Today I'm angry about.....

[thebish]

irrelevant... he was innocent - he was shot to death - he had real reason to be afraid and was innocent...

what you said was wrong - sometimes the innocent DO have reason to be afraid of armed police

not sure why you think this is controversial...

It was very relevant at the time when he was shot.

I disagree with you telling me I am wrong and therefore call you a buffoon.

I don't know anyone who has been killed by the police, maybe you are different.

you said that the innocent need have no fear of armed police - yes?
Jean Charles de Menezes was innocent - yes?
he was killed by armed police - yes?
so he had reason to be afraid - yes?
so - sometimes innocent people DO have reason to be afraid of armed police..

i don't see how it is at all relevant whether you or I personally know anyone who was killed by the police.

call me all the names you like if you think it makes your case stronger...

I'm innocent and have no fear of the police, maybe you do, maybe your not innocent...

We are going round in circles with Charles de Menezes and quite frankly I find your ignorance deplorable.

As for name calling, its nothing compared to what the people you seem to be supporting were yelling outside the court.

he was innocent and he was shot dead - he had reason to fear (whatever the underlying reason)
your statement that the innocent need not fear armed police - is patently wrong.

you could only counter this by telling me he wasn't innocent or he wasn't shot dead by armed police. you can't do either.

in what way was i supporting anyone at the court today - you're just making stuff up... i haven't said a single word about what happened at court today.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

Is it unlike the claim that suicide bombers are deterred by the possibility of being shot.
The point is that you give coppers carte blanche to be judge jury executioner and who knows where it ends .
Duggan was from the Broadwater Farm Estate.Some might just make something of that...

Are you aware that their is several provisions in the law for the state to use deadly force?

As far as I am aware the police do a job, protecting people. I don't always agree with them but on some like this I do.

Re Broadwater, I would imagine pot smoking, idle bastard conspiracy theorists make the link.

Suicide bombers, go and read up about terrorist attacks and what they want to achieve.

Yes..
As faras I, m aware the police frequently do a good job protecting people. They also (increasingly) over step the mark.. and in their handling of this case I suspect they did.
Dont do drugs, have a job and had a dad who happened to be married to my mum, but feel free to hold your own theory (conspiritationally or otherwise) on why I made the possible connection
I am well aware of suicide bombers wish for martyrdom and attracting maximum publicity for their cause.. not quite sure on why believing armed police possibly could apprehend and shoot them before they got to the point of carrying out their heinous act would deter them though.[/quote]

A jury disagrees with you.

Obviously in your world, the mere act of just giving up your life is a nothing. I'm impressed with your research done regarding terrorists though so you must accept that anything other than a success is a failure and paying for that with your life in the process is a deterrent.[/quote]

8 -2 so clearly some doubt..
Paying with your life in the attempt i suspect constitutes martydom in the twisted logic of a suicide bomber.but point me out one piece of serious research that shooting innocent bystanders has prevented suicide bombings as opposed to the sterling work of our security services and I, ll retract

[bobo the clown]

in what way was i supporting anyone at the court today - you're just making stuff up... i haven't said a single word about what happened at court today.

Fair enough.

Do you have a view and are you willing to share it ?

[boltonboris]

No, he won't. Because he can troll people on both sides if he sits on the fence.

[jaffka]

he was innocent and he was shot dead - he had reason to fear (whatever the underlying reason)
your statement that the innocent need not fear armed police - is patently wrong.

you could only counter this by telling me he wasn't innocent or he wasn't shot dead by armed police. you can't do either.

in what way was i supporting anyone at the court today - you're just making stuff up... i haven't said a single word about what happened at court today.

Still going round in circles, you can try all you want, that is a separate discussion which is elsewhere, raise it if you want. The circumstances of him being killed are very relevant.

Is this my statement you keep referring to 'No arguments from me with that. I have no need to fear our custodians, the ones who do wrong should though.'?

