Another weird news story from Florida

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 7:42 am

spot;1394737 wrote: It doesn't matter in the least who started it. I was objecting to your emotive word "victim", which is an assumption.

So If the man with half his face ripped off started the melee, then he's not the victem?

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 7:46 am

oscar;1394739 wrote: So If the man with half his face ripped off started the melee, then he's not the victem?

You're still making assumptions about what we know. I, for one, have no reason to believe he's had half his face ripped off. We have a choice, we can either accept the word being handed to the eagerly participating reporters by the police who have reason to try to exonerate their officer, or we can wait for the survivor to give a news conference before deciding what bits of their statements to include as "what we know". I've said, I doubt the word of the police on the basis that in similar circumstances in the past they've lied their shrunken balls off.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 7:50 am

spot;1394740 wrote: You're still making assumptions about what we know. I, for one, have no reason to believe he's had half his face ripped off. We have a choice, we can either accept the word being handed to the eagerly participating reporters by the police who have reason to try to exonerate their officer, or we can wait for the survivor to give a news conference before deciding what bits of their statements to include as "what we know". I've said, I doubt the word of the police on the basis that in similar circumstances in the past they've lied their shrunken balls off. Then given that you'll accept nothing because It's merely 'assumption'.......... why do you ' assume ' the cops got trigger happy ? Surely that's your assumption?

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 7:55 am

oscar;1394741 wrote: Then given that you'll accept nothing because It's merely 'assumption'.......... why do you ' assume ' the cops got trigger happy ? Surely that's your assumption?

Because an unarmed naked man is dead, oscar. I'm not assuming they got trigger-happy, I'm asking why the police used a lethal weapon. Some people think the answer's obvious, I happen not to.

You thought initially there were two naked men, is that right? And now you've seen photos and one of the men is clothed. Does that mean "what you know" changed?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 8:03 am

spot;1394742 wrote: Because an unarmed naked man is dead, oscar. I'm not assuming they got trigger-happy, I'm asking why the police used a lethal weapon. Some people think the answer's obvious, I happen not to.

You thought initially there were two naked men, is that right? And now you've seen photos and one of the men is clothed. Does that mean "what you know" changed?

Show me where I posted that I thought there were two naked men.

However, you did post this.

" I'm saying I'll post a photo of the chap who survived to give the lie to "the man had virtually no face". I doubt I'm wrong in guessing it's an utter lie of the typical post-killing police sort. "

You 'assumed' that the condition of the victem was an utter lie....

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 8:05 am

oscar;1394743 wrote: You 'assumed' that the condition of the victem was an utter lie....
The police don't have a right to be believed. The reason they don't have that right is their extensive track record of telling deliberate lies after lethal shootings on their part, time after time after time. I'm not sure I can think of an occasion where they've shot someone dead and not then lied about what happened - give me a prominent shooting I might have heard of and I'll tell you what lies they told about it.

As for how many naked people there were, I merely asked. It was a question - "You thought initially there were two naked men, is that right?". How many did you think there were, initially?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 8:12 am

spot;1394744 wrote: The police don't have a right to be believed. The reason they don't have that right is their extensive track record of telling deliberate lies after lethal shootings on their part, time after time after time. I'm not sure I can think of an occasion where they've shot someone dead and not then lied about what happened - give me a prominent shooting I might have heard of and I'll tell you what lies they told about it.

As for how many naked people there were, I merely asked. It was a question - "You thought initially there were two naked men, is that right?". How many did you think there were, initially?

There could have been 20 naked men for what It's worth. I concentrate on the report that one man apparently had half his face ripped off which you stated was most likely to be an utter lie. How many naked men there Is Irrelevant. You are trying to sideswipe the fact that you made erroneous assumptions.

You may be able to quote a few police shootings In the UK so how about you quote us or give us some statistics of how many US police shootings there have been where officers have subsequently lied?

Do you have any factual documented evidence of your claim that US officers have been Involved In shootings and then lied? Or Is that just another of your assumptions and opinions ?

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 8:24 am

oscar;1394745 wrote: There could have been 20 naked men for what It's worth.
No, the question relates to what you know and that something you would have claimed to have known has since turned out to be demonstrably false. All of the initial reports I saw said two naked men.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 8:27 am

oscar;1394745 wrote: Do you have any factual documented evidence of your claim that US officers have been Involved In shootings and then lied? Or Is that just another of your assumptions and opinions ?The case of Kathryn Johnston springs to mind, or the killing of James Brissette and Ronald Madison beside the Danziger Bridge. What might "factual documented evidence" consist of?

