Mark Duggan did not shoot

Mark Duggan’s gun was not fired, and before his death, he expected to be murdered. This suggests that his family’s account of his killing is true – that he was not killed in an exchange of fire, but was murdered by police, in which case the attacks on police that started these riots were legitimate, no matter how illegitimate the ensuing arson, looting, and random racist assaults.
Though the British cops generally go easy on the underclass, they are the hounds of hell on people with guns. Since they are the hounds of hell on members of the bourgeoisie who use guns to defend their property, since British police casually break every law in order to punish these respectable legal gun owners, and expend huge amounts of time and effort to legally or illegally get middle class property owners who use guns to protect their property, it is plausible that they behave similarly to members of the underclass who use guns to protect their drugs.

Police devoted extraordinary resources to getting Mark Duggan, just as they devoted even more extraordinary resources to taking down Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer who shot a burglar in self defense.  Compare and contrast with their casual negligence when members of the middle class are robbed or have their property destroyed by arsonists.

Inspector Gadget tells us:

We want to carry out a baton charge at a line of angry youths who are setting fire to a huge wheelie bin in the doorway of a post office, but we are told to ‘hold the line’.

No big effort to prevent people from starting fires, but a gigantic effort to prevent people like Tony Martin from using guns on underclass habitual criminals.

Since they were putting remarkable effort into pinning something on Mark Duggan, it is plausible that, as claimed by the protestors, they eventually decided to take a short cut.

Meanwhile, those who attacked property in the riots get off lightly. Harriet Harman is seeking the looter and arsonist vote, as is Ken Livingstone

The rioters are underclass, are living on welfare, or, which comes to much the same thing, are employed in low level government jobs (either way, they don’t work and do not have to discipline themselves). Most of them are imported underclass, though some of them are native British underclass.

These are people who, whether nominally employed or not, are paid for their votes, in most cases, brought to Britain for their votes. These are welfare state mobs.

When the government collects money from group A, and gives it to group B, one should not be very surprised if law enforcement, the judiciary, and regulatory authorities also favor group B over group A.

In America, we have the problem of racist flash mobs forming to attack whites, x, x, x similar though not identical to Britain’s rioter problem. And as with Britain’s rioter problem, the authorities roll over and play dead.

Recall that Major Hasan, before he murdered a bunch of people at Fort Hood, was affirmative actioned into a job for which he was clearly unqualified. He is still drawing pay for that job, while those who heroically stopped him at great risk to their own lives, have, predictably, been laid off.

The government is on the side of the mob. Of course it is on the side of the mob. That is what democracy is. And a democratic government prefers a poor and ignorant mob whose votes come cheaply. And if the natives are not like that, will import a new people to get rid of the old people, which process is now under way.

Inspector Gadget thinks that if police were just allowed to whack people, they would make short work of the rioters, but if you want to get ahead in today’s police force, it is not the rioters you should be making short work of, it is those who have the insolence to work, marry, raise their own children, save money, and invest.

People are saying that it is shocking the state is too weak to maintain order, we need a stronger state.  Rather, the problem is that the state is not on the side of property, so property gets set on fire.  The state was plenty strong enough to railroad Tony Martin for defending his property.

10 Responses to “Mark Duggan did not shoot”

  1. PRCalDude says:

    Pretty hard not to root for the rioters against the “Feds” as they were calling them. Obviously it would be better if the borgeoisie revolted and reclaimed the rights they had under the Magna Carta, but that won’t happen. They have too much to lose.

    I guess you should make sure you have a herd of pigs in your backyard before you shoot anyone in self defense in the UK to dispose of the body.

  2. Alrenous says:

    “in which case the attacks on police that started these riots were legitimate”

    Would normally be legitimate, yes. However, it is well known that if you wave a piece at the cops, you’ll get shot. Only an idiot wouldn’t know that, and as Duggan expected to get shot, he isn’t an idiot. If you do something knowing full well you’ll get hurt, and you end up hurt, it is nobody’s fault but your own. Even if technically speaking on the other side is a human who could have decided not to.

    Also I want to know who is claiming Duggan shot first. I only know about it from all the myth-busting attempts. The official cop’s story is that Duggan didn’t shoot. (After a little googling, I get it now. “Doubts emerge;” implying a police coverup where none exists.)

    • Bill says:

      Agree with Alrenous. To get shot (justifiably), it’s enough to disobey an order to drop the gun or to point it in the general direction of the cops.

      I’ve read several news stories now, and I don’t see any real evidence one way or the other as to justification. And the claim that the police lied doesn’t look strongly supported to me either. Evidently there were claims from them about an “apparent exchange of gunfire.” This isn’t necessarily a lie. There were a bunch of cops. One of them (at least) fired. One of them got hit. It’s easy to see how many or even all of these cops could get the mistaken idea that they were in a gunfight. This is what investigations are for.

      • jim says:

        If we suppose he did indeed wave the gun around or somesuch, and he therefore needed killing, it is nonetheless still the case that the huge effort to nail him for unspecified offenses, for whatever they could find, contrasts with the complete lack of effort to nail arsonists who burn stuff down in front of police.

        There was a massive effort to find something to arrest him for, and after the big effort to find something on him comes up empty, then he supposedly suddenly does something that makes it necessary to kill him.

        Not implausible, given low black IQ and propensity for violence. Being investigated might trigger the crime they were looking for, but at least somewhat suspicious. And even if my suspicions are totally unjustified, and the police killing totally justified, why the huge effort to bust Mark Duggan, as against the total lack of effort to bust ordinary muggers, arsonists, and burglars?

      • jim says:

        Theodore Dalrymple, who is conservative enough for anyone, tells us that the killing of Mark Duggan was “probably incompetent”, and also tells us “The people who most fear our police are the innocent.”

  3. Bill says:

    On the general theme of the vileness of British police, I just stumbled upon this interesting book review by David Koppel. The reviewed book evidently documents the history of the British Home Office encouraging police persecution of peaceable gun owners from 1920 to the present.

  4. Leonard says:

    but was murdered by police, in which case the attacks on police that started these riots were legitimate

    No. No matter what the police did to Duggan, only people who were attempting to defend Duggan can possibly claim justice for attacking police. I suppose you might think that vigilante attacks against the specific police officers who killed Duggan are just, too. But that’s as far as it goes.

    Also, “legitimate” is poor word-choice, as it suggests something done in accordance to law, which attacking police is not. May I suggest “justified”?

    • jim says:

      It is far from clear that Mark Duggan was murdered, but under the circumstances (big effort to nail him for something, anything and his gun not fired) at least plausibly suspicious that he was murdered. Gang warfare rules then apply. If armed, organized and cohesive gang X kills a member of gang Y, a reprisal raid by gang Y against random fighters of gang X is reasonable and necessary. When we blow up Taliban members, we generally don’t worry much whether they are the specific Taliban members that blew up our guys.

      If the police were generally imposing impartial justice, protecting the innocent, getting muggers and burglars off the streets, then one could plausibly claim special privilege for the police.

      If the police are not doing that, then they are just another gang. Gang X hits Gang Y, it is legitimate for gang Y to hit gang X. Taliban bomb us, we bomb taliban.

Leave a Reply