|
Deep shit coming down in London
Here ya go folks.. seems that guy they shot wasn't acting suspicious at all
http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=308557 -- Illigitimus non tatum carborundum (Don't let the *******s wear you down) |
He was just an electrician,wasen't he? For whatever reason he ran,I
believe he had a very good reason to run.I haven't read the article you posted yet,fixin to read it now. cuhulin |
Perhaps the Brazilian guy spotted the limey cops planting some
"evidence" and the limey cops didn't want him to squeal on what he saw? London metropolitian limeyland cops,the World is on to y'alls "game". cuhulin |
|
David wrote: On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:35:55 -0500, wrote: He was just an electrician,wasen't he? For whatever reason he ran,I believe he had a very good reason to run.I haven't read the article you posted yet,fixin to read it now. cuhulin He did not run. He was sitting. At least according to those reports. Apparently the full story has yet to be told. dxAce Michigan USA |
That married Irish woman whom lives wayyyy over yonder across the big
pond works at a limeyland govt office.I haven't queried her yet about the full story.She is not a dummy,she knows more than I know. cuhulin |
Ehhhhh,,,,,,the london limeyland metropolitan cops (I emailed them
bastids about three years ago) are hideing something. cuhulin |
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:12:25 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: On Wed 17 Aug 2005 07:52:57a, "Brenda Ann" wrote in message : Here ya go folks.. seems that guy they shot wasn't acting suspicious at all http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=308557 There's version-2, which purports a case of mistaken identity. Will there be any more versions? -=jd=- The point is that people with guns panicked. |
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:24:16 GMT, David wrote:
On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:12:25 GMT, "-=jd=-" wrote: On Wed 17 Aug 2005 07:52:57a, "Brenda Ann" wrote in message : Here ya go folks.. seems that guy they shot wasn't acting suspicious at all http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=308557 However the report does confirm that he DID ignore police warnings to stop. That would get you shot in most countries. The only reason it's such a big deal here is because the UK police don't usually carry guns. (Almost all UK police officers have the OPTION to have firearms training and to carry a gun if they wish. Most choose not. Also note most UK armed police prefer submachine or assault rifles [specifically P90 and MP5] rather the sidearms/pistols.) There's version-2, which purports a case of mistaken identity. Will there be any more versions? The point is that people with guns panicked. True, but not before they had radioed back to HQ and got HQ to confirm that this was indeed a prime bomber suspect. The main thing that went wrong was that the officers on the spot believed his identity was confirmed as prime suspect, when in fact he was an unrelated bystander. Now the question is: was this an error by HQ or was it an error by the officers? Going back on topic for a moment, what would be really superb would be for a London scanning enthusiast to provide a copy of the conversations between the police officers and HQ. We'd then be able to judge whether it was the police officers or HQ that got it wrong. Unfortunately there are two problems he 1. It is illegal for the general public to listen in to police radio broadcasts in the UK 2. Police radio broadcasts are digitally encrypted. The UK police digital radio system is called Tetra. Here's an overview by a rural police force (not the London Metropolitain police): http://www.tetramou.com/catalogue/Ar...english/03.asp More details at www.tetramou.com More about UK scanner law he http://www.monitoringtimes.com/html/mtlaws_may04.html -- Andrew Oakley andrew/atsymbol/aoakley/stop/com Gloucestershire, UK |
I am guessing (only guessing) the Brazilian guy was a "prime suspect"
for sure.They knew they was going to murder him before he stepped out of that house/building.Your phoney story doesn't wash with me. cuhulin |
Mostly,it is decent Citizens of U.S.A.who own Guns.More Guns,Less crime.
www.jacksoncrime.org Now Drop and gimme me fifthy! cuhulin |
wrote: Mostly,it is decent Citizens of U.S.A.who own Guns.More Guns,Less crime. www.jacksoncrime.org Now Drop and gimme me fifthy! cuhulin The UK is a lost cause.... The man was wearing a trenchcoat.... a garment that is somehow connected to anarchism, terrorism, and anti-social behavior. Looks like I am going to wear my trenchcoat more often, maybe i'll throw in a set of combat boots and camo too. But luckily in the USA we have laws that sort of protect us from being shot SS Nazi Germany style. |
Maybe we should all just go naked? Nothing to see here!
