fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2567 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2567 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

Notes:

Tumblr and/or social justice in and of themselves aren't fandoms, unfortunately.

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 077 secrets from Secret Submission Post #367.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/10/mark-duggan-family-rallying-cry-no-peace-no-justice

I don't think I've ever seen such a perfect personification of a trend I hate in modern liberals.

To summarise.

A top tier london gang nominal with direct connection to multiple murder cases, gun running, supplying class a and everything else that's a product of high level gang activity.

Who was in possession of a firearm until literally under a minute before he was stopped.

Who didn't surrender when stopped.

Got shot, being the first case of a fatal met police shooting in half a decade, despite tens of thousand of call outs a year, and the majority of previous victims of police shootings being white.

Shows that the met is instutionally racist, and that V53 shot him because he could, and all firearms officers are incompetent? Also if someone doesn't have a firearm in their possession, that must mean that it is the police acting as judge jury and executioner.

3 points, I suppose.

First, Al Sharpton is not necessarily someone to take super-seriously at this point. Second, I am admittedly not intimately familiar with the details of the case, but it seems to me that Duggan's past criminal record is not really relevant to the question of whether his shooting was justifiable, because it's a question of the decision and the process, and it's information that the officer (I assume) didn't know at the time and that can't really have played into a decision to shoot him that could only be justified based on the immediate circumstances. Third, I'm not sure why you would expect Duggan's family to ever agree that the killing was justified. From everything I've read, it was justified, but they're an interested party.

Is with your third point. Expecting a family to agree that shooting one of their own is justified is a little... Silly IMO.

This is one of probably a dozen pieces by the Guardian, a normally respectable paper with the exact same argument, let alone the wider media landscape.

V53 was a trident officer, and there is almost zero percent chance he wasn't aware of the intelligence of Duggan - and the fact that it is very likely he has tried to kill people before will absolutley play into your risk assessment when you know he had a firearm.

I don't expect his family to ever admit it was justified, I merely expect that peoples who's job it is to keep the public informed shouldn't indulge them.

DA

Except indulging them is more likely to"sell more papers" metaphorically.

It's an opinion piece in Comment Is Free. It's not the Guardian reporting on news to inform the public, it's the Guardian getting one person in to say their specific stance on an issue. Maybe the Guardian's news coverage is equally bad! I don't know. But I don't think it's in itself illegitimate to have an opinion piece on CiF laying out this view, if it's one that people have, and if it's supplemented by a wider angle in the actual news coverage.

I mean, the Guardian is kind of an awful paper from a journalistic perspective at this point, so it wouldn't surprise me if they did screw things up. But I don't think this specific opinion piece on its own is evidence of that.

This whole case has made me sick from the beginning. And his aunt's whole "We will not rest" thing the day of the inquest findings came too close to sounding like an attempt to incite more civic unrest, considering the riots after the shooting.

But I think what bothers me most about it all is that people keep saying it's racism. There are so many instances of extreme racism in the world but this, which has nothing to do with race and everything to do with behaviour, is what people have latched onto?

As depressing as it is to say, people have a habit of doing that where police shootings (or something similar) are concerned.

Yeaaah, how about not immediately crying about "liberals" next time. Then I might actually read the rest of your post.

2/10 though, I guess I did start reading it.

no its cool ill_omened is a totally unbiased neutral observer with no reason at all to prefer one side over the other

I am a liberal, which makes me especially annoyed by their nonsense.

Hope that helps, god bless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

Nothing at all personal. Just that "liberal" has gotten almost meaningless in the states anyway.

Edited 2014-01-13 01:22 (UTC)

It's about how some people have gone to extreme lengths to overlook reality so they can claim murder and racism. And also to justify the rioting and looting they did.

I'm glad you think the police should be allowed to kill anyone they want so long as the person has a ~criminal background~. It should have been arrested not shot. Fatal shooting should always be the last resort.

You got brain problems son.

He got shot because the shooter had a reasonable held belief that he was about to open fire risking the lives of members of the public, the other officers, and the police officer himself.

That this belief was in retrospect mistaken, doesn't change the large amounts of evidence indicating that it was the right action to take when he fired.

That's almost the definition of last resort. Specific elements of the criminal background just likely added to the grounds of why the officer beleived this to be the case.

Um, Met police officers have killed exactly one person in over 50 years. It was a guy who had a gun in his hands a few seconds before the police shot him. And the police didn't know until after they'd shot that he'd tossed the gun.

[ SECRET POST #2567 ]

Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan

Re: Mark Duggan