It's not that the officers lied which I'm drawing attention to, it's that their departments had a pre-existing policy of immediately lying on their behalf just as the London Met has. It's a routine police procedure which the press falls in with, the police being the main source of so-called information in such circumstances.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 8:31 am

spot;1394747 wrote: The case of Kathryn Johnston springs to mind. What might "factual documented evidence" consist of?

It's consists of factual documented evidence that a reasonable percentage of US police shootings have found the officers to have subsequently lied. Not one Incident that has sprung to your mind In order to give credence to your libelous claim of:

" The police don't have a right to be believed. The reason they don't have that right is their extensive track record of telling deliberate lies after lethal shootings on their part, time after time after time"

Where Is your evidence? After all, wasn't It you who Insisted we dealt with facts and not assumption?

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 8:40 am

oscar;1394748 wrote: It's consists of factual documented evidence that a reasonable percentage of US police shootings have found the officers to have subsequently lied. Not one Incident that has sprung to your mind In order to give credence to your libelous claim of:

" The police don't have a right to be believed. The reason they don't have that right is their extensive track record of telling deliberate lies after lethal shootings on their part, time after time after time"

Where Is your evidence? After all, wasn't It you who Insisted we dealt with facts and not assumption?

What you're asking for is the work of a Public Enquiry, not of someone writing in a forum thread. Getting a Public Enquiry held into systematic police corruption isn't an easy matter. Whenever one's been held it's found widespread systematic lawbreaking within the police - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Com ... ce_Service is an instance. Do you really think the Americans go in for that sort of muck-raking? When it's investigated it's uncovered. Mostly it's tolerated.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 8:43 am

spot;1394749 wrote: What you're asking for is the work of a Public Enquiry, not of someone writing in a forum thread. Getting a Public Enquiry held into systematic police corruption isn't an easy matter. Whenever one's been held it's found widespread systematic lawbreaking within the police - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Com ... ce_Service is an instance. Do you really think the Americans go in for that sort of muck-raking? When it's investigated it's uncovered. Mostly it's tolerated. That's your excuse for being unable to substantiate your claims throughout this thread.

What you're really saying Is that you can find no evidence to support your libelous claims here.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 8:47 am

oscar;1394750 wrote: That's your excuse for being unable to substantiate your claims throughout this thread.

What you're really saying Is that you can find no evidence to support your libelous claims here.
No, though I might say that telling someone to find what doesn't exist is generally considered abusive behaviour on the Internet. The two cases I offered have all the hallmarks of systematic institutionalized lying. So did the succession of Leman Street fiascoes.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 8:54 am

spot;1394751 wrote: No, though I might say that telling someone to find what doesn't exist is generally considered abusive behaviour on the Internet. The two cases I offered have all the hallmarks of systematic institutionalized lying. So did the succession of Leman Street fiascoes.

Abusive behaviour on the Internet ? Oh please, now you're being ridiculous.

What's up Spot ? Don't like being called to question? Historically on this forum you have Insisted from members of evidence via a link wen they have expressed an opinion. Now you have made libelous claims about the US police that you can not substantiate, you claim abusive behaviour ? You have even gone as far as to Imply these officers were racist. It Is you that abuses the Internet If anyone Is.

If you can't find any Information on the net to show that It Is fact a percentage of US officers have subsequently lied after a fatal shooting, then the chances are, It's not a problem out there worthy of any Investigation.... It's all In your head.

This Is more like It.... a real witness

Witness says naked attacker was chewing man's face | abc30.com

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 9:06 am

oscar;1394752 wrote: If you can't find any Information on the net to show that It Is fact a percentage of US officers have subsequently lied after a fatal shooting, then the chances are, It's not a problem out there worthy of any Investigation.... It's all In your head.The brain-dead fatuity of that observation says more than I could. Who would have the authority and will to make such an enquiry? And without that authority, who could perform it? Do you seriously think such an investigation has ever happened in the USA? Corruption, yes, and such investigations invariably show the police service under investigation to be a foul pit of corrupt practice[1]. But an investigation into US officers lying after killing someone? You're off your trolley.

What I can provide are representative documented instances. They're documented by reason of resulting in jail terms for the officers concerned. If you note the difficulty in bringing each case to court at all, you'll perhaps acknowledge they're the tip of the iceberg.