cuhulin |
The man was wearing a trenchcoat....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4163568.stm There's a picture of the guy after he'd been shot in the head seven times about mid-way down the page; he was not wearing a trench coat.....not that it matters much now. -Brian |
Dime bag laura welch bush FAILED! to STOP at a STOP sign in
Midland,Texas and her highschool boyfiend died of a broken neck as a result of that.What do y'all think would have happened to me if I failed (I obey all rules of the road) to STOP at a STOP sign and it caused injury or death to someone? I wouldn't get off scott free nor would I want to! Dime bag laura welch bush is s......g somebody else,not g.w.bush. cuhulin |
Any information anywhere of how long it was after he left his room/flat
(whatever the h... they call it over there?) and when the murdering b......s "cops" decided to murder him? cuhulin |
"Brian" wrote in message nk.net... The man was wearing a trenchcoat.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4163568.stm There's a picture of the guy after he'd been shot in the head seven times about mid-way down the page; he was not wearing a trench coat.....not that it matters much now. I'm not much into conspiracy theories, but I've got to call -bull****- on this statement: "The BBC has also learned the shooting was not captured on Stockwell Tube's CCTV because police officers had removed the cameras' disks for their investigation into the suicide bomb suspects who boarded the train at the same station the previous day. " So, they pull the disks out and don't replace them, effectively denying themselves an obviously useful tool in the event of a second attack? Look at the info gleaned from the disks, and then tell me that they didn't bother replacing them. That just stinks of cover-up. It's beyond incompetence, and so I ain't buying it. |
london metropolitan cops are really no authority anymore,neither is new
Scotland yard.Hey,it was New York,U.S.A.that told them what happened.The only thing london metropolitan cops are good for is walking old biddies accross the streets and when they get off duty and back home,peeking through the curtains in their windows just like all of them other limeyland Cowards over there. cuhulin |
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:54:37 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: So what gives? Did a reporter grab some commuter schmuck at the scene and swallow the initial reports (about the padded jacket; attempting to elude; refusing to comply with officer orders) without verifying it? Then that one account made the network rounds until it mushroomed into a near conspiracy? Is it possible for the media to make a traqic event even worse? -=jd=- ''Scotland Yard initially claimed he wore a bulky jacket and jumped the barrier when police identified themselves and ordered him to stop.'' http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlo...537613,00.html |
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:35:01 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: On Thu 18 Aug 2005 09:24:16a, David wrote in message : On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:12:25 GMT, "-=jd=-" wrote: On Wed 17 Aug 2005 07:52:57a, "Brenda Ann" wrote in message : Here ya go folks.. seems that guy they shot wasn't acting suspicious at all http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=308557 There's version-2, which purports a case of mistaken identity. Will there be any more versions? -=jd=- The point is that people with guns panicked. I think the people with guns were the least panicked involved as they seemed, so far, to be *quite* efficient at their tasks. It appears that once they received a "Positive ID", they did what they were supposed to do. The "problem" is with whoever made the "Positive ID" -AND- it seems two or more people were working on that confirmation. This presumes we are talking only about the current case and the rapid sequence of events that took place once "Positive ID" was ahem confirmed. If you are talking about cops being armed in the first place, or a policy of disabling a suicide bomber by speedily boring a large, violent hole through their medulla-oblongata, then that's a different (though related) issue. -=jd=- 10 rounds at the head? They were afraid he had an invisible bomb. |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message 8... I think the people with guns were the least panicked involved as they seemed, so far, to be *quite* efficient at their tasks. Come on, jd...-seven- rounds to the head, from about as close as you can get? At the very least, it's wasteful. IMO somebody had trouble with their nerve. If you are talking about cops being armed in the first place, or a policy of disabling a suicide bomber by speedily boring a large, violent hole through their medulla-oblongata, then that's a different (though related) issue. Is there really anyone here who doesn't support that? (That's not directed at jd...that's a serious query.) |
