Talk:Killing of Mark Duggan/Archive 2

Policing issues
All of the "experts" quoted in Death of Mark Duggan are critical of police and policing. Why are the opinions of these people particularly important or notable? Why are there no opinions to the contrary? This entire section is just a free kick at the police. WWGB (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the fact that there is OBVIOUSLY something deeply wrong with the policing in Tottenham - especially with regards to the blatant cover-ups and their total lack of accountability for the assaults and deaths of civilians being held in the custody of the police - even the Tory Prime Minister has criticised the incompetence of the police. That said, if you have some WP:RS (not counting some whinging old bastards who always support the police no matter what) then feel free to add those to balance out the criticism section.  Deterence  Talk 08:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * With attitudes like that, it is no wonder that the policing issues section reeks of bias. WWGB (talk) 11:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * While sociologists are spinning yarns about unemployment and economic alienation among the youth as explanations behind the rioting, it is clear that the initial sparks of violence on day 1 were the result of popular frustration at the corruption and lack of accountability of local law enforcement. Indeed, in that respect, the initial causes of the 2011 England Riots were identical to the original causes of the LA Riots of 1992 after a white jury held that police officers used "reasonable force" in the Rodney King beating. I have absolutely no support for the filthy mongrels who were looting and rioting last week, and I hope they get brutalised in prison, but I'm not going to turn a blind eye to the corruption of the local police who caused the riots in the first place.  Deterence  Talk 11:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I notice from your contribution summary that you mainly comment on talk pages and rarely contribute to articles. That is probably a good strategy for you. WWGB (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Was it really necessary to link to the page of my contributions history?  Deterence  Talk 12:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Deterence, it's clearly not "identical to the original causes of the LA Riots of 1992 after a white jury held that police officers used 'reasonable force'," because it happened within 48 hours of the shooting, before the event had been fully investigated." Nick Cooper (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In both cases, the initial causes of the rioting were police brutality, police corruption and the total lack of accountability of the police officers involved. In the case of the LA riots, the rioting started immediately following a "not guilty" verdict (in a case where the guilt of the poloice officers couldn't be more obvious); and in the case of the 2011 England riots, the rioting started when it became obvious that yet another police cover-up was in progress when the IPCC declared patently false information and the police refused to respond to the legitimate concerns expressed by the friends and family of Mark Duggan. It makes no difference that the initial sparks of violence in the 2011 England riots occurred before the release of the final report by the IPCC, especially given that it has always been a forgone conclusion that the IPCC will declare that the police officers acted appropriately when they shot Mark Duggan. Indeed, if there is anything positive to say about the 2011 England riots, it is that they have forced the IPCC to change tack and actually conduct a thorough investigation with integrity and transparency. Yeah, I know this is WP:OR.  Deterence  Talk 14:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence of "brutality," "corruption," and "the total lack of accountability" on the part of the officers involved in the operation in which Duggan was shot? You seem to be making some very serious - if not libellous accusations - for which this is not the place. Nick Cooper (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And yet, you don't feel the need to shout "libel!" when people accuse Mark Duggan of being a "gangsta", a drug dealer or having a criminal record. Regardless, 1) police brutality: they shot Mark Duggan dead (brutal enough, for you?); 2) corruption: the police lied and said that Mark Duggan shot at the police (he did not), the police said the radio of a police officer was hit by a shot fired by Mark Duggan (the radio was hit by a shot fired by a police officer) and the police implied that Mark Duggan had an extensive criminal record (he does not have a criminal record); 3) total lack of accountability: the blatant lies spread by the IPCC made it clear that yet another cover-up was under way, which is why the rioting started in the first place.  Deterence  Talk 04:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, because libel only applies to the living. Duggan had a gun, so we can equally speculate on how "brutal" his intentions for having it were. As noted below, going from "no criminal record" to being in possession of an illegally-converted handgun is a pretty bit leap, if you assume "no criminal record" means "no involvement in crime of any sort." I would also challenge your suggestion in (3), given that it only became clear some time after the first riot that the IPCC had made misleading statements. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Regardless of any technical immunity to the tort of libel that applies to things said about the deceased, your silence has been deafening with regard to the lies spread about Mark Duggan on this page. 2) Guns are commonly used for self defence. I would be VERY tempted to possess a gun if I lived in a violent s**thole like Tottenham, especially while 1000 thugs were rioting outside the home of my family last week! God alone knows how people survive in ghettos like that without a gun. Besides, it has yet to be established that it was his gun or why he had the gun. 3) No one - and I mean NO ONE - avoids committing the occasional crime. As a lawyer, I see criminal acts being committed all the time by respected members of society. The difference is, the police and the general public don't care, or even notice, when a housewife slaps her husband in the face (assault) or the businessman falsifies his expense account to cover-up his use of prostitutes or his tax-deductible "business lunches" with his mistress (fraud), etc. And just about EVERYONE has driven while a little over the alcohol limit, at least once (and usually a hell of a lot more than once). The fact is, if the eye of God came down and tarred us all with responsibility for our criminal acts, we would ALL have very extensive criminal histories. Get over it. 4) As for your comment about the cover-up by the IPCC - you're just being bloody naive. Cover-ups are what they do best. Cover-ups are why they exist.  Deterence  Talk 15:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) My "silence has been deafening"?! I think you need to read WP:CIVIL, and stop being so personal.
 * 2) In the UK guns are categorically not, "commonly used for self defence," because "self defence" is not a valid reason for obtaining a Firearms Certificate in the UK. Possession of an illegally-converted weapon of the type found in the minicab without an FAC is an offence in itself, so unless you're trying to claim that it was someone other than Duggan's and was in the vehicle without his knowledge, you're heading up a blind alley there. Of course, if you are - as you claim to be - a lawyer, you should know all that.
 * 3) None of what you say seems to have any relevance to this page.
 * 4) See my comment r.e. (1) above. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. With that many side-steps around the issues at hand, you must be half-lawyer yourself.
