Talk:Killing of Mark Duggan

Merge it with 2011 England riots

Changed 2011 London riots to 2011 England riots Suggest merge Mark Duggan, no notable historical person, into 2011 England riots. Merge it into that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.165.132 (talk • contribs)

The place to comment is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Duggan (2011 London riots). WWGB (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree: Merge with 2011 UK Riots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.87.177 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Mark Duggan's only "claim to fame" (no offense intended) was his role in the riots. We have virtually nothing in regards to his biography, at least nothing that makes him Wiki-relevant. A section in the Riots page detailing the circumstances of his death will suffice. Bundito (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This vote has to be done at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Mark Duggan. violet/riga _^[talk] 18:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes include this on the riots page, it does not need its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.236.124 (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It reads like a news article and would be better as a re-direct to the London Riots 2011. Plus this could in the future become a major battle ground between groups debating what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.105.96 (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Page should be a re-direct only. Not notable except for his death as a catalyst for violence.Pär Larsson (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, then according to 78.151.105.96 we should delete all controversial articles! This death and the investigation that will follow, extending for months or years, will have its own development and pace, different from the one of the riots. What's interesting here is that (as proven amply) lies were told to the press by the police in an attempt to make the victim seem responsible for his own death. To erase this article takes us away from NPOV: it can be interpreted as some kind of coverage or indulgence towards the police actions. The riots will be over in a matter of days, the investigation into Mr. Duggan death will carry on for a longer time. I suggest to change the title of this article to "Death of Mark Duggan". The consequences and contributions that surely will be made to this article are very different and have a different theme and pace that the ones about the riots. This article is about a possible disciplinary action towards policemen, the riots are about a public disturbance. I say let it stand. The fact that both articles are sad (riots and lies by police officers about a death are to be lamented) does not mean we should try to cover one and display the other. The argument by Parjlarsson is irrelevant. This death will be notable for the investigation it will cause, not only "as a catalyst for violence". If that were true, then erase the article on the Death of Marat and redirect it to The Terror. Ciroa (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

1992 Los Angeles riots

Doesn't this seem very familiar to the Rodney King Riot in 1992? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks22835 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Mark Duggan was NOT just some random guy the police saw. The police went to arrest him because they had very good reason he had illegal drugs and weapons. Obviously he did since he shot at the police and tried to get away. Innocent men don’t carry guns. Hurleyman (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Innocent men don't carry guns? that's such a stupid comment. Police carry guns. Soldiers carry guns. Law-abiding citizens who live in rough places and want to protect themselves carry guns. As you can see, so far there is no evidence that he fired at police, according to the IPCC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.244.217 (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Law-abiding citizens who live in rough places and want to protect themselves carry guns." I see your ISP places you in the USA. Enough said. WWGB (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Police and soldiers are sworn in to their profession and face the same repercussions as criminals if they miss use their firearms. "Law-abiding citizens who live in rough places and want to protect themselves carry guns" ALL hand guns are illegal in the UK, so your comment is one of ignorance. IF the police did shoot first, it’s still ok. Mark Duggan did have an illegal handgun with a bullet in the chamber, according to the IPCC. So if the police felt that they were going to get shot at, they are in their right to defend themselves from criminals. Dont carry illegal hand guns, sell drugs, or do anything illegal and you won’t have anything to worry about from the police. That is why this isn’t similar to the riots in '92, where Rodney King wasn't doing anything illegal. Hurleyman (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So, in the UK the penalty for carrying a gun is immediate death by Police officers, no matter what you do with the gun? I guess the same penalty applies to "sell drugs, or do anything illegal", the argument being: "well, Police officers killed him, but he was selling drugs". I would say that is very important for Police to establish that he was an actual menace to them. Police lied to the press when they said he shot them! Is that normal in the UK? Doesn't that deserve an article? If that's the Police policy and that is the callous reaction of the UK public to patent lies by police officers when they kill a criminal, no wonder we had the riots. Ciroa (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Rodney King was driving at over the speed limit whilst drunk. He didn't stop for the police, which is why he was being pursued by the LAPD. Jim Michael (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So, again, if you drive under the influence and do not stop, police can beat you? That's a new Penal Code, Jim Michael, as far as I know.

