Talk:Killing of Mark Duggan/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Daily Mail as a reference

Haven't read the things about what's an appropriate source, but regardless, using the Daily Mail as the single source for such claims as "He had been arrested on many occasions, for crimes including murder and attempted murder" strikes me as dodgy. I think other British people can back me up on the Daily Mail's dodginess? Anyway, Googled it and BBC verified the piece of info. However, it said, "He'd also been arrested, but not charged, on suspicion of murder". Note the 'suspicion of'. Shiningroad (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed about The Daily Mail from across the [body of water]—read it, but usually with an eyebrow raised. The Duggan case in particular seems to be reported through many outlets, so we should be able to find multiple sources for contentious claims.

Shiningroad makes an interesting point about the construction of the statement; editors should consider carefully what the wording implies. groupuscule (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that tabloids such as Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, and The Sun are inferior sources to broadsheets such as The Guardian. Also the BBC is fairly reliable. Shiningroad (talk) 11:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, unrelated, but how is Mark Duggan's death of 'low importance'? Americentrism? Shiningroad (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I re-rated as Mid (and High). There may be reasons why it was (or should be) rated low, but I've re-rated it higher to see what, as I agree. Widefox; talk 21:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Cheers. Shiningroad (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"The gun" section

This section states "Another witness said there was "definitely" a phone in Duggan's hand."

However this same witness also claimed earlier during a bbc interview Mark Duggan had held a firearm. The police claim this witness changed their mind after watching news reports, which the witness denied.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25657206

Currently this part seems slightly one sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.54.0 (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It pushes the line that the police planted the gun, which of course the jury rejected. It's notable that none of the witnesses who claimed they saw a gun being planted described it being in the sock that it was partially concealed in, which casts doubt on such claims. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The article clearly, repeatedly states that Witness B did not see a gun in Duggan's hand, and instead saw a phone. The only statement otherwise here is one made by the police, who claim the witness is contradicting earlier statements. The witness also says that Duggan had his hands in the air and was non-threatening when shot. -Darouet (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the BBC report above states:

"Under cross-examination by Ian Stern QC for the police firearms officers, he was asked why notes taken by a journalist suggested that 'Witness B' had originally thought Mr Duggan had a gun."

This is not a statement made by the police, but presumably corroborated evidence submitted to the inquest. It clearly suggests Witness B changed his story. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The BBC reported on the statements made by Ian Stern as he cross-examined the witness. The BBC does not report that the witness changed their story, and the witness for their part, throughout the entirety of this article you've provided, is abundantly clear about what they saw. If an insinuation by a prosecutor or lawyer during cross examination is sufficient grounds for declaring truth, a witness' actual testimony, in any circumstance, is meaningless. -Darouet (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. If he originally said there was a gun, and later said it was a mobile phone, then that is by definition a change of story, quite apart from the fact that it seems doubtful he could have told the difference between a Blackberry and a gun hidden in a sock at a distance of 150 metres in the first place. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nick, is this something that the BBC reported the witness did, or something that the BBC reported that the cross-examining counsel for the police said the witness did? From the very text you quoted above, "Under cross-examination by Ian Stern QC for the police firearms officers, [the witness] was asked why notes taken by a journalist suggested that 'Witness B' had originally thought Mr Duggan had a gun." -Darouet (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, what's the point of adding in the counsel's insinuation while excluding the witness' direct response? -Darouet (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of a whole section that insinuates that the police planted the gun, when that scenario was rejected by the jury? Nick Cooper (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If you're asking why this received so much coverage in the media, it's probably because of the observations of the witnesses, and the importance of the issue for both sides. -Darouet (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Instruction to jury re "unlawful killing"

The article cites the Guardian thus: "If you are sure that he did not have a gun in his hand, then tick the box 'unlawful killing'", Judge Cutler instructed.

That was not what the Assistant Coroner said. His instructions can be found at the end of this transcript:

http://dugganinquest.independent.gov.uk/transcripts/1711.htm

Laplarks (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite true. The Guardian report claims:

"If you are sure that he did not have a gun in his hand, then tick the box 'unlawful killing'," he said.

He then reminded the panel they could use the "balance of probabilities" standard for the other eventualities.

"If you conclude that it was more likely than not that he did have a gun in his hand then tick the box accordingly, and go on to consider lawful killing or an open conclusion."

In fact, the transcript shows he actually said (text omitted by Guardian highlighted):

5 You then go down to whether you answer these three

6 alternatives:

7 "If you are sure that he did not have a gun in his

8 hand then tick the box accordingly and go on to consider

9 unlawful killing, lawful killing or an open conclusion."

10 So you then tick that next box saying:

11 "We are sure that he did not have a gun in his

12 hand."

13 The next option is this:

14 "If you find that it was more likely than not that

15 he did have a gun in his hand then tick the box

16 accordingly and then go on to consider either lawful

17 killing or an open conclusion."

18 You will see a box there to be ticked:

19 "We believe it is more likely than not that he did

20 have a gun in his hand."

The Guardian report is clearly a distortion, and should be replaced with the actual transcript. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. I do not have permission to edit, so perhaps someone else will!

Laplarks (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

coroner

Coroner#United_Kingdom should be added as much of theworld doesnot have a coroner and thecoronor role in this case is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.88.2.153 (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Criminal Record?

While it is stated that Duggan had only received a record for the lesser crimes of cannabis possession and handling stolen goods (and not for arrests on suspicion of greater charges,) it is contradictingly implied or stated at points in the article (esp. Media Coverage) that he had no record at all.

I have no editing power, but thought this may be rectified by another, purely for the purposes of consistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.50.109 (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I came to also correct for the above inconsistencies cited by Nick/Laplarks and unsigned. Can someone with editing rights please take care of these? Or open the page up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragnarlofbrok (talk • contribs) 15:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Have edited the Media Coverage section to (hopefully) clarify the contradictions regarding his record. Mdb23b (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Age

He can't be both 29 and born in 1981. One of these two facts is wrong. --Kvanscha (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

If he was born on 15 September 1981, and shot dead on 4 August 2011, what age do you think he was?! Nick Cooper (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Death of Mark Duggan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Bias

The article seems highly bias against the Met and attempts to build a sympathatic rather than neutral picture of the deceased. Needs extensive work to remove bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.103.31 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to any specific examples? Biased or weasel wording, misrepresentation of sources, undue weight to particular aspects, use of unreliable sources, et cetera? MPS1992 (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Basic Story

They are after a bloke in a taxi that they think might have a gun. Then the police manage to shoot themselves and kill the suspect, and then they cannot find the gun until `some time later'. But managing to shoot one of their own? Makes you wonder about their training. Do they do cooperative live fire exercises ? Or is it simply individual operant training? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.228.135 (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hanley's suicide

.. is described in the article twice, once at the end of this section and one right at the end of the article. Maproom (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Inserting weasel words and shifting towards editorial bias

I've removed the recent addition of the WP:WEASEL word "claimed," used to described statements by witnesses, when "said" or "stated" is the appropriate and neutral term. The conclusion of a report by the IPCC is not scripture: it should be reported on, not used to replace content here. If witnesses contradict statements made by the IPCC, it is highly partisan to cast editorial doubt upon witness statements, while editorially endorsing IPCC findings. -Darouet (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Especially since the IPCC seems to have been abolished (or replaced by the Independent Office for Police Conduct) partly based on the fallout and aftermath of its poor performance in the Mark Duggan case (among other things)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)