Then if your not supporting anyone, what the hell are you babbling on about. Buffoon.

[Lord Kangana]

Perhaps Jaffka would be happy if the Police shot him as a deterrent to paedophiles then?

It would act as a deterrent though, wouldn't it?

[jaffka]

Is it unlike the claim that suicide bombers are deterred by the possibility of being shot.
The point is that you give coppers carte blanche to be judge jury executioner and who knows where it ends .
Duggan was from the Broadwater Farm Estate.Some might just make something of that...

Are you aware that their is several provisions in the law for the state to use deadly force?

As far as I am aware the police do a job, protecting people. I don't always agree with them but on some like this I do.

Re Broadwater, I would imagine pot smoking, idle bastard conspiracy theorists make the link.

Suicide bombers, go and read up about terrorist attacks and what they want to achieve.

Yes..
As faras I, m aware the police frequently do a good job protecting people. They also (increasingly) over step the mark.. and in their handling of this case I suspect they did.
Dont do drugs, have a job and had a dad who happened to be married to my mum, but feel free to hold your own theory (conspiritationally or otherwise) on why I made the possible connection
I am well aware of suicide bombers wish for martyrdom and attracting maximum publicity for their cause.. not quite sure on why believing armed police possibly could apprehend and shoot them before they got to the point of carrying out their heinous act would deter them though.

A jury disagrees with you.

Obviously in your world, the mere act of just giving up your life is a nothing. I'm impressed with your research done regarding terrorists though so you must accept that anything other than a success is a failure and paying for that with your life in the process is a deterrent.[/quote]

8 -2 so clearly some doubt..
Paying with your life in the attempt i suspect constitutes martydom in the twisted logic of a suicide bomber.but point me out one piece of serious research that shooting innocent bystanders has prevented suicide bombings as opposed to the sterling work of our security services and I, ll retract[/quote]

I don't need to point anything out or do anything to change what has happened because I agree with what has happened.

You are the one who thinks that there is a massive wrong, I don't give a flying toss what you think. The question is, what are you going to do about your grievance with the state.

[jaffka]

Perhaps Jaffka would be happy if the Police shot him as a deterrent to paedophiles then?

It would act as a deterrent though, wouldn't it?

My confusion was if you were classing me as a paedo?

[Lord Kangana]

Why would you need to be a paedophile for it to be a deterrent to paedophiles?

[jaffka]

Why would you need to be a paedophile for it to be a deterrent to paedophiles?

You are dodging what I am saying.

Are you saying I am a paedo?

[Lord Kangana]

If an electrician is a terrorist, then yes.

[jaffka]

If an electrician is a terrorist, then yes.

You are avoiding the question which is quite direct.

I don't understand what the point is you are making.

[Lord Kangana]

I'm not surprised you don't get the point. You think that shooting an electrician is a deterrent to suicide bombers. I'll leave you to your confusion, it seems incurable.

[jaffka]

I'm not surprised you don't get the point. You think that shooting an electrician is a deterrent to suicide bombers. I'll leave you to your confusion, it seems incurable.

He could have been a diplomat, doley, car salesman. That is irrelevant.

If you feel that strongly about this, why don't you bring the old thread back.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

I don't need to point anything out or do anything to change what has happened because I agree with what has happened.

You are the one who thinks that there is a massive wrong, I don't give a flying toss what you think. The question is, what are you going to do about your grievance with the state.[/quote]

I do think a massive wrong has been done.
Why ask me what I, m going to do about it? if you dont give a flying toss what i think whyvwould you care what I, m going to do?
This is becoming silly
I, m out

[jaffka]

I don't need to point anything out or do anything to change what has happened because I agree with what has happened.

You are the one who thinks that there is a massive wrong, I don't give a flying toss what you think. The question is, what are you going to do about your grievance with the state.

I do think a massive wrong has been done.
Why ask me what I, m going to do about it? if you dont give a flying toss what i think whyvwould you care what I, m going to do?
This is becoming silly
I, m out[/quote]

Bye!

