Police faked evidence and used dum-dum bullets to kill Mark Duggan
The Franciscan | 12.12.2011 22:39 | Occupy Everywhere | Anti-racism | Policing | Repression
Soon after Met Police PC Simon Harwood beat Ian Tomlinson to death at the G20 protest, the IPCC lied to the world, pretending that no CCTV cameras had overlooked the scene of Tomlinson's murder. Now the Met and IPCC are lying about the murder of Mark Duggan. A particularly grotesque aspect of Mark Duggan's murder is that police shot Duggan with dum-dum bullets, as used by far-right serial killer Anders Breivik. Dum-dum bullets are banned by The Hague Convention, with soldiers who use dum-dum bullets being tried as WAR CRIMINALS...
Soon after Metropolitan Police Territorial Support Group PC Simon Harwood beat newsagent and Millwall fan Ian Tomlinson to death at the G20 protest in 2009, Independent Police Complaints Commission chairman Nick Hardwick lied to the world, pretending that no CCTV cameras had overlooked the scene of Ian Tomlinson's murder. Now the Met Police and IPCC are at it again, this time lying about the murder of Mark Duggan, whose shooting by police sparked nationwide riots during the summer of 2011.
Initially the police pretended that Mark Duggan had shot at officers before they killed him, but ballistics tests have proven that the police claim was a total fabrication. Michael Mansfield QC, acting for dead man's family, has said that "from the beginning there has been misinformation (and) a lack of information" from the IPCC, and now the IPCC have finally admitted making a "mistake" (lying) by pretending that Mark Duggan shot at the police officers who killed him.
At the North London Coroner's Court, Michael Mansfield questioned IPCC chief investigator Colin Sparrow, who admitted the IPCC "mistake" and admitted that there were no fingerprints or DNA linking Mark Duggan to the gun police said was fired by him. The gun had in fact been found on the other side of a fence, 4 meters away from the scene, and witnesses said it was the police who threw the gun over the fence. The IPCC admitted however that the two bullets found at the scene were fired from the same Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun (sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "carbine") used by the Metropolitan Police CO19 firearms unit (who are reviled, even by fellow police officers, as "The Ego Squad").
Mark Duggan's family requested that an independent pathologist carry out tests on the dead man's body, but this was not allowed, the pathologist's interim report was withheld from them, and the family were not told about the trajectory of the fatal bullet. So, when Mark Duggan's supporters marched to Tottenham Police Station on August 6 to demand answers, they were kept waiting for hours, before the police attacked the demonstration, seriously assaulting a 16 year old woman and deliberately starting the violence that led to nationwide riots.
On 15 Nov 2011 a post was added to the Police Inspector Blog (aka Inspector Gadget) asking the public to support a campaign organised by Police Sergeant Nigel Tompsett. In that post Inspector Gadget stated that the police "do not claim to be superior to any other person", and while few police have the courage to express such opinions openly, they certainly THINK they're superior to everyone, because the police believe they can kill anyone they fucking like and think they're totally above the law.
A particularly grotesque aspect of Mark Duggan's murder is that police shot Mark Duggan with hollow-point "dum-dum" fragmentation bullets, as used by far-right serial killer Anders Breivik, which splinter inside the victim's body to maximise the probability of a slow and agonising death. The use of fragmentation bullets is considered so despicable and inhumane they're banned from use in warfare by Declaration III of the The Hague Convention, with soldiers who use dum-dum bullets being tried as WAR CRIMINALS... but they're standard issue for the Metropolitan Police.
By way of an insight into the minds of senior police officers in the UK now, when The Hague Convention passed the ban on fragmentation bullets in 1899, the British delegation argued against the ban by pointing out how useful dum-dum bullets had been in putting-down colonial unrest.
http://www.channel4.com/news/hollow-point-bullets-to-be-standard-issue-for-met-police
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16141820
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/aug/07/tottenham-riots-police-duggan-live#block-44
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/07/police-attack-london-burns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots#Police_shooting_of_Mark_Duggan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum-dum
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/11/488694.html
Initially the police pretended that Mark Duggan had shot at officers before they killed him, but ballistics tests have proven that the police claim was a total fabrication. Michael Mansfield QC, acting for dead man's family, has said that "from the beginning there has been misinformation (and) a lack of information" from the IPCC, and now the IPCC have finally admitted making a "mistake" (lying) by pretending that Mark Duggan shot at the police officers who killed him.
