I thought the most moving sight yesterday, after the judgement that Mark Duggan had been ‘lawfully killed’ by London police, was the demeanour of his brother. A big burly man, he kept rubbing his hand across his shaved head before and after telling the cameras how he and the family had come seeking justice but had failed to find it. You could almost see grief grappling with rage grappling with bewilderment as he stood there.
The ‘lawful killing’ judgement (do they make up these phrases so they can sound as offensive as possible?) on Mark Duggan’s death was justified by the fact that he was carrying a gun. That is to say, he was carrying a gun in a shoe-box in his vehicle. The policeman who shot him dead claimed he was convinced Duggan was carrying a weapon. The inaccuracy of his perception was indicated by the fact that the shoe-box weapon was found in a field some twenty metres away from where Duggan was shot.
There was a commentator of some kind on BBC Radio 4 this morning, explaining how policemen had to make life-and-death decisions in a split second, which would explain the officer’s mistake. It doesn’t, however, explain how the weapon could be twenty metres from the man who was killed.
It all has a painfully familiar ring, doesn’t it? At Loughgall in May 1987, an IRA unit of eight men were shot dead by 36 under-cover SAS men. The SAS fired approximately 1200 rounds, the IRA men 70. All the dead IRA men had multiple wounds and were shot in the head. One of the unit, Seamus Donnelly, escaped as far as a football field beside the road but there was shot dead. There are allegations that at least three of the IRA men were shot while lying down after surrendering.
Of course, the killing of men who clearly could have been called on to surrender was lawful. That is to say, no SAS men were charged or punished for the mass killing. So too in Tottenham. Mark Duggan was the enemy, his death would send a message as to who is boss about Tottenham. No policeman will serve a day in prison for the taking of Duggan’s life. Only when the public finds ways of navigating through a legal system that allows the guilty to go free will the justice that Mark Duggan’s family thirst for be achieved. As for Loughgall, in 2011 the Historical Enquiries team found that the IRA team could not have been safely arrested and concluded that the SAS were justified in opening fire.
There will be two blue moons over Tottenham and three over Loughgall before the state killers in either area face justice.
The European Court of Human Rights didn’t rule that the Loughgall killings were unlawful.
Incidentally, the fact that the Court ruled at all in relation to Loughgall proves that the PIRA campaign wasn’t a ‘war’. Otherwise the Court wouldn’t have had jurisdiction.
Perhaps if Mark Duggan’s family had spent more time when he was alive trying to keep him out of trouble and away from one of the most dangerous gangs in Britain, they wouldn’t have to make an exhibition of themselves in front of court and moan about his supposed “execution”? Because that’s why he died in a hail of bullets. It wasn’t because he was black, but because he was a gang thug
That’s a callous thing to say, Neill. An unarmed man is killed and you blame the parents? Come on, you’re better than that. As for ‘making an exhibition of themselves’ and ‘moaning’ – if a near-relative of yours were shot dead when they could have been arrested, would consider complaint an exhibition and protest mere moaning? And I don’t think I suggest he was killed because he was black. And even if he were a ‘black thug’ (what’s black got to do with it?), that doesn’t merit police execution.
Yes, it is all too familiar. The point is not that at some point he was carrying a gun, but that he was unarmed when he was shot dead. It must always be wrong to shoot dead an unarmed person, whatever their race or background.
We know that police are schooled to give the same response in this situation. “I genuinely thought I was at risk” etc etc. “He made a threatening movement” etc etc.
And yet, when police are at genuine risk, such as happened recently following the Woolwich murder, the police seem quite able to protect themselves and keep the suspects alive and reasonably well.
One final thought. It is perhaps a measure of how far we have come in the North that such gung-ho policing is now much less likely to happened here that in London.
You’re way off the mark there comparing the two incidents. In fact you do no justice to a sense of injustice felt by the Duggan family. The weapons and bomb were used in Loughgall and the IRA fired on the barracks first after detonating the bomb The claim that three were shot in the head while lying on the ground was made by two unnamed IRA men who apparently shot their way out of the 1200 rounds. If the IRA men had held up a white handkerchief or something similar and then been shot dead I’d definitely say murder And if the SAS unit had screamed with delight after killing people surrendering then I’d definitely say murderers.
if you believe that the white flag means anything to British soldiers or the British government i would remind you of the sinking of the BELGRANO during the Falklands war which cost the lives of many hundreds of people on board who were returning to their base and did not engage the British this was cold blooded murder
pk I made it clear if that was the case at Loughgall it was murder committed by murderers. I think the Breen and Buchanan incident involved two RUC officers returning to base unarmed and waving a white handkerchief while surrendering, before being killed.