Enjoy the law.

[thebish]

he was innocent and he was shot dead - he had reason to fear (whatever the underlying reason)
your statement that the innocent need not fear armed police - is patently wrong.

you could only counter this by telling me he wasn't innocent or he wasn't shot dead by armed police. you can't do either.

in what way was i supporting anyone at the court today - you're just making stuff up... i haven't said a single word about what happened at court today.

Still going round in circles, you can try all you want, that is a separate discussion which is elsewhere, raise it if you want. The circumstances of him being killed are very relevant.

Is this my statement you keep referring to 'No arguments from me with that. I have no need to fear our custodians, the ones who do wrong should though.'?

Then if your not supporting anyone, what the hell are you babbling on about. Buffoon.

nahhh - the name-calling still doesn't strengthen your case... you may think it does - but, really, it doesn't...

why do I have to be supporting someone to point out that innocent people do sometimes have good reason to fear armed police? the circumstances are not relevant - he was innocent - and for whatever reason - bad intelligence, itchy fingers after the 7/7 bombings, mistaken identity - it matters not as far as him having reason to be afraid of armed police is concerned...

unless you are saying that stuff can't go wrong again?? truth is - it most certainly can - and while it can - innocent people - even folk such as yourself, however unlikely it may seem, may also have good reason to fear armed police. My guess is that Menenez didn't believe he had any reason at all to fear armed police that day.... but unbeknownst to him - he did...

also - how have I supported anyone at the court?

[thebish]

in what way was i supporting anyone at the court today - you're just making stuff up... i haven't said a single word about what happened at court today.

Fair enough.

Do you have a view and are you willing to share it ?

i don't know enough about the Duggan case to offer a firm view either way.

Jaffka broadened the discussion beyond the specific case - and i responded, if that's ok?

[jaffka]

he was innocent and he was shot dead - he had reason to fear (whatever the underlying reason)
your statement that the innocent need not fear armed police - is patently wrong.

you could only counter this by telling me he wasn't innocent or he wasn't shot dead by armed police. you can't do either.

in what way was i supporting anyone at the court today - you're just making stuff up... i haven't said a single word about what happened at court today.

Still going round in circles, you can try all you want, that is a separate discussion which is elsewhere, raise it if you want. The circumstances of him being killed are very relevant.

Is this my statement you keep referring to 'No arguments from me with that. I have no need to fear our custodians, the ones who do wrong should though.'?

Then if your not supporting anyone, what the hell are you babbling on about. Buffoon.

nahhh - the name-calling still doesn't strengthen your case... you may think it does - but, really, it doesn't...

why do I have to be supporting someone to point out that innocent people do sometimes have good reason to fear armed police? the circumstances are not relevant - he was innocent - and for whatever reason - bad intelligence, itchy fingers after the 7/7 bombings, mistaken identity - it matters not as far as him having reason to be afraid of armed police is concerned...

unless you are saying that stuff can't go wrong again?? truth is - it most certainly can - and while it can - innocent people - even folk such as yourself, however unlikely it may seem, may also have good reason to fear armed police. My guess is that Menenez didn't believe he had any reason at all to fear armed police that day.... but unbeknownst to him - he did...

also - how have I supported anyone at the court?

Like someone else has said, you are trolling. Maybe you don't know it.

I go off my own experiences and stand by what I say and have quoted what I said above.

Maybe you have had bad experiences, please feel free to share them.

[jaffka]

in what way was i supporting anyone at the court today - you're just making stuff up... i haven't said a single word about what happened at court today.

Fair enough.

Do you have a view and are you willing to share it ?

i don't know enough about the Duggan case to offer a firm view either way.

Jaffka broadened the discussion beyond the specific case - and i responded, if that's ok?

You quoted Charles, not me.

You hijacked the discussion. Therefore I now say you are a liar as well as a buffoon.