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:56:10 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: Still no name... How does a mob of reporters get the juicy details of the shooting, but not the name of the Cop/official dispensing said details? It's got to be out there, buried on one of the news sites. I just can't find it. Or is this a case, as I mentioned before, where some decidedly unofficial source provided unverified details of a big juicy story that through over-play in the media, has now morphed into a media-created conspiracy? -=jd=- I found yer guy. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm |
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:10:48 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: You heard there were 10 rounds fired? I heard there were 8 rounds total, only 7 of which perforated the victim. Discrepancies abound with this story... Was it an invisible bomb? Doubtful. Perhaps the bomb was already on-board & he was supposed to detonate it or be transported to allah by it - heck if *I* know. We'll know when the rest of the information comes out. The "scoot & shoot" team was apparently told that this was "positively the guy" and they believed he was in the process of, or intending to, detonate a bomb. So, they did what they were *supposed* to do based on the information they were given. The question I'm asking is how was the positive ID arrived at by two (or more) people in order to tell the shooters they had the right guy - when they didn't have the right guy? -=jd=- That's a 20 minutes-into-the-future horror scenario. |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message 8... On Thu 18 Aug 2005 09:49:12p, "Honus" wrote in message news:sUaNe.12405$Xw5.8566@trnddc02: "-=jd=-" wrote in message 8... I think the people with guns were the least panicked involved as they seemed, so far, to be *quite* efficient at their tasks. Come on, jd...-seven- rounds to the head, from about as close as you can get? At the very least, it's wasteful. IMO somebody had trouble with their nerve. **warning - don't read if you are easily squeamish** I have a rule - if I'm not down to my last mag and I have to shoot someone in order to stop them from doing something: I'm going to start shooting at the earliest opportunity, and I'm going to keep shooting until they quit doing whatever it was that made me shoot them in the first place. Plus one or two extra rounds. Take the case of a hostage-taker holding a gun to a hostage's head. LA Co. Sheriffs SWAT has found that when head-shot by a sniper (typically a ..308), there's hopeful-news and bad-news... Bad-News: The hostage taker *will* most likely still fire his gun at least once. Hopeful-News: The hostage taker's gun most likely *will not* still be pointed at the hostage's head when it goes off. Believe it or not, I always wondered about that. If I was one of the guys told to go stop that suicide bomber from detonating, In order to be sure, I think I would fire at least four rounds, if not six, seven or ten. Figure *at least* three per second. At least. I don't rapid fire, especially since it's frowned on in every gun range I've ever been to, but I can double that estimate. Accuracy is a different question. g I don't think I would have the luxury of shooting someone "just a little bit". I agree. Personal experience: At about 2 pm in upstate New York, a guy shoots someone else, then himself (straight through over the ears), with a charter arms .44 bulldog. He's still breathing on his own. After transporting to the nearest hospital, they take a CAT/MRI/something scan, and reveal the biggest cigar-shaped wound channel you could fit through his brain. He didn't die until after 7pm that evening. The guy he shot survived, but still has a chunk of lead in him. So, is seven rounds excessive? Well, it depends on how badly you want to make sure he can't push a button, and you only get one chance. Either way, you are rolling a mighty big pair of dice... That's admittedly true. But I think four would have sufficed. And what about the cop that grabbed the guy? I get the feeling (and that's all it is) that he didn't expect his partner to be squeezing off rounds. I wonder how his ears are doing right about now. If you are talking about cops being armed in the first place, or a policy of disabling a suicide bomber by speedily boring a large, violent hole through their medulla-oblongata, then that's a different (though related) issue. Is there really anyone here who doesn't support that? (That's not directed at jd...that's a serious query.) If faced with a suicide bomber (in close proximity) that is about to detonate, there is no other option if you want the best chance at stopping him (and staying alive yourself). Anybody else is welcome to try and negotiate, wrestle, bribe, whatever. Though I think that after you identify yourself, there may be a big BOOM before you could form the "k" sound in "Let's Talk"... I entirely agree. I'm just wondering if anyone else -doesn't-. |
Is it possible for the media to make a traqic event even worse?