I think you may find a link between Loughgall and the killing of Breen and Buchanan. Breen fronted the news conference following the killing of the eight IRA men at Loughgall; Buchanan was killed in the first volley of shots by the IRA, while Breen was shot dead while waving a white handkerchief.
Jude
I think the matter of Breen waving the white handkerchief was disputed by the IRA personnel who gave a statement to Smithwick, although Smithwick decided the other evidence suggested he had indeed been trying to surrender.
As for Mark Duggan, a tragic story. No forensic evidence was found to suggest he was holding the gun. But the jury felt he had probably thrown it away just before being shot.
I think by the way it was 20 ft away not 20 metres.
I know the background Jude, though the link is disputed. But in the days following Smithwick you had various links and theories none of which included collusion and at odds with everyone in the South except Gerry Adams and Co.You claimed the Garda rejected it when they didn’t and then treated us to some independent thought with your laissez faire theory. But if the duggan family feel a sense of injustice I suggest bringing you and Loughgall on board won’t help their case and in fact somebody might remind you of laissez faire which you may have to agree with.
the first thing that i would say to pretzellogic is come out into the open and use your real name and lets see who you really are
in regard to Breen and Buchanan as i have observed in the past i don’t think that judge Smethwick was or is what one would call independent who placed his assumptions on evidence that no one can see or challenge and supplied by British intelligence as for the white flag and murder the British army and others murdered 6 young men in the new lodge road and when the people raised white flags to give aid to the injured and dying they also came under fire from the British army it was later proved that all of the dead were not armed or members of the IRA or any other army or group
PK The first and last thing last thing I’ll say to you is that my identity is not your business or necessary to this blog as far as I know and if Jude requires it I’ll supply it but not you.
I’m in agreement with you on that one, Philip. I don’t compel anyone to divulge their name, although like you I have asked one or two people to do so and they found reasons not to. I know that it’s something of a convention online for those who comment to adopt pseudonyms but for the life of me I can’t think why. Except perhaps they’re afraid to reveal their identity. I can put up with it but I don’t think any more highly of people for wearing a verbal balaclava
Because two situations aren’t identical, pretz, doesn’t mean they don’t draw parallels. In both cases people who could have been arrested were shot dead by the authorities: that’s the core situation in both cases. Are you suggesting three of those killed weren’t killed whily lying on the ground? It’s not necessary for the victim to wave a white handkerchief in order to qualify as a victim of state execution. I don’t know how the SAS reacted after killing the eight men but I’d guess they were pleased,whether they expressed it or not. That’s how combatants react when they mount a successful operation in a bloody conflict. The IRA unit who we’re told whooped after killing Breen and Buchanan were acting in a way that is naturally repulsive, but I don’t think I’ll judge murder/no murder by whether satisfaction is voiced or kept internal.
What I suggested was the claim came from two IRA men who most certainly were not at the scene. The inference being they were executed while no longer a threat. Maybe they all surrendered and were shot dead and if that’s the case they were murdered. And if they whooped with joy after murdering surrendering prisoners then that’s appalling also.If Mark Duggan had came at the police firing an AK47 then I would agree with you there were parallels to Loughgall and if the IRA unit had left their weapons and bomb in a nearby field and were subsequently killed I would find parallels to Mark Duggan. And Jude I don’t judge murder by satisfaction gained nor do I judge it by your dictionary definition.
I think there are broad areas of agreement between us, pretz. And some of non-agreement. Shooting someone dead when they’re not a threat, as appears pretty clearly to have happened with Mark Duggan, is wrong. The IRA weren’t coming at the SAS with Ak47s – they were attacking the police station. The core parallel stands: killing people when you can arrest them is wrong. Barbaric, even.
As to my dictionary definition of murder: ‘ the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another’ – what part of that definition would you not judge by? And what is your definition?
And regarding your ‘laissez faire’ reference earlier – I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. I assume it’s back to Gerry Adams’s use of the phrase to describe the way in which Breen and Buchanan dealt with their personal safety. As I’ve publicly stated, I think that was an odd term for Gerry Adams to make and he clearly sees he may have added to the hurt of the families for using it, and has apologised. My point on it is these are two separate but related matters. (i) The morality of killing Breen and Buchanan; (ii) the degree of care taken by Breen and Buchanan. It seems to me that you can be critical of (ii) without suggesting/implying/hinting that the men were somehow responsible for their own deaths. Of course they weren’t. However, it is indisputable that there’s something almost surreal about a high-ranking RUC officer making repeated trips to Dundalk Garda Station in the same care with the same reg plates, and for two high-ranking RUC officers without back-up of any kind travelling on one of the most dangerous pieces of road in Ireland, again without protection. Frankly, it’s so odd I can’t even pretend to understand it.