 * 1) You have been completely silent about the blatant lies being repeated about Mark Duggan on this page. But, you have zero tolerance for any criticism of the IPCC. And you justify the hypocrisy based on a technicality in tort law that says "we're allowed to lie about dead people!" WTF? Hypocrite, much?
 * 2) The point is NOT that people are not allowed to obtain guns, or obtain a firearms certificate, for the purpose of self-defence. The point is self-defence is one of the morally legitimate and "non-brutal" reasons for possessing a firearm. If yo cannot imagine a scenario where a civilian has a morally legitimate reason for having an unlawful gun, then go and speak to a rape victim who was denied access to a gun to defend herself. She'll be able to fill you in with graphic detail. Why on Earth are you obsessing over the paperwork all of a sudden?
 * 3) YOU were the one who raised the point that a lack of a criminal record doesn't mean he doesn't have a criminal history. I have pointed out that EVERYONE has a criminal history. If this is not relevant, then why did you raise the point?
 * 4) You haven't denied my claim that the IPCC was involved in a cover-up regarding the death of Mark Duggan. I take it from this that you agree that there was a cover-up in progress (which is pretty hard to deny given the COMPLETE u-turn in the statements made by the IPCC once they started investigating Duggan's death properly after the riots.)  Deterence  Talk 00:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) How can I have "zero tolerance for any criticism of the IPCC" when I haven't actually made any comment about the IPCC on this page? You were the first person to apply "libel" to Mark Duggan, so that's your problem.
 * 2) This is a page about a UK subject. Under UK law, "self defence" is not a valid reason for anyone legally owning a firearm, and anyone who owns a firearm licensed for other purposes cannot carry it around for "self defence." Illegal possession of a firearm carries a five year sentence. In this context, your opinions on firearms possession are irrelevant.
 * 3) I was not the first person to raise that point, but regardless of that most people - if they do break the law - do not do so to the extent of something as serious as risking a five year sentence for illegal firearms possession.
 * 4) Your wild speculations are your own concern. Some of us would prefer to wait for real evidence. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is English your second language?  Deterence  Talk 01:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that all you've got? Nick Cooper (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Deterence you are absolutely correct. Curious how attacks on Mark Duggan, who has no criminal record, which you would never know from the attacks and aspersions from Murdoch publications like the Daily Mail, are seen as OK, with links to the Daily Mail articles - yet any criticism of the bobbies is seen to have "bias".  This section absolutely belongs in the article. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you think Duggan didn't have a criminal record? Jim Michael (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the Guardian notes that Duggan had no criminal record: "the volume of disinformation relating to the dead man had not been corrected by the authorities and that most of the allegations against him remained unsubstantiated. 'He was not a gang member and he had no criminal record. He was from a tightly knit group of friends who did separate things during the week and met up like childhood friends do, and yet some people are trying to describe that as a gang,' said the friend." And while numerous media sources make references to Duggan's "criminal record", none of them give ANY details about what those alleged convictions were for, which suggests that they're just making it up.
 * Indeed, the most damning criticism the police have provided (leaked) about Duggan's criminal history is that he is "well known to the police in Tottenham" - which is cop-speak for he doesn't actually have a criminal history we can point to, so we'll provide this nasty sound-bite and let the sensationalist hacks in the media infer that he is a wanton criminal thug with a long history of drug violence.
 * Not that having a criminal record means a damn thing - these days, getting a criminal record is as easy as being caught urinating in a public place on your way home from the pub.  Deterence  Talk 02:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article merely quotes a friend of Duggan's saying Duggan didn't have a criminal record. It doesn't say that it is true. It is very unusual for a person's first crime to be carrying a loaded gun. 188.29.71.142 (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have ANY WP:RSs that detail Mark Duggan's criminal record?  Deterence  Talk 12:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Tumbleweed
 * No, I didn't think so.  Deterence  Talk 22:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't think so.  Deterence  Talk 22:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't think so.  Deterence  Talk 22:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The Evening Standard quotes his fiancée Semone Wilson (who is biased in his favour): A major drugs player or respected father-of-four "Mark was known to police, but he had never been sent down. When he was remanded last time he said he hated jail and never wanted to go back there." I can't find details, they will probably become known to the media when the police investigation into his shooting is concluded. Jim Michael (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless there are some quirks to the slang that I am missing, "never been sent down" means he was never convicted. Regardless, the police have been desperate to paint Mark Duggan in as bad a light as possible. If he had a criminal record then it would have been released (leaked) to the media LONG before now.  Deterence  Talk 01:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends how apologist you're trying to be. If Duggan was previously held on remand, then it will have been when he was suspected of a serious crime. "The last time...." suggests that it happened more than once. So, either Duggan was incredibly unlucky, and kept getting wrongly suspected of serious crimes, or else he was simply lucky in that no charges ever stuck. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It is beyond ridiculous, (and more than a little libellous), to suggest that Mark Duggan is a criminal simply because he has (allegedly) been arrested and charged for unspecified crimes in the past. If he wasn't convicted then we presume he is innocent - end of story. As a lawyer, I have seen far too many morons and appallingly dishonest police officers to accept a person's guilt merely on the word of a police officer. I refuse to buy into that conservative rhetoric claiming the police never arrest/charge the wrong person - they do it all the time, and more often than not they are motivated by their fragile egos and bullying attitudes to intentionally prosecute innocent people. That's my soapbox for the day, lol.  Deterence  Talk 14:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Libellous? Surely as a lawyer you understand that you cannot libel the dead. WWGB (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Sent down' means sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Duggan's fiancée said that he had never been sent down, but was known to the police and had spent time in jail on remand. The large majority of suspects are not remanded; it is predominantely those suspected of the more serious crimes and / or those who have a history of repeatedly not answering bail and not attending court when they know they are obliged to who are remanded. The large majority of convictions do not result in a prison term. Therefore, not having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment does not mean that he was never convicted of any crimes. The suggestion that law-abiding people in Britain carry loaded handguns is ludicrous. Jim Michael (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "The suggestion that law-abiding people in Britain carry loaded handguns is ludicrous"? Loaded firearms are PRECISELY what I would want for my friends and family during the rioting. And God knows, I wish my close friend had carried a loaded handgun with her on the night she was violently raped in a park. This mantra about how only criminals carry guns has got to stop - even retarded 10 year olds can imagine countless scenarios where possession of firearms by law-abiding people is warranted.
