"No Blood" at Oswald shooting claims photographer
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Jazzz, do you wake up every morning and flick on your computer, and think to yourself "Y'know what just for a change I'm going to go onto a website where my crackpot theories are greeted with well deserved hoots of derision. A website were I am laughed at, mocked, and ridiculed, just to improve my self esteem"
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Are these Mercedes fatal accident victims also part of your elaborate "false flag" plot Jazzz??
Perhaps they were whisked away and Mike Yarwood was called in to call their relatives too??
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060918/NEWS04/609180311&SearchID=73257246846772
http://www.marinij.com/novato/ci_4476351
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/journalist/lessons/LL_recognize_excessive_alcohol.txt
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404217
http://shedit.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061024/NEWS/610240506/1264/NEWS0103
Perhaps they were whisked away and Mike Yarwood was called in to call their relatives too??
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060918/NEWS04/609180311&SearchID=73257246846772
http://www.marinij.com/novato/ci_4476351
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/journalist/lessons/LL_recognize_excessive_alcohol.txt
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404217
http://shedit.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061024/NEWS/610240506/1264/NEWS0103
No-one accused him of being a terrorist. No-one knew who he actually was until after his death. He was believed to be someone else who was accused of being a terrorist (and still is).GarfieldLeChat said:
No-one alleged that he was shot because he was an illegal immigrant. It was entirely irrelevant to his shooting. And the police did not accuse him of being an illegal immigrant anyway, it was the media (possibly with the connivance of a police officer leaking the fact.
And it is not an accusation that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is a fact. It sums up why he was shot quite succinctly, in fact.
Three total false claims in just ane and a bit lines. A new world record even for the King of Twattishness, GarfieldLeChat.
They didn't bother accusing and went straight to execution. Eleven bullets at point blank range!detective-boy said:
That is no justification for the De Menezes shooting. Even if he was the right guy what happened to things like trials and due process? And we don't even have the death penalty.
oh god you are so funny editor. Even others are surely seeing that James Earl Ray was such a patsy. We can easily do the same with Sirhan Sirhan. Maybe if you spent more time working things out instead simply trying to ridicule the 'conspiraloons' you would make much more meaningful contributions to threads.editor said:
Trial and due process are entirely fucking different concepts to the concept of self-defence and the defence of others, which is what the shooting was based on. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.Jazzz said:
No, it seems the police need to improve their understanding. The man shot gave absolutely no indication whatsoever that he was about to commit any crime. You can't just go around executing people. Even overlooking the extraordinary identity mistake, even if they had the right guy, there is no excuse for shooting him.detective-boy said:Trial and due process are entirely fucking different concepts to the concept of self-defence and the defence of others, which is what the shooting was based on. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Jazzz said:
You really do need to learn to read Jazzz.
I am comparing the met to a bunch of cowboys. Shoot first ask questions later.
If I had shot someone only once while on guard duty in the army I'd have been court martialled, banged up in Colchester then kicked out of the army. I hardly see any comparison to how the police involved in the De Menezes case were treated.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
This thread's got even more plot twists than a dan browne novel, and i'm very sorry to say, even less connection with reality.
I may well have posted the same regardless of your frivolous picture. The shooting of De Menezes is indefensible. However, you are right, I completely fail to see how you are defending itWouldBe said:You really do need to learn to read Jazzz.
I am comparing the met to a bunch of cowboys. Shoot first ask questions later.
If I had shot someone only once while on guard duty in the army I'd have been court martialled, banged up in Colchester then kicked out of the army. I hardly see any comparison to how the police involved in the De Menezes case were treated.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Jazzz said:I may well have posted the same regardless of your frivolous picture. The shooting of De Menezes is indefensible. However, you are right, I completely fail to see how you are defending it
I'm NOT defending it. The person(s) responcible should have been prosecuted to the full extent of the law and banged up for a long time.
There are no excuses for the way those officers acted.
Is that clear enough for you?
The officers involved have provided an account of what they did and why they did it which has satisfied the IPCC and the CPS that they had reasonable grounds to suspect that he was a suicide bomber about to detonate a bomb. Whether any or all of those grounds came from anything the man himself did (as opposed to any of the other surrounding circumstances) is irrelevant.Jazzz said:
We all KNOW that that was NOT the case with hindsight, but that is not the point, legally or practically.
Unless you require police officers to be fucking psychic - which, knowing you, you probably fucking do.
I'm not "trying to defend the utterly indefensible" you fucking moron. I'm explaining why someone has ended up dead despite us finding out with hindsight that things were not as was believed at the time.Jazzz said:
It has happened before. Unfortunately it will happen again.
It is alleged that there were organisational failings - that is why there is a fucking trial - a trial I have supported as entirely justifiable whilst "defending the utterly indefensible", not that that will matter to you.
Do try and devlop the mental capacity to distiguish different aspects of an indcident from each other. You think like a fucking tabloid at the moment.
Not if you were able to provide an explanation that justified your actions on the basis of the law of self-defence or the defence of another, it wouldn't you fucking idiot.WouldBe said:
But, if you are as fucking dense as you appear, the chances of you ever fucking being able to explain yourself are pretty fucking slim. God help us that we used to give someone with such limited understanding of the law a fucking gun.
Twat.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
detective-boy said:
While on guard duty I've had a nutter walking round the outside of the perimeter fence visibly armed with a gun. Had I shot him even once I would have been court martialled and banged up in Colchester prison.
There is NO excuse for what those police officers did.
You don't mean that though, do you, cunt?WouldBe said:
You mean "The person(s) responsible should have been banged up for a long time, regardless of whether or not they had committed a criminal offence.
If you meant what you'd actually said, you'd realise it's actually happened. They have been investigated for murder. The file has been passed to the CPS, the prosecutiong authority. They have considered a prosecution and they have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to proceed further i.e. the law has reached it's full extent in this case, in the absence of new information.
Similar threads
