shanshee_allures
|
Edited Oct 16, 2007, 20:36
...and?
Oct 16, 2007, 20:34
|
The relevance is what?
***The court heard that a toxicology test following his death showed a blood test for cocaine was "below detectable levels" but his urine tested positive.
Ronald Thwaites QC, defending, asked Dr Shorrock: "Does that indicate that he had relatively recently consumed cocaine?"***
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-7000406,00.html
x
|
handofdave
|
Re: ...and?
Oct 16, 2007, 22:09
|
|
shanshee_allures wrote: The relevance is what?
why, that he was a 'nefarious drug abusing threat to society' of course, thereby making his unjust death acceptable to the milquetoasties who live under an umbrella of fear and subservience to authority.
|
bernie the bolt
|
Re: ...and?
Oct 16, 2007, 23:11
|
|
handofdave wrote: shanshee_allures wrote: The relevance is what?
why, that he was a 'nefarious drug abusing threat to society' of course, thereby making his unjust death acceptable to the milquetoasties who live under an umbrella of fear and subservience to authority.
Agree with both of yers. Blew his head off five times for, if nothing else, the trace levels of coke in him. Great angle. What spin.
Suppose they can try to argue his behaviour was odd, thought he was a bomber, then it'll be 'so sorry, but if only he hadn't had them few lines the day before...'
Therefore, his own fault for having his head part company with his neck.
I know it's easy for us to grumble about this. I wasn't there, or lost anyone, on 9/11 or 7/7. But to that Brazilian dude's family, he was executed.
|
shanshee_allures
|
Re: ...and?
Oct 16, 2007, 23:47
|
|
bernie the bolt wrote:
I know it's easy for us to grumble about this. I wasn't there, or lost anyone, on 9/11 or 7/7. But to that Brazilian dude's family, he was executed.
And there were folks on the tube train that morning setting off to do a day's work and what an image they've got to keep with them.
The very fact he 'had some cocaine in him' is allowed to come up in this sham of a trial just points to where it's going.
x
|
bernie the bolt
|
Re: ...and?
Oct 16, 2007, 23:54
|
|
shanshee_allures wrote: bernie the bolt wrote:
I know it's easy for us to grumble about this. I wasn't there, or lost anyone, on 9/11 or 7/7. But to that Brazilian dude's family, he was executed.
And there were folks on the tube train that morning setting off to do a day's work and what an image they've got to keep with them.
The very fact he 'had some cocaine in him' is allowed to come up in this sham of a trial just points to where it's going.
x
Yup, still with ya.
\m/
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: ...and?
Oct 17, 2007, 07:43
|
the relevance is clearly that he was a Bad Person and so the police were doing You a favour by clearing such scum off the streets. In fact, they should probably shoot more people randomly.
Nah, the relevance is probably that the police are desperate to get off the hook are they not. So if they can prove he was acting Peculiar then they can say they were justified. Because an ordinary person not tripping their face off would have stopped and said 'ooh officer please don't point that gun at me, please arrest me quietly' etc.
Do you think it's that?
D'y'know they had tracked him all the way from his house.
|
shanshee_allures
|
Re: ...and?
Oct 17, 2007, 08:42
|
Yes, that is it.
If the 'defence' is using this, what's the 'prosecution'?
Is there a prosecution?
Is it just a talking shop for a few weeks?
No way would that be allowed as a defence anywhere ever.
Will the more heroic aspects of our beloved media come out and say so?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
x
|
anthonyqkiernan
|
Re: ...and?
Oct 17, 2007, 14:45
|
I'm not sure what I find most disconcerting about this, the blatant attempt to fiddle a poor excuse, or the belief that that poor excuse ("Y'know, foreign type - they all look the same...") was valid to use in the first place.
In reply to:
...and? (shanshee_allures) |
|