 * As for Mark Duggan's supposed criminal record - if the police haven't leaked it by now, despite their desperation to paint him in as bad a light as possible, then that criminal record DOES NOT EXIST. Obviously.  Deterence  Talk 00:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The police aren't painting Duggan in any light. After an initial statement, they have been silent on the matter and probably won't say anything until the investigation into the shooting is concluded and an inquest begins. Jim Michael (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If Mark Duggan had a criminal record, the media would know about it. End. Of. Story.  Deterence  Talk 01:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Deterence, why do you keep ignoring actual UK law? Virtually all types of handguns are banned, and those that can be legally owned can only be done so under strict conditions, which certainly do not include carrying them around for "self defence" purposes, no matter what the circumstances. There is no "mantra about how only criminals carry guns" because under UK law anyone in possession of an unlicensed firearm is breaking the law, and therefore is a criminal. Maybe you're just using this whole issue to justify something wherever it is that you live, but it's completely irrelevant to the subject of this page. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * If your definition of "criminal" is everyone who has ever committed a crime, then everyone is a criminal. That definition is far too broad to have any practical utility and that is clearly not what we mean when we make pointed references to "criminals".
 * Regardless, there are lawful excuses for committing acts that would usually constitute crimes. For some classic examples look at the necessity defence (which does apply in the UK). Even the most uptight Judge will consider excusing the use of a handgun by a woman who is being attacked by a rapist, per the defence of necessity. And one does not need to use such extraordinary examples - the innocent civilian who finds a handgun and proceeds to carry that handgun towards the local police station is not breaking the law.  Deterence  Talk 00:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While police may be reluctant to prosecute, such carriage of a gun is an offence under Section 1.1 of the Firearms Act 1968. WWGB (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, give an innocent woman a choice between going to prison for firearms offences or being raped. THAT is the way to make your point. What is your point?  Deterence  Talk 07:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, given that there does not seem to be an issue in the UK of women arming themselves en mass through fear of rape, the scenario you have in mind is irrelevant. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder how "irrelevant" that scenario is to the TENS OF THOUSANDS of UK women who are violently raped every year because the threat of imprisonment for carrying the means to defend themselves has rendered them utterly defenceless against rapists. Damn, when you get it wrong, you really get it wrong.  Deterence  Talk 09:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is your evidence that that happens because of UK firearms legislation? Where are the pressure groups calling for a change of the law on those grounds? More to the point, perhaps you'd like to identify a country that allows carrying of firearms for self defence, where rape does not happen? Nick Cooper (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What? You think that women (and men) shouldn't be allowed to defend themselves against rapists because rapes still occur (albeit is fewer numbers) in those jurisdictions where women are allowed firearms to defend themselves? For your next trick, why don't you support a ban on seat-belts in cars because people still die in motor vehicle accidents in countries where people are permitted (or legally obliged) to wear them...? Your comments would be amusing ... if you weren't openly helping rapists to disarm their victims.  Deterence  Talk 23:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * People are allowed to defend themselves within the limits of the law, which in the UK does not include the carrying of unlicensed firearms. Failure to cite requested evidence to back up spurious claims also noted. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Deterence, illegal firearms posession is a serious offence in the UK - it is not the same as running a red light, or stealing a Mars bar from a shop. There are also plenty of cases where people have been prosecuted for possession of offensive weapons (not even firearms) for claimed "self defece" purposes. Regarding your claim that, "the innocent civilian who finds a handgun and proceeds to carry that handgun towards the local police station is not breaking the law," this story suggests otherwise (OK, it was a sawn-off shotgun, but the same interpretation of the law would apply to a handgun). Nick Cooper (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The sick thing is, you think that example strengthens your case. A rational man reads that case and recognises the utter absurdity and injustice of the UK's criminal law regarding firearms.
 * I don't know what has happened to the UK but there have been countless examples of ridiculous prosecutions against good honest citizens in recent years - I cannot help wondering if this isn't the tragic fall-out of Parliament recently discarding the legal authority of the House of Lords that had provided moral guidance for previous generations of politicians. Christ knows, voters like you are doing nothing to defend the rights and freedoms of the good people of Britain.  Deterence  Talk 09:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that you evidently do not actually live in the UK, your opinions of what happens here based on hearsay at a distance mean very little. Also, you haven't got a clue about my political views and/or activity, so your comments in that area are equally worthless. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Argumentum ad hominem.  Deterence  Talk 23:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * More your area of expertise, I would have thought, no matter how often you chose to delete the abuse warnings from your Talk page. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Propose rename article to "Murder of Mark Duggan"
The article name panders to the police's version of events. He was murdered by police officers firing upon him with hollowpoint rounds with the intent to kill him he was not found in possestion of a gun as the police alleged he did not fire upon officers as police alleged you are just as evil as the police for choosing a an article name as such it is akin to murdering him again....94.168.211.137 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you step off your soapbox and read the article. He was carrying a weapon when shot by police. WWGB (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