At the North London Coroner's Court, Michael Mansfield questioned IPCC chief investigator Colin Sparrow, who admitted the IPCC "mistake" and admitted that there were no fingerprints or DNA linking Mark Duggan to the gun police said was fired by him. The gun had in fact been found on the other side of a fence, 4 meters away from the scene, and witnesses said it was the police who threw the gun over the fence. The IPCC admitted however that the two bullets found at the scene were fired from the same Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun (sometimes euphemistically referred to as a "carbine") used by the Metropolitan Police CO19 firearms unit (who are reviled, even by fellow police officers, as "The Ego Squad").
Mark Duggan's family requested that an independent pathologist carry out tests on the dead man's body, but this was not allowed, the pathologist's interim report was withheld from them, and the family were not told about the trajectory of the fatal bullet. So, when Mark Duggan's supporters marched to Tottenham Police Station on August 6 to demand answers, they were kept waiting for hours, before the police attacked the demonstration, seriously assaulting a 16 year old woman and deliberately starting the violence that led to nationwide riots.
On 15 Nov 2011 a post was added to the Police Inspector Blog (aka Inspector Gadget) asking the public to support a campaign organised by Police Sergeant Nigel Tompsett. In that post Inspector Gadget stated that the police "do not claim to be superior to any other person", and while few police have the courage to express such opinions openly, they certainly THINK they're superior to everyone, because the police believe they can kill anyone they fucking like and think they're totally above the law.
A particularly grotesque aspect of Mark Duggan's murder is that police shot Mark Duggan with hollow-point "dum-dum" fragmentation bullets, as used by far-right serial killer Anders Breivik, which splinter inside the victim's body to maximise the probability of a slow and agonising death. The use of fragmentation bullets is considered so despicable and inhumane they're banned from use in warfare by Declaration III of the The Hague Convention, with soldiers who use dum-dum bullets being tried as WAR CRIMINALS... but they're standard issue for the Metropolitan Police.
By way of an insight into the minds of senior police officers in the UK now, when The Hague Convention passed the ban on fragmentation bullets in 1899, the British delegation argued against the ban by pointing out how useful dum-dum bullets had been in putting-down colonial unrest.
http://www.channel4.com/news/hollow-point-bullets-to-be-standard-issue-for-met-police http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16141820 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/aug/07/tottenham-riots-police-duggan-live#block-44 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/07/police-attack-london-burns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots#Police_shooting_of_Mark_Duggan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum-dum http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/11/488694.html
The Franciscan
Comments
Hide the following 9 comments
The Planning and Doing of Aggressive War is the Supreme International Crime.
13.12.2011 08:22
The U.S. Judge who charied the Trials wrote into present international world law, that the planning and doing of Aggressive War is the 'SUPREME INTERNATIONAL CRIME' on the planet earth, as it actuates all other crimes high, low, big or small. He further says that it is the Supreme International Crime whether Germany does it or the U..S. A. does it. The Hague Convention is part of the anti-fascist conventions that govern war, and so is the Geneva Conventions of war, and the Charter of the United Nations all of which designate the liberations side which says the goal of liberation is the ending of aggressive war as any nations foreign policy, and the new way forward is making collective agree as democracy, and mutual benefit the way to settle disputes amongst nations. Dum-Dum Western Camp of Imperialism for not carrying out the Inernational Law of the World. Workers of all countries, unite!!
Hans B.
The police and IPCC are behaving true to form
13.12.2011 09:35
When, at the inquest into the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, Mr Mansfield asked many police officers whether anything had gone wrong in their operation every one of them denied anything had gone wrong. A few did, on further interrogation by Mr Mansfield, admit that a few small things might just have gone wrong. I imagine many of the same officers were involved in the earlier murder but, because they are disgracefully allowed to hide their identities by the courts, we do not know. We saw lies from the police and IPCC in that case. The only person held to the account in that case was someone working for the IPCC, who was sacked for the crime of telling the truth. Had this person done that the truth would have been hidden by the IPCC.