That's the very reason why Mr. King has an article in this encyclopedia on the beating itself, the subsequent disciplinary action and trial of the officers and about what Mr. King did after the investigation was over, when he became a celebrity. That's a separated article from the one on L.A. riots. Ciroa (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If he shot the police, why was the bullet recovered shown to be from a police-issued gun? Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears that the bullet in the police radio was from an officer's gun, fired at the incident. Duggan's gun was loaded. It has not been revealed whether or not Duggan shot at police, and if so, whether any bullet from him hit anyone at the scene (he could have shot and missed). When such info is reported by reliable sources, it should be added to this article. Jim Michael (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. It has been proven and accepted by the Police itself that Mr. Duggan did not shoot his weapon. This means we DO know that the Police lied when they said he shot them. Then, why the lying? I quote: "investigative journalist Tony Gosling, ... said: It’s not the only death of an ethnic minority that the police have been responsible for. We have had something like 340 deaths, mostly of ethnic minorities in police custody over the last 12 years. That’s around one a month without a single conviction of a police officer.” This is a different issue from the one of riots: it's an article about an investigation of a death, the circumstances surrounding this death and the consequences that might or might not happen to those officers involved in the incident, not about the rioters or the riots. Ciroa (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Stating how many people have died in police custody, or the ethnic distribution of them is irrelevant to this case. This probably is not classified as a death in custody, because he was not likely under arrest. Suspects / criminals dying of natural causes, self-administered drug overdoses, suicides in police cells are not homicides, so why would any police be prosecuted for their deaths? Of course blacks are overrepresented in the statistics, as they are arrested, charged etc at a much higher rate than whites, Asians etc. Whites are shot by the police too, eg, Death of Harry Stanley, who was not armed. Even if it is proved that Duggan didn't shoot at police on 4 August, it doesn't tell us that he didn't pull his gun on them and threaten to shoot them. Jim Michael (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, early reports that Mark Duggan shot at the police have been entirely discredited. The police have (belatedly) announced that the gun found with (near?) Mark Duggan had NOT been fired and ballistics testing of the bullet that hit a police officer's radio have shown that it was fired from a police officer's firearm - in other words, Mark Duggan didn't fire a single shot and a police officer shot another police officer's radio. Deterence ^Talk 15:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Children

Statement that he had four children, one stillborn, is politically tainted. Including a stillborn among a deceased's survivors is not standard parlance; just say he was survived by his wife and 4 chlildren (this figure including the one from another relationship). PoemsAndNinjaStars (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)PoemsAndNinjaStars

"Politically tainted"? How so? It is a statement of fact. What politics are involved? WWGB (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd actually say that it should read survived by 3 children, counting a miscarriage is somewhat ludicrous. 186.2.136.142 (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A stillborn child is not a miscarriage. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A miscarriage is the delivery of a non-viable fetus. A "stillborn" delivery is a type of late-term miscarriage. In utero death of fetus results in either expulsion or resorption of products of conception (including fetus). Expulsion of the fetus and other products of conception is one cause of spontaneous abortion / "miscarriage," and if this occurs late during the pregnancy it is known as stillbirth. Jeffhall318 (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How can you be survived by a stillborn child? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.117.209.167 (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It does not say that. Read the article. WWGB (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

He isn't survived by his wife - he never married. He is survived by his four children - three by his partner whom he had been in a relationship from when he was 16 until he died (although he didn't live with her) and a child he fathered by someone else. 188.28.100.6 (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

I don't think this is the moment to delete it - my guess it it will receive a lot of hits. At most redirect to London Riots 2011 page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.169.189 (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a very important article in the context of the London riots. There is not reason to delete it. Absolutely transcendental. --Albeiror24 - English - Español - Italiano - ខ្មែរ 10:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't see why this article should be deleted. It served my purposes when I looked for information and it indeed has a number of evaluators who, in general, gave it good ratings. Ictlogist (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to delete this article either. No idea why it's been suggested for deletion. It's a notable part of an impacting event. It seems pretty unbiased and well cited based on the information available about the event so far. 82.152.164.44 (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

