shouldnt have been here
shouldnt have ran
easy
shouldnt have ran
easy
Police shot to kill Brazilian - now we know.
- Thread starter oilman
- Start date
Sponsored Links
masona said:
Seven shots to the head, one in the chest, whilst being held in a bear hug by another officer, a little extreme IMO. If you had hold of someone and he is restrained you would probably notice that he didn't have explosives strapped to him, would you not.
The other thing is only 1 officer who could identify the bloke and he was having a leak at the time the bloke left the house, how very convenient. Smells like a cover up and the shoot to kill order should never have been given with a definite positve ID, not something from a grainy photo that could be any one of us, who isn't as white as snow.
nstreet said:masona said:
Seven shots to the head, one in the chest, whilst being held in a bear hug by another officer, a little extreme IMO. If you had hold of someone and he is restrained you would probably notice that he didn't have explosives strapped to him, would you not.
The other thing is only 1 officer who could identify the bloke and he was having a leak at the time the bloke left the house, how very convenient. Smells like a cover up and the shoot to kill order should never have been given with a definite positve ID, not something from a grainy photo that could be any one of us, who isn't as white as snow.
Who cares--he shouldnt have been here so has no rights---and i back the cops 100% and it scared the hell out of scum and long may it continue.
All this liberal bleeting heart stuff serves only one purpose to encourage scum
Sponsored Links
Freddie, we know this is just another of your tongue in cheek replies, why not post something something worthy of a serious debate, or say nothing. You're always telling others to.
What do you mean he has no rights? He perhaps was on the wrong side of the law as far as the immigration was concerned but was this true? Even if it was, was it deliberate or was it forgetting to renew a piece of paper? If everyone who was wrong on one point of law has no rights, then by freddie's logic we might all just as well commit suicide because were going to get shot since we've all got no rights. This a facile argument, we've taken a lot of years to ensure we have rights just so we don't get executed because we happen to be there.
Did it scare the hell out of anyone, or are they just laughing? There again I must be scum, cos I'd think twice before going on the London underground.
What do you mean he has no rights? He perhaps was on the wrong side of the law as far as the immigration was concerned but was this true? Even if it was, was it deliberate or was it forgetting to renew a piece of paper? If everyone who was wrong on one point of law has no rights, then by freddie's logic we might all just as well commit suicide because were going to get shot since we've all got no rights. This a facile argument, we've taken a lot of years to ensure we have rights just so we don't get executed because we happen to be there.
Did it scare the hell out of anyone, or are they just laughing? There again I must be scum, cos I'd think twice before going on the London underground.
Oh it is serious Oilman----you cant change procedure which may endanger the safety and security of the country and its subjects i.e. YOU and yours for one tragic incident.
It is a pointless programme which may have been set up by TV just to get a ratings winner.
I posted on this forum as it happened from a man who says and this was backed up by after reports on tv and papers that he was a few feet away.
Tragic but these things happen.
But to keep hammering on cover up and conspiracy and blame will only harm the good work done and to be done.
My view is if you think you can do job better do it or shut trap, but you see tv companies have to be outragious and extreme to get the punters for the ratings for their sponsers so it begs to wonder who has the hidden agenda
It is a pointless programme which may have been set up by TV just to get a ratings winner.
I posted on this forum as it happened from a man who says and this was backed up by after reports on tv and papers that he was a few feet away.
Tragic but these things happen.
But to keep hammering on cover up and conspiracy and blame will only harm the good work done and to be done.
My view is if you think you can do job better do it or shut trap, but you see tv companies have to be outragious and extreme to get the punters for the ratings for their sponsers so it begs to wonder who has the hidden agenda
main problem with this is in the title really....Now we know.
We dont know enough of the true details and events surrounding the incident, it is all journalistic hype at the moment. Until the PCA investigation has been completed none of us will know the full facts.
We dont know enough of the true details and events surrounding the incident, it is all journalistic hype at the moment. Until the PCA investigation has been completed none of us will know the full facts.
