My take on London's Riots

[Annie.]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but, how come Duggan is called black when I am assuming his mother is White? Sometimes colour is used to suit purposes.

[Eagle]

Annie

Too be honest that has puzzled me. Seems logical to call him mixed race , if indeed colour is at all relevant.

He was carrying a gun , that is beyond dispute , the fact that he probably chucked it seconds before the incident is hardly relevant.

[hairybuddha]

Stuart - Apologies I'm not trying to pick difference. But I think minor details are extremely important in cases like these. Diane Abbott doesn't think so but I digress.

There was an ambiguity in your initial post. Hence my post.

Duggan apparently made an attempt, as I said, to take the gun out of the equation and this was implicitly accepted by the jury. If this had been seen and recognised by the marksman then, unless he was felonious, the shot would not have be taken. The jury decided that despite the gun probably being thrown away the policeman reasonably acted on his belief it was still present and presenting imminent danger.

This is correct.

But the jury decided not unequivocally enough. Hence he cannot (if he had survived) be surprised he would get shot at.

This isn't.

[Annie.]

People who carry guns know the risks.

The reason I mentioned colour was because there was an interview on BBC this morning where a young woman was against the deaths of and also stop and search of predominantly black men, now, I'm against deaths of any colour in police action, but was confused when colour came into it yet again.
I know for a fact that SO19 officers are highly trained, and would not want to shoot anyone unless they/ colleagues/ public were at risk.
The question I would like answered is, he had a gun, what was he planning on doing with it?
It wasn't a sweetie to pass round, it was an instrument of death, he knew this.

[stuart]

Whether the man had a gun at that time is surely not that relevant. All information supplied informs us he was someone used to crime.

He was carrying a gun , that is beyond dispute , the fact that he probably chucked it seconds before the incident is hardly relevant.

Well I supposed shooting persistent pavement parkers would solve a few problems but we don't do it. Neither do we shoot really nasty violent criminals for being that. Neither do we no longer hang them after due legal process.

That's the point. The British heritage and gift to so much of the world is that each and every one of us should be tried before our peers before punishment. Its a basic tenet of our take on civilisation. You can disagree but again in our society if you act on that then you are no better than they and should be punished equally for your misdeeds.

The one exception to the right to legal process is if you are believed to be presenting a lethal threat to others and there is no other way to remove that threat except pre-emptive lethal force. That's what this coroners court case was all about.

The one way for Duggan to get his right to due legal process was to either not present a lethal threat or remove it. If he had thrown the gun down in front of the officer and held his hands high then the officer would have been a murderer had he then shot him. But the officer believed he still had it.

If you believe in summary execution you might be happier in North Korea except I believe they may not be too keen on immigrants.

Stuart

[Annie.]

Funny, I didn't know persistent pavement Parker's had Guns?
Still , you never know.

[stuart]

Funny, I didn't know persistent pavement Parker's had Guns?
Still , you never know.

Ahem, they have big chunks of metal a great deal more lethal than guns - but that's an irrelevant aside. The issue that people who are 'used to crime' should be subject to summary justice is what I think Eagle was arguing. That's something that not only do I find unacceptable but our whole legal and political system is based on the same belief.

Where are you on summary justice?

Stuart

[Eagle]

Yes Annie

Bringing pavement parkers into the equation is stupid . Although I do not approve of them , as far as I am aware they do not carry lethal weapons.


This was not summary justice as the Police honestly believed he still had a gun.

Irrespective , the whole episode was not an excuse for the wholesale lawlessness that broke out.

[hairybuddha]

Annie - Duggan's skin colour is important and relevant because of the context of race relations in this country, specifically in London, and specifically between the Met and young black men. Though I suspect you already knew that...

[Eagle]

Hairy B.

We are all equal under the law of the land.

If his colour is important then why do they do refer to him as mixed race. He is certainly not black.

[stuart]

We are indeed equal before the law. And that includes our right to decide our own ethnicity. Which means you are out of order declaring him to be black, white, mixed race or a Jedi.

They are after all not facts (don't get me started on the provenance of race) but perceptions of self.

Stuart

[Eagle]

Stuart

So anyone who is white can call themselves black and the other way round. One is what one is .

We are a multi cultural society and it should not be an issue , or matter , what colour the victim or alleged criminal is.

[Annie.]

Colour should not come into it at all,at the end of the day he had a gun, he knew what it was, no one hoodwinked him into believing otherwise.

It was still not an excuse to riot which is the heading of this topic.

[hairybuddha]

Hairy B.

We are all equal under the law of the land.

Well, this is precisely the point Eagle. Many young black men would strongly disagree with you. Some might argue with good reason.

[hairybuddha]

Colour should not come into it at all,at the end of the day he had a gun, he knew what it was, no one hoodwinked him into believing otherwise.

It was still not an excuse to riot which is the heading of this topic.

But colour does come into it. The Met is "institutionally racist". Not against white people, against black people. If you can't see how that is relevant to the Duggan case there is no hope for this discussion.

[Robin Orton]

So anyone who is white can call themselves black and the other way round.

In theory, yes (although why they should want to is a different matter.) In the census etc you are asked to identify your own ethnic group. Nobody comes round to check.

I have always understood that the evidence is that people of mixed parentage are often discriminated against (or have been in the past - let's hope things have improved) in the same way as people with two black parents. Read Barack Obama's autobiography.

[Eagle]

HB

I am not sure why any black gents would argue this point . If they are black why would they want to be called anything else.

Anyway this not getting us anywhere and indeed well away from the original posts.

Mind you the subject heading , that of London riots , has hardly been mentioned at all.

Robin
I do understand in the past discimination did , with regret take place. However modern London is truly multi cultural.
We have probably one of the least racist societies on the planet, and that is really good .

[stuart]

On the other hand we should not ignore the elephant in the room. The police have a reputation best shown up in the stop'n'search statistics for discriminating against certain groups. Combine this with the belief that he was a nasty, dangerous gangster who was prepared to kill. If he had been arrested some of the media may have convinced some that he would have enjoyed a year or two of celebrity status at Her Majesty's expense before returning to continue terrorising Tottenham.

Hence it would not be surprising if some marksman shared Eagle's belief that he might be better 'out of the way'. Given he had a gun then there was every temptation to shoot him whether that was a threat or not.

I hope they choose the marksman with the ability to resist that temptation. But we can never be sure. That's why the inquiries into what happened are so important. It would have been terrible for the marksman to go through if he had acted absolutely properly. But I hope that is a sacrifice worthwhile to stop North London becoming like the Deep South not that long ago (and arguably not yet completely sorted).

Stuart

[hairybuddha]

HB

I am not sure why any black gents would argue this point . If they are black why would they want to be called anything else.

You're not sure why black people would argue that they are treated differently in the eyes of the law? Where have you been for the last 40 years?

[Eagle]

Stuart
I have no problem in having an enquiry but why did it take 2.5 years or so. Hope my maths kosher here.

I do hope the officer concerned was not on gardening leave for all this time.

People who carry guns are prepared to kill.

Let us hope the publicity will stop and we can move on.

HB
Sorry I misunderstood your question.