He was not carrying any weapon... a weapon was later found in a sock away from the scene. also if he had a weapon it would still be murder94.168.211.137 (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Who says the gun/sock was "away from the scene"? This report states "handgun found at the scene". And no legal assertion of murder has been made, so that is nothing more than your personal opinion. Which is not encyclopaedic. WWGB (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Duggan's gun
Pretty sure that BBC news24 reported earlier that the Gun was (contrary to earlier reports) a 'real gun' not a replica gun that was converted. Thought I'd mention it though I've not got a proper source. EdwardLane (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The gun was found in the vicinity of Mark Duggan but no independent witnesses have stated it was his gun. See Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/18/mark-duggan-ipcc-investigation-riots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.94.137.1 (talk) 13:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"a 16-year old girl who clashed with police [was a] contributory [factor] to a riot in Tottenham"
This sentence introduced by WWGB is grammatically incorrect, and also seems to claim that riots were started because a 16 year old girl took it upon herself to physically attack police. This is a curious way of presenting the following account from the Guardian:

"Others present said the spark for the rioting was a specific incident involving a 16-year-old woman, who stepped forward to confront police around 8.30pm, demanding answers, but was attacked with shields and batons. "They beat her with a baton, and then the crowd started shouting 'run, run', and there was a hail of missiles," said Anthony Johnson, 39. "She had been saying: 'We want answers, come and speak to us.'"

Laurence Bailey, who was in a nearby church, described seeing the girl throw a leaflet and what may have been a stone at police. Bailey said the girl was then "pounded by 15 riot shields". "She went down on the floor but once she managed to get up she was hit again before being half-dragged away by her friend," he said."

- http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/07/tottenham-riots-peaceful-protest

If nobody is able to fix this in the next few hours I'll do it myself. -Darouet (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 June 2012
I would like this page edited so instead of reading "About 20:00 BST, Police attack and beat a 16 year old girl who was protesting at the police station this was the flash point which led to the riot" it reads "the police arrested a 16 year old girl who threw a bottle at them. This sparked fury in onlookers who felt the girl should be let off. When this did not happen it became a flash point which started the riot".