WELL i for one would say shoot them before they get here with armed guards on the tunnel entrances etc no need to be pc if we say before hand that is the penalty for crossing illegallysecurespark said:
so many less will come time to take a hard stand against illegal scum
B
Big_Spark
There is one part nfo the story being banded about which is total hogwash.
Absolutely no way would any sane person hold another in a bear hug whilst a mate used a Glock 23 to put seven rounds into his head on one into the chest.
The reason being ballistics. The chances are that at least one of the rounds, if not several, would pass straight through the target at such close range. Even if you used the supposed Low velocity rounds they are supposed to use, which I think is an urban legend for many practical operational issues. Once the first round entered the head, the head would be unable to prevent the skull fracturing, and even if this first round did not produce an exist wound, which is improbable at such close range, then subsequent rounds would certainly have existed the head as successive rounds would weaken the skull.
Personally I doubt 7 rounds were fired into his head, there would be nothing left and it would be highly unlikely that a person would survive one round of this type to the head, especially at close range, however even if you were one of those very rare an fortunate souls that do survive such injuries, the second round would kill you.
The Police Officers firing those rounds know this, they also understand the unpredictability of projectiles after they impact a target, so for many reaons I think the stories in the press are fabricated or sensationalised in order to grab headlines.
Why can I say this with any certainty, well at my house in Canada I have four Handguns, one of which is a Model 23 Glock, I also have three rifles, a shotgun and an AR15. I spent 5 years in the service of this country and have fired countless rounds at targets, including living ones (well they were before I fired anyway!!)
I have personal experience and knowledge of firearms, ammunition and the effects it has on animal and human targets. I have seen the aftermath of several types of bullet wound to a human body, none are that pretty when occuring at close range and hitting vital parts. I have seen a head shot from a 9mm semi with 195 grain Hollow point ammunition, the round entered the rear left quarter behind the ear, the face was blown off except for the lower Jaw and left upper cheek bone. The right side of the face and temple were ejected as the round exited the head. The round was fired from almost 20 meters from the target so it's effects were much reduced compared to a close range hit.
Unless there is a public enquiry, which I oppose, the exact truth of the events will never be revealed, and whatever the Officers involved may say, it will all be subbjective testimony as they would have been focused solely on the target and secondly the general public, as such their views and decision making may be based on "myopic" assumptions that is not their fault, simply how humans work in such situations.
Absolutely no way would any sane person hold another in a bear hug whilst a mate used a Glock 23 to put seven rounds into his head on one into the chest.
The reason being ballistics. The chances are that at least one of the rounds, if not several, would pass straight through the target at such close range. Even if you used the supposed Low velocity rounds they are supposed to use, which I think is an urban legend for many practical operational issues. Once the first round entered the head, the head would be unable to prevent the skull fracturing, and even if this first round did not produce an exist wound, which is improbable at such close range, then subsequent rounds would certainly have existed the head as successive rounds would weaken the skull.
Personally I doubt 7 rounds were fired into his head, there would be nothing left and it would be highly unlikely that a person would survive one round of this type to the head, especially at close range, however even if you were one of those very rare an fortunate souls that do survive such injuries, the second round would kill you.
The Police Officers firing those rounds know this, they also understand the unpredictability of projectiles after they impact a target, so for many reaons I think the stories in the press are fabricated or sensationalised in order to grab headlines.
Why can I say this with any certainty, well at my house in Canada I have four Handguns, one of which is a Model 23 Glock, I also have three rifles, a shotgun and an AR15. I spent 5 years in the service of this country and have fired countless rounds at targets, including living ones (well they were before I fired anyway!!)
I have personal experience and knowledge of firearms, ammunition and the effects it has on animal and human targets. I have seen the aftermath of several types of bullet wound to a human body, none are that pretty when occuring at close range and hitting vital parts. I have seen a head shot from a 9mm semi with 195 grain Hollow point ammunition, the round entered the rear left quarter behind the ear, the face was blown off except for the lower Jaw and left upper cheek bone. The right side of the face and temple were ejected as the round exited the head. The round was fired from almost 20 meters from the target so it's effects were much reduced compared to a close range hit.
