Craig Murray was badly rattled by the British riots (as were millions of others.) Among other things, he’s been trying do find justification for why the police shot Mark Duggan, the event which triggered the burnings and looting. He says Duggan may have been a career criminal and probably had a gun. But his criminality is irrelevant to what happened and he didn’t draw or show the gun. Murray, normally a human rights campaigner is definitely tilting towards the whitewash establishment view here. He’s genuinely groping for answers to explain a black swan event. I was in L.A. during the riots. Everyone has to find their own answers in their own way. To his credit, he’s opened comments on his blog to all views, not just his.
All I can say is, welcome to Los Angeles, London, where thugs do indeed roam the streets and cops can be the biggest gang of all.
The police say Duggan did not fire at them or draw a gun, something they would certainly make a point of saying if he had. And for which he could justifiably be shot.
If the corruption at IPCC (and some say it is very corrupt) is at the levels that it sometimes gets at LAPD and Duggan was a serious career criminal, then this could get seriously murky. In the LAPD Rampart scandal, corrupt cops shot gang members without cause, planted drugs on them, framed them, stole their drugs and sold them, and even robbed banks. All this didn’t come out until years later.
Xinhuanet reports on IPCC statements, which says their earlier reports of crossfire were incorrect. In other words, Duggan did not fire or show a gun.