[1] Yes, I know where to find a great example of that if you like. Two, even.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 9:33 am

spot;1394754 wrote: The brain-dead fatuity of that observation says more than I could. Who would have the authority and will to make such an enquiry? And without that authority, who could perform it? Do you seriously think such an investigation has ever happened in the USA? Corruption, yes, and such investigations invariably show the police service being investigated to be a foul pit of corrupt practice[1]. But an investigation into US officers lying after killing someone? You're off your trolley.

[1] Yes, I know where to find a great example of that if you like. Two, even.

The lack of Information Into US police officers lying on the Internet shows that all you have done here and continue to do Is prostitute your own vile beliefs even going as far as to suggest these officers were racist without a scrap of evidence.

You have nothing, absolutely nothing and can not find anything to substantiate your claims. All you do Is wax lyrical In the hope that If you repeat yourself enough, someone somewhere will believe you.

I am not suggesting for one moment that there Is not corruption In the USA police. There Is corruption everywhere. The only problem you have Is that due to lack of any Information on the net, you have nothing to bolster your claims. Thus, they remain merely your opinions.

Given that you once stated on this forum ' opinion has no place In debate' you are a hypocrite In the extreme.

It's simple. If no Information exists on the net that officers In the USA have subsequently lied after fatal shootings, then you can not state with assertion that fact, which Is what you are trying to do In vain. You have no more evidence than anyone else and you certainly are not an authority on the subject In the USA nor the UK.

Practice what you preach Spot because you merely continue to make a fool of yourself.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 9:45 am

oscar;1394756 wrote: It's simple. If no Information exists on the net that officers In the USA have subsequently lied after fatal shootings, then you can not state with assertion that fact, which Is what you are trying to do In vain.It's round and round the houses with you. Here's what you asked, with what I answered. It's information on the net that officers In the USA have subsequently lied after fatal shootings. There's no US-wide official analysis of the extent to which it happens because, for it to have officially happened, at least one officer would have to have been jailed for it. Officers are practically immune to that sort of court process just as they are with any other corrupt practice. There's a stack of official reports into institutional corrupt practice resulting in no officer convictions. It's the habitual institutional lying of the departments that I'm drawing attention to and it's blindingly evident that it's pervasive both in the US and UK.

oscar;1394745 wrote: Do you have any factual documented evidence of your claim that US officers have been Involved In shootings and then lied? Or Is that just another of your assumptions and opinions ?The case of Kathryn Johnston springs to mind, or the killing of James Brissette and Ronald Madison beside the Danziger Bridge. What might "factual documented evidence" consist of?

It's not that the officers lied which I'm drawing attention to, it's that their departments had a pre-existing policy of immediately lying on their behalf just as the London Met has. It's a routine police procedure which the press falls in with, the police being the main source of so-called information in such circumstances.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 9:51 am

spot;1394757 wrote: It's round and round the houses with you. Here's what you asked, with what I answered. It's information on the net that officers In the USA have subsequently lied after fatal shootings. There's no US-wide official analysis of the extent to which it happens because, for it to have officially happened, at least one officer would have to have been jailed for it. Officers are practically immune to that sort of court process just as they are with any other corrupt practice. There's a stack of official reports into institutional corrupt practice resulting in no officer convictions. It's the habitual institutional lying of the departments that I'm drawing attention to and it's blindingly evident that it's pervasive both in the US and UK.

The case of Kathryn Johnston springs to mind, or the killing of James Brissette and Ronald Madison beside the Danziger Bridge. What might "factual documented evidence" consist of?

It's not that the officers lied which I'm drawing attention to, it's that their departments had a pre-existing policy of immediately lying on their behalf just as the London Met has. It's a routine police procedure which the press falls in with, the police being the main source of so-called information in such circumstances.

Evidence ?

Kathryn Johnston Is the only example you can find on the net.... repeating her case doesn't make cases documented In the USA more than one.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 10:09 am

oscar;1394758 wrote: Evidence ?

Kathryn Johnston Is the only example you can find on the net.... repeating her case doesn't make cases documented In the USA more than one.

Did you not click the Danziger Bridge link? Go on, click the Danziger Bridge link. It makes cases documented In the USA more than one.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 10:12 am

spot;1394759 wrote: Did you not click the Danziger Bridge link? Go on, click the Danziger Bridge link. It makes cases documented In the USA more than one.

Show me something more substantial that some Isolated cases. Show me some evidence that the USA police force Is Institutionally corrupt In all states.

It's been lovely chatting but I must go and do something exciting with a leg of lamb.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 10:20 am

oscar;1394760 wrote: Show me something more substantial that some Isolated cases. Show me some evidence that the USA police force Is Institutionally corrupt In all states.More circling. There can be, by the nature of the question, no such information without a major investigation, and nobody's conducted one.