Actually yes, and just to clarify, it's tragic. -Brian |
"David" wrote in message ... On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:10:48 GMT, "-=jd=-" wrote: You heard there were 10 rounds fired? I heard there were 8 rounds total, only 7 of which perforated the victim. Discrepancies abound with this story... Was it an invisible bomb? Doubtful. Perhaps the bomb was already on-board & he was supposed to detonate it or be transported to allah by it - heck if *I* know. We'll know when the rest of the information comes out. The "scoot & shoot" team was apparently told that this was "positively the guy" and they believed he was in the process of, or intending to, detonate a bomb. So, they did what they were *supposed* to do based on the information they were given. The question I'm asking is how was the positive ID arrived at by two (or more) people in order to tell the shooters they had the right guy - when they didn't have the right guy? -=jd=- That's a 20 minutes-into-the-future horror scenario. You've seen Max Headroom.. :) |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message news. The question I'm asking is how was the positive ID arrived at by two (or more) people in order to tell the shooters they had the right guy - when they didn't have the right guy? -=jd=- How indeed. Let's see, Arabic Muslim Terrorist with bulky jacket, jumping turnstiles and running onto the train = Brazilian Catholic Electrician with lightweight denim jacket, with a travelpass, collecting a free newspaper and sitting on the train. Yup, they ****ed up from the very beginning and then they lied about it. Call that Intelligence? And the guy in charge was out taking a ****. Who called the shots eh? I think the journalist who started the whole "suicide by cop" thing needs to start apologising for talking a load of crap too. Brad. |
wrote in message ... Mostly,it is decent Citizens of U.S.A.who own Guns.More Guns,Less crime. www.jacksoncrime.org Now Drop and gimme me fifthy! cuhulin Bull****. your homicide rate is more than 3 times higher than ours. Brad Australia |
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:50:52 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: No, that's just one of the commuters. I've found plenty of references to "initial eye witnesses". What's missing is where the "Running, Heavy Coat, Acting Suspicious, Eluding" was confirmed or attributed to some "Official". Absent that, then it would appear to me that the *media* took commuter interviews and have morphed those unofficial descriptions into the official "Scotland Yard Initial Brief". When in fact, I can't find where a named official with *any* law enforcement agency involved provided that information. Now that investigation details have been leaked, it's being drummed as if S.Y. was attempting a cover-up, when there's really *zero* indication they had any intention of covering anything up. In fact, by breifing the victim's family *during* the investigation, it looks like S.Y. is trying to be completely straight with the facts, as they are verified. Perhaps the media *has* been duped and is perpetuating non-factual information that is aggravating an already tragic situation - again, not through malice, just through shoddy, journalism. And no-one's calling them on it (except me, of course). -=jd=- The ''Guardian'' article above says that Scotland Yard provided those erroneous details. Scotland Yard is the HQ of the Municipal Police, ain't it? |
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 03:16:28 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: Heck, *one* shot could have sufficed if they just wanted to kill him, but they believed they were trying to prevent a detonation (you places yer bets, you takes yer chances). If, like the officers involved in this shooting you think the guy can detonate a bomb, why risk it? I had the impression that the task of the cop that grabbed him was to pin his arms and hands in case he tried to reach for a detonator, while someone else was responsible for taking the shots. And I'm sure his ears may still be ringing... -=jd=- No bomb. Just panic. |
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:54:37 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote: I'm thinking the media has been duped, not by malice, but by sloppy journalism in the race to be first with the breaking news. I reckon you've hit the nail on the head, there. So what gives? Did a reporter grab some commuter schmuck at the scene and swallow the initial reports (about the padded jacket; attempting to elude; refusing to comply with officer orders) without verifying it? Then that one account made the network rounds until it mushroomed into a near conspiracy? This wouldn't be the first time the BBC and other British media have jumped the gun. The Beeb were recently found guilty of making false accusations against the UK government's reasons for entering the second Iraq war, which may have contributed to the suicide of a government defense consultant. In particular the BBC was criticised for allowing a major story to air UNCHECKED. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_inquiry I do find it a rather laughable situation, after all the BBC are just another government-run broadcaster, no matter how much people would like to play this down by calling their funding a "licence fee" rather than a tax (there's a 10-quid a month "licence fee" for having a television in your house; sounds like a tax to me). Essentially what happened was that one division of the government took another division of the government to court for libel (but they called it a "judicial enquiry"), which is plainly daft and an indicator of just how overburdened with bureaucracy the UK has become. Whilst the UK news media are more serious in their political coverage than their US cousins, there is nevertheless the same hunger to be "first with the news", and the Sky/Fox corporation battle it out with the BBC to be the first to break any news item. The BBC is also particularly fond of digging, digging and digging some more to find dirt on politicians and politics; this has been backfiring frequently in recent years as the desperation to beat Sky/Fox to a news story often means that stories go out unchecked. If an Sky or BBC reporter got an eyewitness spinning them a complete yarn about a major story, they WOULD broadcast it, because they're too busy racing to beat their competitors to the scoop rather than stopping to coroborate the evidence. So I reckon you've got it absolutely correct on about a reporter swallowing an initial eyewitness report without verifying it, and it spiralling out of control. -- Andrew Oakley andrew/atsymbol/aoakley/stop/com Gloucestershire, UK |
|
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 15:51:52 +0100, Andrew Oakley
wrote: government defense consultant. In particular the BBC was criticised Oh dear, all this taking to Americans is beginning to rub off on me. I did, of course, mean "defence consultant" not "defense consultant". http://www.scit.wlv.ac.uk/~jphb/american.html -- Andrew Oakley andrew/atsymbol/aoakley/stop/com Gloucestershire, UK |
How his ears are doing? On a fireing range with a bunch of other guys
fireing their Firearms (M1 Garand Rifles,at least) being fired,you only hear the mechanical clicking noise of the Rifle you are fireing.I know that is the way it was when I was at the Fireing Range at Fort Gordon,Georgia in 1962. cuhulin |
I remember a DI once told us lean mean fighting machines,y'all better
not lose or damage that M1 Garand Rifle because if you do,$164.00 will be dectucted from your pay.I took durn good care of my Rifle that was issued to me. cuhulin |
It is called New Scotland Yard nowdays.I dont remember how many years
ago it was,but the old Scotland Yard moved into a new building,(or some new buildings) whatever.I think it has been at least twenty years ago,I could be mistaken though. cuhulin |
I think Sky is better than BBC.Only my opinion.
cuhulin |
I have known for years about the brit "white paper" they have or did
have about removing all of the Irish folks from the Six Counties.Lots of brit comedies and other brit programs on tv in U.S.A.show how good the brits are at peeking through their window curtains.Most folks in U.S.A.are not window curtain peekers,I always step outside if I want to see what's going on outside.In U.S.A.there are some brit comedies and other brit tv programs on BBCAmerica all the time and also on PBS TV. cuhulin |
"-=jd=-" wrote in message 8... I'm thinking the media has been duped, not by malice, but by sloppy journalism in the race to be first with the breaking news. I can't find anything that names an authority official as providing the initial reports of the victim wearing a padded coat, jumping the tunstiles, etc. I *have* seen it attributed to anonymous "initial eyewitness reports". For all I know, perhaps Jason Blair provided the info. I sure can't find anything similar to a clear, direct attribution to any "Inspector Joe Schmoe-Clouseau of Scotland Yard". The first round of reports were good, in that they gave the source of the "padded jacket" as a witness, in this story the witness is named: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm A different eyewitness in the same story says the guy "appeared to have a bomb belt and wires coming out". Oh, well. The confusion came later, and oftentimes just hours later. News columnists were among those most eager to jumble the few known facts with unreliable eyewitness accounts and jump to their conclusions. That's the liberal media for ya. Next, I hear that Scotland Yard, during their on-going investigation, briefed the family with the information that has been leaked. That tells me that the Yard was not going to, and could not, cover anything up if they were keeping the family informed. So what gives? Did a reporter grab some commuter schmuck at the scene and swallow the initial reports (about the padded jacket; attempting to elude; refusing to comply with officer orders) without verifying it? Then that one account made the network rounds until it mushroomed into a near conspiracy? The reporters don't have to verify a story. They ought to verify their source. Such as -- was the eyewitness really at the station? Does the source seem given to fantasy? Nearly all journalism is some sort of story retelling. But, in this case, it seems the "opinion makers" were the worst offenders in taking the babblings of shocked eyewitnesses as God's Honest Truth. Is it possible for the media to make a traqic event even worse? Yes, and we have yet to hear much from the lawyers, politicians and bureaucrats. Frank Dresser |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com