Scubalagga (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. AndieM   (Am I behaving?'')  13:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The incident is on Youtube. There are multiple sources all over the media stating that she threw a bottle. Others claim it was a stone or a leaflet. Regardless, this girl attacked the police by throwing something and she and onlookers expected the police to shrug this off. When they treated her according to her actions and not her sex or age the crowd became agitated. Regardless of whether this is agreed with or not the current grammar used to describe this incident is poor and makes Wikipedia look amateurish. Secondly it is absurd to suggest the police decided to select some random girl from an already agitated crowd and 'beat' her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubalagga (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have edited the relevant sentence, the word "attack" was only an allegation. WWGB (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead
The current text is, "Public protest broke out in Tottenham over the circumstances of his death, motivated in part by suspicions that Duggan - a black male - was targeted by the police because of his race." While it's clear that racial tensions were a factor in the protests and riots, it's not clear that the protest broke out specifically because people suspected Duggan was targeted for his race. I'm changing the text to this if there are no objections: "The death of Duggan - a black male - resulted in public protest in Tottenham over the circumstances of his killing, fueled in part by poverty and racial tension." -Darouet (talk) 04:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting the race issue
Previously I had requested that we alter the first sentence so that it does not read "Mark Duggan, a 29-year old black man, was shot..." This is because using race as a first description of Duggan is distasteful: most biographies don't begin by announcing the race of the subject. I do understand that racial tensions were one cause of subsequent riots, however that fact should cause us to write cautiously, recognizing that this is a sensitive issue.

When another editor previously tried to erase the racial description at the outset of the article, noting that it was not befitting of the 21st century to define subjects racially, WWGB (talk) ignored the rationale and restored the racial description, writing that it was relevant because Duggan was stopped by a unit investigating "black-on-black crime." WWGB's comment was a non sequitur; he later explained the comment above by elaborating: "clearly, that confirms that Duggan was black." It doesn't. Not only was his explanation another non sequitur, it was also a bizarre statement.

WWGB also suggested that Duggan's race was important because of the subsequent riots. In recently reverting what he called my "elegant variation" to the lead and restoring the term "black man," Ironman1104 (talk) used what I assume must be a similar logic: "nobody rioted because the police shot someone of 'Afro-Caribbean' origin."

The language I used very closely resembled that in the introduction to our article on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. I chose this wording because that article received huge press and huge oversight, with editors paying particular attention to being sensitive over issues of race. The advantages of my wording are these: it first describes Duggan's fatal shooting (the title of our article is "Death of Mark Duggan"), and later describes his ethnicity in neutral, 21st-century terms. The disadvantage of the former (and now current) wording is that it places Duggan's race at the very forefront of the article (as if nobody would care except because "he was black"), and uses a descriptive term that is loaded.