The IPCC's role as the propaganda arm of the police is easy to see. We saw the lies about CCTV where Ian Tomlinson walked and was assaulted. Until a banker put up the film the police/IPCC must have thought they had got away with their lies about the event, brave police officers helping Mr Tomlinson (who had not encountered any police officers) while facing a hail of bottles from demonstraters. The IPCC's non-investigation was almost over and the mass media had swallowed the lies hook line and sinker when the Guardian put up the video.
The sound you can hear is the sound of the IPCC mixing the whitewash.
A N Other
dum-dum bullets are legal for police to use
13.12.2011 10:17
Because the Hague convention applies only to the use of expanding bullets in war, the use of expanding rounds remains legal, or even required, in some circumstances. Examples of this are ... in law enforcement or self defence, where quickly neutralizing an aggressor may be needed to prevent further loss of life, or where the bullet must remain inside the target to prevent collateral damage e.g. on an aircraft
You could even argue they are more humane (lesser of two evils) in that they generally kill someone outright rather than letting them linger in pain for a long time. But in war it is preferable to not totally kill the enemy, because looking after a wounded or disabled soldier takes more resources than burying a dead soldier. Such is the twisted logic of war.
anon
Police are above the law, and we are below them!
13.12.2011 12:15
If Dum Dum rounds are used by a domestic police force then no defence can be presented other than deliberate, planned and intentional killing.
If the dead person is found not to be armed, then mistake or no mistake, murder is the charge.
It was the same with De Menezes, the police planned and intentionally killed him but when it was found the police had planned and intended to kill the wrong person, who was unarmed, then no justice despite the body.
Its always the same in these circumstances. When the police kill, their first thought is to start an publicity campaign to encourage the public to start thinking about 'mistakes' and 'errors' and 'just being human' and 'no real harm done'.
The public have no right to this sort of defence so why should the police?
Unless of course, unlike the public, the police are above the law!
If the police are above the law...then so am I, and so are my freinds, and their freinds too.
anonymous
Rememeber Azelle Rodney, Jean Charles de Menezes and all the others ...
13.12.2011 13:45
Azelle Rodney Campaign for Justice
Azelle Rodney - 4WardEver Case File
Why has nobody heard of Azelle Rodney?
Azelle Rodney murdered by Police (his murderer is still on a paid holiday)
Immunity' for officers in gun death of Azelle Rodney
Met police to use hollow point bullets that killed Jean Charles de Menezes
Scotland Yard issues 3,000 firearms officers with 9mm rounds that open out on impact, but denies they are dumdum bullets
Met Police say new 'dumdum' bullets will help stop injuries to bystanders
[Very Incomplete] List of people killed by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom
It's also noteworthy that dum-dum bullets are just one example of a 'new' weapon originally designed by the british to fight uprisings in the colonies, that were later 're-imported' back 'home'. Other examples springing to mind are 'flying baton rounds' a.k.a. rubber/plastic bullets and 'tear gas' ...
PigBrother
'Clarification' by IPCC 24th November
13.12.2011 19:30
They did nothing to clarify, 'inaccurate, misleading and more importantly – irresponsible comment' from the Metropolitan Police in the immediate aftermath of the deliberate killing (murder) ie the 'gunbattle' 'return of fire by the police' etc.
And they still expect us to trust them?
IT
dumbasses
13.12.2011 22:21
Yes, police shoot to kill. Real life isn't like a Hollywood movie such as Lethal Weapon where you shoot someone in the leg. That is fiction - it doesnt work. If you shoot someone, it is shoot to kill for obvious reasons - because they are a threat.
>> If Dum Dum rounds are used by a domestic police force then no defence can be presented other than deliberate, planned and intentional killing.
Nearly all law enforcement agencies use dum-dum bullets for obvious reasons. The same with a lot of hunter guns. It is so the bullet doesn't pass through the target and hit some innocent bystander. It would be RECKLESS and UNSAFE not to use dum-dum bullets. Get educated on the subject before commenting.
