Mark Duggan

Jingle, I agree that this man lost his life. Of course, that is tragic. I confess, I'd have been more upset if one or more of the firearms officers had died, as a result of hesitating when they believed they were facing death.
We ask a lot of our police officers. They don't always achieve the high standards we set for them. I agree with Ana, if the suspect is believed to be armed, who can criticise a policeman for firing?
The police involved in this incident would have been aware that MD was a gang member, and that he was carrying a weapon. I can't imagine how we expect people to go into that kind of situation, take split second decisions and then be blamed, even when a Jury has found it was not an illegal killing.

Be bloody sight better than aiming at him.

Also, if the suspect is armed, his kneejerk reaction would be to return fire, I'd have thought!

jingle You can't just fire guns over someone's head in the hope that they will put their hands up. It's not just that London is not Laramie, but modern weapons have phenomenal fire power and your chances of wounding or killing a civilian who is not involved in the whole thing – and who you may not even be able to see – are quite high.

My brother married a black woman and they now have a beautiful mixed race child .
She is a delight !

The colour of a persons skin is of no importance to me what so ever.

We are all brothers and sisters under the skin and deserve our place in the sun .

What fascinated me was a comment by an anonymous head of luxury good "services" with branches all over Europe ,a glamorous wife , luxury home in the Home Counties and connections with pop stars who sai d basically Duggan was out of his depth. Was he trying to play with the big boys? And didn't make it?

BTW, the colour of Duggan's skin had not entered my consciousness in any way until you mentioned it, petallus. It's not something that I would regard as mattering in this case or any other though I am aware that people speak of police colour prejudice.

brendawymms, I agree that something seems to be missing when the two cases are juxtaposed in a simple way like that. I suggest that the missing thing is evidence that we know nothing about. Perhaps that's a simplistic view too.

I believe white, well educated, not impoverished people have been known to go astray of the law quite often, by the way.

I still haven't been tested that far either (and hope I never shall be, nor you), petallus, but I can only speak for how I feel now. Who knows what might change that in some circumstances? In the meantime I'm not ashamed of thinking that getting hold of a gun in order to shoot someone because one is involved in gang culture is uncivilised, whatever the reasons justifications for such behaviour.

Re the Duggan story. He and the police involved had a jury look at the evidence (which the rest of us haven't seen). The jury, no doubt advised of the law in such a case by the judge, concluded that it was a lawful killing. The family, so I understand, are going to appeal, as is presumably their right. Rule of law.

I acknowledge that I am being simplistic and I am copying this from a Facebook site named "Stop destroying our Armed Forces but:- a policeman kills an unarmed man, who may had a gun earlier and was holding a mobile phone, but it's judged to be a lawful killing. A Marine kills an armed insurgent who may have been holding a grenade, and gets life.
I am sure I am missing something.

Hello thatbags, haven't seen you on here for some time!

Why would a person who is white, well educated, not impoverished and with standards be pleased to have someone like Mark Duggan for a son?
I can easily believe that his family, from a completely different background, might be more accepting of him.

I would not feel comfortable living in a society where the police can shoot an unarmed person dead, lie about it and get away with it because the person they shot is in a gang/leading a life style most of us would disapprove of. It's to do with general standards.

Incidentally, I cannot imagine a circumstance where I would disown one of my children or grandchildren no matter how appalled I was at what they had done but I remain to be tested.

devils advocate , they probably don"t know any better !
I feel shame for them really !

Yes, jingle. His being a dead gun owning gang member wouldn't make any difference to my shame at parenting such a person. Once a person is an adult I don't believe in unconditional love. I don't see what's different about disowning offspring you're ashamed of and the emotional 'walking away' from anyone who adds too much negativity to your life that soop and others recommend.

Are Duggan's parents ashamed of his gang membership and gun ownership? If not, why not?

when even the figures you quote of five by Met officers and 16 by GB officers is still absurdly low - it just can't be correct.

Riverwalk my first post referred to the stats being quoted on the Wright Stuff this morning.

Ana just looked up the stats quoted on the Wright Stuff. Looks like it should have been five killed by Met officers (not in UK) since 1920.

Here's the section I found on DigitalSpy:

'There's been 16 people killed by law enforcement in GB since 1920
I think the 5 TWS referred to were those killed by the Met and only those killed by shooting.'

Once he was dead? Wiped out forever.

If i hadn't disowned him first.

Yes, jings, I think I'd be ashamed enough of a gang member, gun owning son of mine to shut up.

A quick google reveals that police have shot dead 33 people since 1995, according to one source.

But do you relly think you would shut up Bags? Aren't the police supposed to be the grownups?

when FIVE people shot dead by the police since 1920 - where did you get that figure from?

I can think of more than that in London alone in the past 20 years.

Here is a comment by a Tweeter which seems to sum up quite well