I think that this is a straightforward case, and that the description as it now stands is not only wrong, but egregiously so. -Darouet (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Ironman1104 has a history with this problem. In the article on Operation Trident (Metropolitan Police), Ironman1104 changed this wording,
 * "Trident is a Metropolitan Police Service unit set up to investigate and inform communities of gun crime in London's black community,"
 * to this wording,
 * "Trident is a Metropolitan Police Service unit set up to investigate and inform people about black gun crime,"
 * despite the fact that the earlier wording reflects The Guardian source exactly: "Trident, the Metropolitan police unit responsible for gun crime within the black community."
 * Ironman1104, crime has no color. -Darouet (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That edit is appropriate because while Op trident was set up with that sepcific focus, since February this year it now responsible for investigating gang violence, regardless of race. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, his edit was inappropriate because he insisted upon using the loaded term "black crime" instead of the neutral term favored by sources, "crime in the black community." -Darouet (talk) 12:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My edit about "black community" has (as is obvious) nothing to do with use of the word "Afro-Caribbean" instead of "black", which is where Darouet entered on his hobbyhorse. It reflects my distaste for the weasel words of putting "community" in as a sanitising qualifier for an ordinary word.  The Association of Black Police Officers is not an Association of Police Officers from the Afro-Caribbean Community, and for good reason.  There is nothing wrong with calling Duggan black.  I have little doubt that is how he would have described himself, before he was shot by law enforcement operation executives of the white community.
 * Returning briefly to whether Duggan was fairly described as black, it is striking that many of the commentators, including some of those expressly quoted in the article, refer to 'black deaths in custody', and like descriptions. Ironman1104 (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Darouet, my error - I misread your comment to mean that the edit had removed any mention of race/colour in describing Op. Trident. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Darouet, I notice you spell 'colour' as 'color', which suggests you are not from the UK.
 * I believe we aren't discussing 'the race issue', we are discussing usage of English. The article on the Death of Mark Duggan, unlike the article on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, is written in British English. This national variety of the language has not much use for the type of ethnicity labels that are known as 'politically correct' in the US. Google returns merely some 140 hits for the phrase 'afro-caribbean Briton'. Having lived in North London for a couple of years, I can also confirm that nobody around here self-identifies as 'afro-caribbean'. The accepted term is 'black'. ARK (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I should like to associate myself with ARK's nicely expressed point. Ironman1104 (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is something I've been considering; folks in the U.S. are much more careful about this kind of thing, and I don't know how sensitive people are in London regarding the term "black" versus some more specific terminology. A few things for you all to think about:
 * "Black people" appears to refer to all black people, whereas "black community" limits the reference to a locale. In this case I believe we're speaking about certain communities in certain regions of the UK, not all "black people" in the UK or elsewhere.
 * In the U.S. at least, many people have different ideas regarding appropriate usage of the term "black," or "African American." In general, it's safer to use the more modern terminology because it's likely to offend no one, whereas the older terminology may offend some.
 * Ironman, you still haven't addressed my point that Duggan's race is described here even before his killing. Placing a priority on race could imply a lot of things. I think you mean to imply that Duggan was a black man, was killed, and that was significant in considering the subsequent riots. But the way this has looked to me, and I fear to other editors, is that Duggan was a black man, was killed, and we shouldn't be surprised... that he was a black man, was killed, and nobody would have cared if he were white.... that he was a black man, was killed, and maybe he got what he deserved... The point is, I don't think you mean to imply all those things, but his race is made so prominent, and without any explanation, that it begs the question: why is this being mentioned here? Nobody loses anything by being cautious here, but the costs of ignoring these problems, if people take offense, are real.
 * I'm willing to consider using "black community" or "London's black community" instead of "Afro-Caribbean" community," because that may reflect usage by people in that community itself. But I really urge you to not write "black people," which is confusing because it could refer to all kinds of people you don't mean to refer to, and to refer to Duggan's race in a later sentence, as I proposed in a previous edit. You might also consider mentioning, then, why his race is being referred to; I think that could be done concisely and in a neutral manner.
 * Lastly, the constant reference to "black people" is also problematic because there were plenty of white people who rioted after these events.
 * -Darouet (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't "mean to imply" anything that isn't stated. Your suggestions that the sentences suggest that he wouldn't have been shot if he were white (etc) are absurd.  Calling him "black" is perfectly acceptable.  Further, in UK English, use of "community" in this context does not imply a locale (ghetto?) at all.  It is used, as I have already observed, as a form of sanitiser.  Thus, during the riots, the BBC actually said that the rioters in a particular location were "members of the black community", rather than "black".  Ridiculous, and driven by the sort of over-cautious silliness which has already infected the US and which Darouet (pretty much alone) is seeking to import here. Ironman1104 (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I also live in the area policed by Station the Duggan police operated from, and confirm that the question of racial identity has become irrelevant locally. However, that is not the case inside the local police, as my comments on updating this meme below document, and so it becomes relevant here. The great parallels with the Groce case, and indeed recent disclosures in the Azelle Rodney shooting show that this Police force may have a cavalier approach to weaponry and race, which, when viewed alongside the waterboarding and other cases which resulted in the Crime Squad at that station being disbanded, suggest that the term shoot-to-kill-on-sight may not be too harsh. From my memory alone, Edmonton has a serious reputational problem dating back at least 25 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.133.218 (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Update needed to the Hutchinson-Foster trial section
I must first declare a putative interest under NPOV as I am related at a medium distance to the Ruddock family, the victims of the 1981 Deptford fire tragedy which was one of the causes of the 1981 Brixton riots. It is not impossible that I may also be related atr about the same degree of remove to Jonathan Billinghurst.

The relevant subsection states that no retrial date had been set, which is now out of date. This is incorrect, his retrial started on 7th January 2013.

In 1999, the Macpherson Report into the murder of Stephen Lawrence found that the Scarman Report into the 1981 Brixton riot had been ignored, and that (contrary to the Scarman findings) institutional rascism was embedded in the Metropolitan Police. On 9th January 2013, Stephen Lawrence's brother Stuart Lawrence complained about police harrassment through unjustified searches, and on 22nd January 2013 their mother Mrs Doreen Lawrence further complained about receiving threats as a result. This is relevant because the failure to impliment the Scarman recommendations led to the [1985 Brixton Riot], triggered by the Police shooting of Mrs Dorothy Groce, the mother of Michael Groce. These riots then led directly to the Tottenham Broadwater Farm riot. Mark Duggan was aged four and resident on that estate at the time.

On 17th January 2013, during the retrial the Home Office pathologist Simon Poole's statement reports that there were irreconcilable differences between the Police account of Mark Duggan's death and the pathology. This provides adequate justification for the Duggan family's call for police accountability, and the Police refusal to do so, seen in the framework of the Brixton riots, must surely be questioned. One possible approach might be to invert the question, asking whther the Police are alienated from the community rather than the other way around: the very appearance of the nearest police station at Edmonton, a bunker surrounded by a ten-foot wall, suggests they view themselves as a fort surrounded by hostile elements. It is also to be noted that the foundation of the 2010 police waterboarding complaint against officers from this station was a statement made by another officer, which was substantiated, although the article does not disclose Billinghurst's four convictions for driving without a licence. It may also be relevant that a secondary complaint about the uniforms used by the officers in the Billinghurst case was also substantiated inside this wider case, indicating an institutionalisedly cavalier approach to evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.133.218 (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I've updated the section on Kevin Hutchinson-Foster's trial and added Dr Poole's testimony. Further criticism of the police will need to be supported by reliable sources and must not rely on original research. ARK (talk) 10:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Almost all of what 92.41.133.218 says above is a textbook example of the type of original research that has no place on Wikipedia. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 February 2013
The following text: A trial of Hutchinson-Foster in September–October 2012 yielded new evidence and reports on the case, but the jury failed to reach a verdict is no longer complete. The following should be ammended Kevin Hutchinson-Foster was subsequently found guilty of supplying a handgun to Mark Duggan in January 2013.