>> If the dead person is found not to be armed, then mistake or no mistake, murder is the charge.
No it isn't. Your knowledge of the law is incorrect. What if someone has a replica gun and is about to shoot a hostage? That would be an unarmed person.
>> It was the same with De Menezes, the police planned and intentionally killed him but when it was found the police had planned and intended to kill the wrong person, who was unarmed, then no justice despite the body.
In your opinion.
>> Its always the same in these circumstances. When the police kill, their first thought is to start an publicity campaign to encourage the public to start thinking about 'mistakes' and 'errors' and 'just being human' and 'no real harm done'.
>> The public have no right to this sort of defence so why should the police?
Because it is their job. The public have no right to shoot anyone even if they are a threat.
>> Unless of course, unlike the public, the police are above the law!
Not above - part of. They are authorised to enforce the law. You are not because frankly you with a gun would be a very frightening thing.
>> If the police are above the law...then so am I, and so are my freinds, and their freinds too.
Whatever. You are invisible and of no consequence. The police have a job. If you want that job, then go and apply for it.
anon
Pig guts.
14.12.2011 21:44
Yes, police shoot to kill. Real life isn't like a Hollywood movie such as Lethal Weapon where you shoot someone in the leg. That is fiction - it doesnt work. If you shoot someone, it is shoot to kill for obvious reasons - because they are a threat.
Yes, Mark Duggan was a threat like many other threats because he was black. Being black is all you need to have to be a threat to London filth.
>> If Dum Dum rounds are used by a domestic police force then no defence can be presented other than deliberate, planned and intentional killing.
Nearly all law enforcement agencies use dum-dum bullets for obvious reasons. The same with a lot of hunter guns. It is so the bullet doesn't pass through the target and hit some innocent bystander. It would be RECKLESS and UNSAFE not to use dum-dum bullets. Get educated on the subject before commenting.
Its already reckless and unsafe. The police have a compelling record that proves that they will routinely shoot and kill the wrong people because they are black. You are far more likely to be the subject of police criminal bahaviour in the UK if you are black. You are far more likely to be subject to arrest by the UK police if you are black. You are far more likely to be charged with an offence without evidence if you are black. You are far more likely to be unlawfully killed by the UK police if you are black. Mark Duggan and Jean Charles de Menezes were killed by UK police and the officers responsible have never been subject to prosecution. The police are above the law. PERIOD. If they were subject to the law they would have been prosecuted. No prosecution...no legitimacy.
>> If the dead person is found not to be armed, then mistake or no mistake, murder is the charge.
No it isn't. Your knowledge of the law is incorrect. What if someone has a replica gun and is about to shoot a hostage? That would be an unarmed person.
What if the moon were made of cheese idiot. Mark Duggan had no gun. Jean Charles de Manezes had no gun and wasn't even the person the police were looking for. They fucked that up because the British police are fundamentally fucking stupid and can't tell shit from shoe-polish. When they do fuck up, their first thought is 'how can we save this situation', how can we make it look like its the dead guys fault!!!!
>> If the police are above the law...then so am I, and so are my freinds, and their freinds too.
Whatever. You are invisible and of no consequence. The police have a job. If you want that job, then go and apply for it.
Invisible and of no consequence eh? Only a cop would say something that fucking stupid. I would never want to work as filth because I'm not bent enough. I don't take kick-backs from bailiffs and local council officials. I don't selectively enforce the law on the basis of what colour nigger I like. I'm not bent enough to 'play the game'.
You get it, freindo!
Now fuck off and go bark at the moon...eedjit!
anonymous.
I'll sing u a song an it won't take long, all coppers are bastards!
14.12.2011 21:51
Yes they do...its called self-defence.
The difference between the police and the public is the public go to prison if they murder people...the police don't.
Its called being 'above the law' and its something you can expect if you are a copper. Wink wink, nudge nudge, know wot I mean guv'nor.
Lets knock the self-indulgant 'police are heroes' bollocks on the head shall we. This is a community that has a lot of experience with the police and 'their ways'.
Gene Popeye.