or given false evidence. It just doesn't happen..
@ SBC
ReplyDeleteYou have to get into the mind of JuliaM, Shinar.
She will entertain the almost unthinkable proposition of police planted evidence when presented in some EDL cause.
"... driven by the same motivation to speak out against State corruption. "
ReplyDeleteI've done a lot of that myself. I find there's enough of it, without seeking to invent conspiracy theories where it clearly doesn't exist.
"It is difficult to mistake for wit, a naked crudity more vile than a string of the worst obscenities."
Drawing attention to the fact that he's no loss is 'crude', is it? So be it. My sympathies are still with the hedgehog.
"The copy I saw seemed to report the facts of the funeral..."
I'm referring to one of the (many) pieces the 'Guardian' has allowed in. It's due to be posted lunchtime.
"Background? You mean his previous convictions for crimes of violence and possession with intent?
Oh hang on, he didn't have ANY previous convictions for violence did he?"
Ah. So he's legally innocent.
Well, quite true, but up until they got him on tax charges, so was Al Capone.
You might want to take a deeper look around then just the MSM. You'll quickly realise he wasn't whiter-than-white, by any means...
You'll quickly realise he wasn't whiter-than-white, by any means...
ReplyDeleteRAAAACIST!
Sorry, don't know what came over me. I'll go hang around at CiF for a bit until it's out of my system.
I'm referring to one of the (many) pieces the 'Guardian' has allowed in. It's due to be posted lunchtime.
ReplyDeleteFair do's - that wasn't entirely clear. A lot of stuff derived from the PA or relying on their own reporters on the scene, didn't warrant the criticism.
"
ReplyDeleteRAAAACIST!"
*snork*
"I'll go hang around at CiF "
Indeed an effective antidote to independent thought.