62.128.153.226 (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.- Happysailor  (Talk) 20:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As reported in the article's 'Trial of Kevin Hutchinson-Foster' section, the defendant was found guilty at his re-trial in January. I added this piece of information to the lead section. ARK (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
If you do a ctrl-f for The Guardian you'll see that most of the sources for this article come for The Guardian, which had a very leftwing agenda in its coverage of the riots and was far from neutral. This picture better depicts the man the police shot than some old childish looking pic http://i.imgur.com/jKH7Fwy.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.117.67.1 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Biography issues, and race of Mark Duggan
Are there better sources available on Mark Duggan's life that can be placed in his biography? It's somewhat challenging for a reader to understand who this man was when most articles cited (understandably given the circumstances) are written after his death, and within the context of an ongoing conflict over why he was killed, etc. I'll be searching for more information on his childhood and youth before Duggan died.

One thing which I've tried to do, and this is important in any article, is make clear when where certain statements originate, as in from specific media outlets or from the police. The police are an important but obviously not a "neutral" source in this case, any more than Duggan's family: both are parties in a major controversy. In any event there's no reason to write that "it is thought" when, as we all know here, this event is highly charged politically and socially, and many people think or suspect different things.

Lastly, why is Mark Duggan's race mentioned in the lede? I can imagine agreeing that it is important, but one justification I saw noted that it was necessary because he was being investigated by a unit responsible for "black-on-black" crime. I still fail to see why this necessitates mentioning his race: I understand there must be some assumptions underlying this, but editors who want to keep Duggan's race should spell those assumptions out for the rest of us. -Darouet (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. I'm not sure that the eyewitness accounts must be in the lead, but I can hardly see how they amount to "unsubstantiated opinion." They're eyewitness reports, and opinion has no place in describing them. What exactly is meant by this? -Darouet (talk) 06:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is just one (anonymous) person's claim of events (and clearly at odds with other's claims) so it does not stand in the lead as a key fact of the topic. WWGB (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Come on, do you really believe the consequences of the death would have been the same if Duggan was white? Those involved in the subsequent riots have been described as "overwhelmingly black". Perhaps they felt justified by perceived oppression, racism or police brutality, but there is no denying the racial undertones of the events that followed Duggan's death. WWGB (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * An eyewitness account is a description of events as witnessed by an individual, typically one at the scene of a crime. It is not properly called a "claim of events," nor is it an "unsubstantiated opinion," and by reporting an eyewitness account, or multiple, conflicting accounts, we are not endorsing any of them. Nor should we. We should simply present them. When you deleted both eyewitness accounts from the lead, which one did you consider "just one anonymous person's claim of events," and which corroborated by "other's [sic] claims?"


 * Also, I agree that race may be called an important factor in the ensuing riots, but this isn't made clear in the lead, though Duggan's race is mentioned. Noting his race without later explaining why, in the lead, makes the phrase "black man" conspicuous and odd, if not in bad taste. When you previously restored the phrase you didn't mention the riots but rather explained that "it is relevant, he was intercepted by a unit investigating black-on-black crime." What did you mean by that, specifically? -Darouet (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Duggan was intercepted by a unit investigating black-on-black crime. Clearly, that confirms Duggan was black. The reader should not have to wait until the fifth paragraph, and then work that out for themselves. And how do you know the "witnesses" weren't telling lies? Or perhaps the reporter just invented them for the sake of a good story. Either way, they are not named and hence their credibility is suspect, and certainly not leadworthy. Per WP:LEAD, "the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject". The "recollection" of one or two people is not particularly important. WWGB (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Nobody is disputing Duggan's race (though I am surprised to see you write that Duggan's interception by that unit "clearly" confirms that he is black). The question is, why mention his race? You stated that Duggan's race was important enough to be mentioned because "he was intercepted by a unit investigating black-on-black crime:" I don't follow that logic and am asking you to explain it.
 * I haven't commented on the veracity of witness claims, and that's not our job. Do you believe that because witness statements could be untruthful, you have a responsibility, as an encyclopedia editor, to prevent readers from seeing them?
 * Lastly, you still haven't described which of the two witness accounts presented in the article is consistent with other eyewitness reports, and which is "just one (anonymous) person's claim of events." Can you please do that for me? I'm genuinely interested in the range of eyewitness descriptions, and you have stated that you know of a number of them. -Darouet (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I'm disputing Duggan's race - his mother has been on the television in recent days (September 2013) and she is clearly a white woman, so it would appear that it would be more accurate to describe Duggan as "mixed race" than "black". Shiresman (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Criminal record
This page doesn't mention Duggan's criminal record, but does mention the assertion that he didn't have one. In reality he had convictions "for cannabis possession, handling stolen goods " source:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24210480 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.140.46 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "Mr Duggan had convictions for cannabis possession, handling stolen goods and had been cautioned for public disorder, jurors heard." -Darouet (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