Unless there is a public enquiry, which I oppose, the exact truth of the events will never be revealed, and whatever the Officers involved may say, it will all be subbjective testimony as they would have been focused solely on the target and secondly the general public, as such their views and decision making may be based on "myopic" assumptions that is not their fault, simply how humans work in such situations.
I am rather late getting into this discussion but I thought I would put forward my opinion.
The unfortunate circumstances relating to the killing of
Jean Charles de Menezes will I hope be scrutinized closely and open
to the public domain for judgement.
Finally in no defence of the officers involved, the situation at the time
of Mr de Menezes was of high alert in the belief that further terrorist
attacks may take place. The terrorists in their first bombing on the 7th
July, 2005 and their failed attempt on 21 July, 2005 installed a fear
of confusion and disorder to the Londoners and the security services.
I believe this is called anarchy which is one of the aims of the terrorists.
Although not directly responsible, I belief that if no terrorist attacks had taken place then Mr de Menezes would be well and going about his daily
business today.
As Tony Blair stated that this was a 'War' situation and is well known that in war the innocent suffer by what is known as 'Friendly Fire'.
I can never work it out why it is given this name as it is anything but
friendly.
The unfortunate circumstances relating to the killing of
Jean Charles de Menezes will I hope be scrutinized closely and open
to the public domain for judgement.
Finally in no defence of the officers involved, the situation at the time
of Mr de Menezes was of high alert in the belief that further terrorist
attacks may take place. The terrorists in their first bombing on the 7th
July, 2005 and their failed attempt on 21 July, 2005 installed a fear
of confusion and disorder to the Londoners and the security services.
I believe this is called anarchy which is one of the aims of the terrorists.
Although not directly responsible, I belief that if no terrorist attacks had taken place then Mr de Menezes would be well and going about his daily
business today.
As Tony Blair stated that this was a 'War' situation and is well known that in war the innocent suffer by what is known as 'Friendly Fire'.
I can never work it out why it is given this name as it is anything but
friendly.
M
Moz
BOOOHooo BOOOHooo BOOOHooo
BOOOHooo BOOOHooo BOOOHooo
BOOOHooo BOOOHooo BOOOHooo
an so on .. as ALL UK SITES SAY
if not boom ...dead real iraqi/eyptee glad ...
this way lets get them tax/NI evaders to run
I say do it in asain town , birmingham ....
bradford ,all the close ghettos , seek them out ...
we need
a full house
asian ...
who leaves there ...
as some
whites ,
for them are ...
but them at it are *burned*..
BOOOHooo BOOOHooo BOOOHooo
BOOOHooo BOOOHooo BOOOHooo
an so on .. as ALL UK SITES SAY
if not boom ...dead real iraqi/eyptee glad ...
this way lets get them tax/NI evaders to run
I say do it in asain town , birmingham ....
bradford ,all the close ghettos , seek them out ...
we need
a full house
asian ...
who leaves there ...
as some
whites ,
for them are ...
but them at it are *burned*..
One thing all these posts are proving is that a small bit of information from an unreliable source can set off a chain reaction of views and shows that people can elaborate on this info and produce a definitive but totally confused story of events, even the media have issued wrong information before all the facts have been published.
What worries me is that the police have made a statement that they will tell the family of the victim, Is this a round about way of saying that they are not going public with the report?
Something of this importance should be made public and if the police are found to be guilty of incompetance then the truth should come out.
I believe that this post should be revived if new evidence emerges as the saga is not over yet.
What worries me is that the police have made a statement that they will tell the family of the victim, Is this a round about way of saying that they are not going public with the report?
Something of this importance should be made public and if the police are found to be guilty of incompetance then the truth should come out.
I believe that this post should be revived if new evidence emerges as the saga is not over yet.
I've read that several times.Moz said:
I've even tried reading the words in different orders.
It still makes no sense whatsoever.
Sponsored Links