What? Why would somebody propose this article for deletion? The current riots are one of the most interesting situations of the year so far. And after all, isn't Wikipedia self-labelled as The Free Encyclopedia? Wouldn't make much sense if an encyclopedia purposely left out information pertaining to a potentially large event. Granted the information could be moved to an equally appropriate article, but for now it's perfectly fine. mÆniac ^Ask! 03:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. Why is this person's death so important? We'd all like to learn about it! Keep it. - Niri M / ನಿರಿ 19:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. Alleged cause of 2011 England riots. Bender2k14 (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Expressing your opinion here won't do much good at the moment; the place to do so is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Mark Duggan... AnonMoos (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion. And frankly, even the suggestion of deleting such a high-profile article borders on vandalism. Deterence ^Talk 14:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Taxi driver

hey, where's the line stating that Mark Duggan is taxi driver? I just saw it few hours ago, and then it dissappeared. you can still see it on google search http://www.google.ru/#sclient=psy&hl=ru&newwindow=1&source=hp&q=Mark+Duggan+driver+&pbx=1&oq=Mark+Duggan+driver+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=64l1045l4l1507l7l6l0l0l0l0l318l1102l0.2.2.1l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=51a73e2f17cd4d33&biw=1382&bih=927 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.129.213 (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Did he have a licence? Or did he just do illegal minicab driving too? I'd like to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.228.245 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2011 (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)

Keep the article but rename it

This should be "Mark Duggan" not the "Death of Mark Duggan" Much more news will come out over the next year or two. There will be inquiries etc. Mark Duggan may not be noteworthy as a person. The incident though is noteworthy. And it was not the first nor will it be the last. Merging it into the riots article will make the riots article too long. cckkab (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

tirades
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Duggan isn't notable, he was an ordinary criminal. His death is notable as it receives a great deal of media coverage. Jim Michael (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC) "Duggan isn't notable, he was an ordinary criminal" that is so blatantly offensive to be repugnant, if I knew him, this attitude would make me want to riot too. 67.188.202.139 (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"There will be inquiries etc. Mark Duggan may not be noteworthy as a person." That'S exactly why it should be under the death of name. -Koppapa (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Cckkab -- Duggan isn't really "notable" except for the manner of his death and its consequences; see also the existing articles Death of Jean Charles de Menezes and Death of Ian Tomlinson. It's much better to leave the article name as it is... AnonMoos (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

This article should not be renamed, and it should DEFINITELY not be deleted. Preposterous! Tim Riches, Brampton, Ontario (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Jeremiah Duggan

Is there any connection to the english Student Jeremiah Duggan from London who was killed in 2003 in Germany? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jeremiah_Duggan 92.73.91.179 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Other than having the same surname, obviously not. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How is obviously not? It is a fair question to ask. Deterence ^Talk 14:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well for a start, one is white and one is black. WWGB (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You are somewhat ignorant of genetics - its perfectly possible for a black woman to give birth to a white baby (and yes indeed , vice versa). But I dont know if Jeremiah Duggan was related. Mark Duggan was related to 'Noonan' a yardie gangster from Manchester, who boasted of being involved in 25 murders in a C5 documentary though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.228.245 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Duggan may not be a common name, but it's not particularly rare. It's just a coincidence. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Injured police officer

Why is it not mentioned anywhere what the nature and extent of the police officer's injuries were? Obviously this is relevant as it will determine whether the police were correct in firing on Duggan. Exclusion of this creates a very clear bias in the overall tone of the article. I note that this aspect is also not covered in any of the related articles. 196.216.16.10 (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

All that's appeared so far in solid news reports (as opposed to vague early rumors) is that a police-issued bullet ended up lodged in a police-officer's radio. AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. Why the secrecy / lack of investigation on this aspect by the press?

Surely Duggan was no more important than the wounded officer? Everything else surrounding Duggan's death has been published as fact although nothing has been proven.

Why not this? 196.216.16.10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

Dude, there's no indication at this point that there ever was any "wounded officer"... AnonMoos (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"The IPCC said police fired two shots. One killed Duggan, the other lodged in the radio of another police officer."