URL update
correct link for note 108 = http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/324210 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.101.192 (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Misleading use of 'alleged' & 'claim.
Over and over again this article describes things which're not in sane dispute as "alleged" or "suspected" by the police. I don't know the wikilawyering crap well enough to whether this is weasel words or whatever, but it's NPOV.

Even the lede: "Police alleged that Duggan received a Bruni Olympic handgun".

To describe it as an "allegation" is clear bias. 92.15.64.77 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The word "allege" imputes neither truth nor falsehood to the statement, but correctly describes what police maintained. This article accurately describes suspicions regarding police actions and investigations, whether those are warranted or not. Suspicion was fueled, unfortunately, by the many contradictory police statements regarding this whole event, and their poor relationship with some London communities. -Darouet (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But I agree with you about the use of the word "claim." Unlike "allege," the word "claim" doesn't have the same legal meaning and implies falsehood. I've removed it in all cases except one. -Darouet (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"A police officer was also shot, apparently by someone other than Duggan. They were taken to a hospital and released the same evening"
Can we find any other websites stating this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.38.68 (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "One of the officers who had surrounded Duggan had indeed been hit by a bullet, which had lodged in his radio. However, it had not been fired by Duggan but by V53, before it passed through the suspect's arm and hit the officer." WWGB (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Chav
Why does the article not link to chav? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.129.246 (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Because it's irrelevant. Shiningroad (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Has anyone ever heard anyone describe Duggan, or any non-white person, as a chav? People involved in gun crime are in any case way beyond the lower-level crime that chavs perpetrate. Calling Duggan a chav would be incorrect and trivialising what he was. Jim Michael (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Non-white people are sometimes described as chavs...Can't say I recall Duggan being referred to as one though. Shiningroad (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you're thinking of 'gangster' as a more appropriate word, I'd say there's more hatred in the word 'chav'... Shiningroad (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Unarmed?
I rather boldly added Category:Unarmed people shot by police to this article. I was reverted by User:WWGB. I wonder if others think this category is appropriate or not. My understanding is that the jury ruled that Duggan had no gun on him at the specific moment he was shot. However, they did also rule that he had a gun on him shortly beforehand, but disposed of it by throwing it away as the police arrived. Does anyone else think that makes 'unarmed' an appropriate description? Or are the circumstances too complex to be described in that way? The category is somewhat vague, and I would say if there's disagreement over whether Duggan was 'unarmed' or not, it shouldn't be added. Robofish (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree this is a very slippery slope and best left uncategorised. While it may have been determined that Duggan was "unarmed" at the instant that he was shot, the shooting officer formed an opinion that Duggan was armed when the officer made the decision to shoot. This assertion has not been disproved. WWGB (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * He was unarmed when he was shot. I don't think there should be a special category for "unarmed people shot by police who believed they were armed", or "unarmed people shot by police who were previously armed." Nobody is going to prove what the police were thinking: that exercise has nothing to do with this category. -Darouet (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The police were following Duggan because he collected a gun, and stopped him because he was carrying a gun. That he threw the gun seconds before police shot him did not make him unarmed. The efforts by some people to paint Duggan as an innocent victim are ridiculous. Jim Michael (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The story is that he got rid of the gun moments before he was shot. Perhaps it would be best to avoid categorizing this case as armed or otherwise? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

What you mean he "got rid of it?" It seems as though he just didn't take it with him from the car when he fled the police. So we have to decide whether strong suspicion by police that a suspect may be armed, when the police begin shoot, is sufficient grounds for excluding the category "unarmed people shot by police." Alternatively, we should decide whether a suspect's actually having recently possessed a weapon, but not possessing one when confronted and shot by police, is sufficient grounds for excluding the same category. -Darouet (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the category Robofish added was appropriate... Shiningroad (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The Jury also found Duggan to be unarmed at the time of his death. -Darouet (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"Lawfully shot" in lead
The Jury found that Duggan's shooting was "lawful," but this term should clearly not be used to describe Duggan's death in the first sentence of the lead, as it is simply an editorial and highly partisan description. More appropriate would be a statement, already included below, that a deliberation by a jury found that the shooting by police was "lawful." That Duggan was shot is plain enough and can be simply, objectively described. -Darouet (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)