Let’s not dwell on it Jude but the IRA unit had planted a bomb and then shot up the barracks before any of them were killed. Where I’m coming from regarding your use of a dictionary in relation to the law is this…if someone in the barracks had been killed then the IRA unit would not have been guilty of murder as they had come to attack the building and therefore not the occupants. You argued that point previously when you argued that people killed in a bomb attack were not murdered as they were as you claimed not the intended targets but and again as you claimed the bombers were guilty only of attempted murder of the intended victims. Regarding laissez faire there’s no ifs and buts about it because as you make clear in (i) they were killed and I’m pretty confident GA isn’t using it in relation to Loughgall as likewise you or myself are not using it in relation to Mark Duggan and as you rightly point out it’s an ODD thing to say.
I suppose the I R A unit were just out for a leisurely drive in the country around Loughgall with no evil intent on their mind!!
I find that unlikely, Argenta, as I gather you do as well. Not sure what that adds to the discussion.
Ah,you’ve spotted the irony.We are told by republican commentators that the I R A were engaged in a “war” with the British security forces. Presumably the unit in Loughgall knew the risks they were taking and as you seem to have acknowledged were on a mission which was not entirely innocent.The fact that the S A S were waiting for them suggests that there was a leak from some part of the Republican community.
Well, pretz, let’s dwell on it, time permitting, so we’re clear in the things we say. I agree the IRA unit were attacking the barracks when they were shot dead. The fact remains they were totally outnumbered and outgunned and could have been arrested. So they were killed when they didn’t have to be killed.
Re occupants of barracks, I don’t remember saying anything about them or how to term their deaths had they been killed. But of course they weren’t killed so it’s purely hypothetical. Let’s stick to things that happened.
Re the Shankill bomb – I assume that’s what you’re talking about – I’m tired repeating myself on this. If murder means premeditated taking of human life, which seems to me a reasonable definition, while not having insight into the minds and motivations of the two IRA bombers – as you don’t either – I don’t believe they set out (premeditated) to kill the customers of the fish shop. Their actions certainly resulted in these poor people’s deaths, and they were intent (premeditated) on taking the lives of the UDA men they thought would be assembling there. Anyway, no matter what we call it, the people are dead and may God be good to all of them. What we term it doesn’t matter too much in the end.
Re Loughgall, I have no idea what you mean by ‘no ifs and buts’ – I never suggested any reservations/excuses/limitations regarding the killing, so don’t put words in my mouth that I haven’t used. ‘Laissez faire’ appears to have been a hurtful term and therefore shouldn’t have been used. That said, no one has ever explained the frequent visits to Dundalk by one of the two police officers just as no one has ever explained how two top police officers were travelling in a highly dangerous area with no support.
There. Maybe now we’ve dwelt on it long enough. Thank you for your thoughts – always valuable, especially where they challenge my own thinking – but please don’t attribute things to me that I haven’t said.
No Jude it won’t do as you clearly stated the bomber was not guilty of murder. And murder was the intent that day and murder was the result. Maybe some mature reflection is needed and another visit to the particular blog.
You’re quite right pretz – it won’t do. I said that the killing of the people in the fish shop was not the premeditated taking of life, which my dictionary describes as murder. You could well argue they intended to murder the UDA group – killing them was certainly their intention – but since one of the bombers died in the premature blast, what happened was not their intention. I don’t even need to check the blog – I know what I wrote.
I take your point re (i) – I stand corrected. I think.
But Jude if you care to check your dictionary again you might find that killing someone during the commission of a crime or to kill brutally also constitutes murder and I think both examples fit the criterion. As to something else we were discussing I note Ian Paisley has made an odd comment.
Sorry to visit again Jude but your point (i) was in relation to Breen and Buchanan as was my ifs and buts response to it. Neither were directed at Loughgall.
I think you’re right, Argenta. And it’s perfectly possible that among the IRA group that killed Breen and Buchanan, there was at least one who gave a sigh of relief when they were shot down. Had they been captured and tortured, the source of the leak would inevitably have emerged.
in relation to the abusive answer from my request for him to identify himself the reason for my request is that it gives more creditability to the points that are being made when the person making those points will come clean on their own political persuasion and argue that point while we all know where or from what side of the fence or middle ground they are coming from maybe they are ukalliance party or ni21, or uup or dup or quasi uvf or republican or sdlp or of no party but at least we will all know and it gives the conversion credibility when you hide who you are it lessens your argument and as i come from a nationalist persuasion it is all to easy to point out the number of state murders and collusion by state forces with loyalist murder gangs WAR IS A DIRTY BUSINESS and we are and were damaged by it and its now time to try to heal the wounds and to honestly deal with the past in the open and not behind stupid pseudonyms