— http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025259/London-riots-Mark-Duggans-uncle-Desmond-Dessie-Noonan-crime-lord.html#ixzz1Utxt1PuS , in x, x, The Daily Mail

Like AnonMoos, I have read nothing about an injured officer; if the bullet in the radio resulted in injury, (bruising?) it seems not to have been fired by Mark Duggan. Laurel L. Russwurm (talk) 10:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"A police officer was also injured after a bullet – presumably from a ricochet – lodged in his radio. ... an officer was taken to hospital after the incident." [1] WWGB (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"A CO19 officer was taken to hospital as a precautionary measure but has since been discharged" (The Independent, 5 August 2011). ARK (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the injuries sustained by the police officer are moot given the recent reports that Mark Duggan's gun had NOT been fired and the bullet lodged in the "wounded" police officer's radio was of police issue and was in all likelihood fired by a police officer. Deterence ^Talk 12:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Deterence gives the best reasoning as always ... thank you. This is indeed a moot point taking all current reports into consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.216.16.10 (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

IPCC article

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/Pages/pr_090811_dugganupdate.aspx

This is an excellent source of information and should be used/quoted, but not copy/pasted into the article violet/riga _^[talk] 13:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

No mention of...

The fact no prints have been found on the casings of the inner chamber or that bullet does not match his gun and instead matches a police firearm? How odd. 203.59.15.85 (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC) Harlequin

Image of scene

I just removed this image: File:Ferry Lane, Tottenham Hale - geograph.org.uk - 1767129.jpg

It is a useful image to include, showing where the incident happened, its placement in the Aftermath section is not really appropriate. Hopefully as this article expands it can be put back. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why were they trying to arrest him?

The current article says only that the police were trying to arrest him "as part of a police operation". That's sort of meaningless, isn't it? –174.24.187.86 (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's currently known, other than that they thought he had something to do with illegal guns... AnonMoos (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe it means he was not arrested on the street in flagrancy, nor was he charged with something and then arrested. He wasn't the subject of a warrant or court order. He was being followed because the police presumed he was going to take revenge by a previous murder of a relative and because he was part of a "gun violence gang" (whatever that means). At some point into the operation the officers tried to put him in custody. Hence the "police operation" mentioned. I think it also implies, subtly, that the police sting operation was the detonator of this incident, but that's only my opinion, of course. --Ciroa (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Police operation" means little more than the fact that police officers were involved. It's a "police operation" when a uniformed police officer tickets motorists for speeding. Deterence ^Talk 04:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Armed officers had planned to arrest Duggan and were following the minicab that he was a passenger in. I don't believe it has been revealed why, only that it was part of Operation Trident, hence they knew or suspected he was carrying a gun. It seems to only be speculation that Duggan was on his way to shoot his cousin's killer. Jim Michael (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wasnt it connected to the fact one of his many girlfriends is also due in court, charged with possessing a large amount of cocaine ?? Y'know, the one the riots were about, because the Police had 'disrespected' her by failing to visit to offer condolences after the illegal and non peaceful protests outside Tottenham Police Station, just before a few of them started committing acts of trespass, criminal damage, threatening behaviour , etc etc.?? Pretty sure that is why they didnt go round to see her - the cocaine and guns were the reason they were trying to arrest him.80.42.228.245 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)twl80.42.228.245 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Essential information

This article just lacks any sort of credibility if it fails to mention why the police tried to arrest him. It's a vital part of the story, and providing the information is essential (or at least, as much of it as is known). Failure to mention that is almost hinting that the police just happened to be following him by accident, and that they tried to arrest him for littering or something.

• Indisputable fact: He was being followed as part of Operation Trident.
• Indisputable fact: He was suspected of carrying a gun.
• Indisputable fact: He was carrying a gun at the time the arrest was attempted.
• Indisputable fact: He was linked with a gang known for carrying guns
• Indisputable fact: He was suspected of planning a revenge attack following a family murder (whether he did plan one is besides the point, it's 100% true that he is suspected of such)

All of these have more than adequate sources. The reverting by some seems as though they disagree just because they don't like the color of the logo on the front page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.28 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

While the assertion that the police were attempting to arrest Duggan to prevent a revenge killing sounds broadly plausible, the claim, at this stage, could be dismissed as unpublished synthesis under Wikipedia:Original_research except for two published sources that appear to support it, depending on your reading of "amid fears": The Sun article of 6 August and the Daily Mail piece of 8 August that borrowed the "amid fears" line from the Sun.

Neither the Met nor the IPCC have stated any reason for the attempted arrest, and the (purported) link to the (allegedly) planned revenge killing, however plausible, is as tenuous as the initial claim that Duggan shot at the police: it's speculation.

I believe that the Sun and the Daily Mail reports need to stay in the Background section. To include their claim as established fact in the lead, however, is premature. ARK (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

They don't need to state a reason. Last time I checked, carrying a gun IS reason enough in itself for somebody to be arrested... Believe it or not, the police do sometimes try to get guns of the streets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.28 (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I refer you to WP:NPOV. Mark Duggan might have been a complete douche-bag, and most editors probably think he got what was coming to him, but this is an encyclopaedia and we're trying to maintain some degree of credibility by not taking sides.

There may be a place for provocative photographs where they paint an accurate picture of the subject. But, the danger with such photographs is that we do not know how accurate they portray the character of the people in them. For all we know, the "fingers in the shape of a gun" picture might have been a chanced photo of Duggan scratching his chin or he might have been posing as a "gangsta" for a joke at a party - the point is, we do not know. Let's pretend we're professionals and stick with the neutral picture. Deterence ^Talk 01:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

• Plenty of room in the article for both images. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

David Lammy further comments

David Lammy: 'There is a history in Tottenham that involves deaths in police custody' may contain further useful material. --Trevj (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Background section could do with some non-biographical material regarding the police and their community relations, especially. Some of this can be sourced from the 2011 England riots article. ARK (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This talk page appears to have been corrupted

Many sections and comments have suddenly disappeared and some comments have been moved around, making for some rather ridiculous threads. Does anyone know what has happened and how to fix it? Deterence ^Talk 10:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tomlinson

The impression is given that Ian Tomlinson was "Afro-Carribean". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.127.7 (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

How? Nick Cooper (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Policing issues

All of the "experts" quoted in Death of Mark Duggan#Policing issues 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 [2] 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)

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)

Poor sources

I am dismayed that we still have material here that is only referenced to the Daily Mail and The Sun. I would suggest that unless better sources can be found, such material be removed. --John (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's rather harsh, you are basically proposing a blacklist of those sources where no argument has been made that their content is inappropriate. I would only agree that the material be removed if other sources cite contrary facts. WWGB (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In User:John's defence, The Daily mail and The Sun are infamous for "reporting" blatant lies and sensationalised rhetoric. They are so utterly unreliable that discerning readers would be noticeably surprised to discover that any of their articles contain more fact than fiction. Especially with regards to emotive issues like the England riots. I would be perfectly content to see that material removed until those claims have are supported by WP:RS. Deterence ^Talk 06:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that large tabloid newspapers inherently fall outside the definition of "respected mainstream publications", and any presumption of their limited reliability, or guidelines based on such a presumption, would need to be established before they can be applied to this article. I'd also hazard the guess that every assertion currently attributed only to the Daily Mail or The Sun could be found in publications of lesser circulation if one put one's mind to it. The point of the exercise wouldn't be self-evident to me, however, as I don't particularly suspect the assertions of being false. ARK (talk) 07:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Truth is not the issue here. Verifiability is. --John (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

ARK, you are the first person I have EVER seen claim that The Sun and The Daily Mail are "respected mainstream publications". Seriously, how much credibility do you think you have after saying that? As for throwing the burden of proving that they are not "respected mainstream publications" upon us ... the mind boggles. Deterence ^Talk 08:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "how much credibility do you think you have"? Probably a lot more than an editor who only contributes to talk pages. WWGB (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The day I feel the need to troll through another editor's contributions history is the day you can shoot me. Deterence ^Talk 08:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And deny Wikipedia the benefit of a remarkable insight? Nfw ..... WWGB (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Is that it? If there is nothing else to be said here I will take down these claims in 24 hours if no better sources can be found. --John (talk) 21:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Take them down now if you like. There has been ample time for discussion about this issue. Only a total fool believes that The Sun and the Daily Mail are up to the standards of WP:RS. Deterence ^Talk 00:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Done, though it took me longer than I said. On such a high-profile case it should be easy to find better sources than the Sun or the Mail. We are not a tabloid and do not repeat claims only found in tabloids. --John (talk) 23:27, 1 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

 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)