Here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_o ... erlain,_Sr.

That's an indication of lying after killing, and an institutionalized immunity from prosecution, and racism, all bundled in one neat innocent dead man.

Should I find another like it, or am I getting my point across?

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 10:36 am

Have we heard of Jason Bitz yet?On Halloween morning, the young man, who still looked like a teen and whom friends and family called "JJ," was shot to death by an off-duty Santa Ana police detective. The detective, whom authorities have declined to identify, had walked out of his home when he saw Bitz trying to steal a van outside his home in Lakewood, he told police.

The van had been lent to Bitz by the owner's son, the owner and his son told The Times. The detective told sheriff's deputies investigating the shooting that Bitz had reached for his waistband before the detective shot him, but Bitz was unarmed.

Coming to grips with the Jason Bitz case - Los Angeles Times

"Bitz had reached for his waistband before the detective shot him"? I can see the pigs flying from here.

"The detective is back at work after declining to be interviewed by the department".

That's an indication of lying after killing, and an institutionalized immunity from prosecution, and racism, all bundled in one neat innocent dead man.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 10:41 am

spot;1394761 wrote: More circling. There can be, by the nature of the question, no such information without a major investigation, and nobody's conducted one.

Here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_o ... erlain,_Sr.

That's an indication of lying after killing, and an institutionalized immunity from prosecution, and racism, all bundled in one neat innocent dead man.

Should I find another like it, or am I getting my point across?

No Spot... you are linking Isolated Incidents In a large country of 50 states which Is In no way a reasonable proportion to the States, police Officers, citizens and fatal shootings.

Show us evidence that the US police force Is Institutionally corrupt as you have claimed here?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed May 30, 2012 10:57 am

Oscar, have you ever been in a crazed state to the point of eating another living person's face?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 10:59 am

Here's a more In depth account from today's Mail...

Rudy Eugene: Miami cannibal attack video shows victim Ronald Poppo was still conscious | Mail Online

The article states:

After he strips and punches his victim, he straddles him before starting to eat his face off. Cars and a number of cyclists passed the two men while the attack took place.

I think that's a safe Indicator that If he was asleep when attacked, he's pretty much the victim and Spot Is again wrong.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:03 am

Have we heard of Jose Guerena yet?

This reads remarkably like Kathryn Johnston's killing. Has anyone been prosecuted for it so far? Those who guess "no" are perhaps detecting a pattern.

A computer search revealed Guerena had no history of criminal convictions. Guerena had been arrested in January 2009 after being involved in a traffic stop with two other individuals where a gun and a small amount or marijuana were found, but was not charged. In the affidavit filed to support the search warrant, Pima Detective Alex Tisch claimed Guerena had "five felony arrests involving drugs" but no convictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Guerena_shooting

Lying police? Institutionalized immunity from prosecution? Racism?

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:10 am

oscar;1394764 wrote: Show us evidence that the US police force Is Institutionally corrupt as you have claimed here?Do you actually know what "Institutionally" means? It means "as an Institution", it doesn't mean "extensively". It means that processes are built in to step forward and corruptly lie, knowing that what's being told is a lie. Did you at one stage, at least temporarily, "know" that Jean Charles de Menezes fled when police closed in on him, and vaulted a ticket barrier long before he was shot? You "knew" that because a bunch of police employees were engaged in damage limitation and lying their heads off in the process. What they do is an instance of institutional corruption in the London Met.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:11 am

spot;1394768 wrote: Do you actually know what "Institutionally" means? It means "as an Institution", it doesn't mean "extensively". It means that processes are built in to step forward and corruptly lie, knowing that what's being told is a lie. Did you at one stage, at least temporarily, "know" that Jean Charles de Menezes fled when police closed in on him, and vaulted a ticket barrier long before he was shot? You "knew" that because a bunch of police employees were engaged in damage limitation and lying their heads off in the process. What they do is an instance of institutional corruption in the London Met.

Ok let's have It your way.... Instead of Isolated Incidents, find evidence that the USA police as an entire body of the USA Is corrupt.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:14 am

oscar;1394769 wrote: Instead of Isolated Incidents, find evidence that the USA police as an entire body of the USA Is corrupt.Perhaps you might go and boil your head instead. You don't tell me what to go and find. If you want to join in, do it yourself.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:32 am

spot;1394770 wrote: Perhaps you might go and boil your head instead. You don't tell me what to go and find. If you want to join in, do it yourself. That's Spot speak for ' I can't find anything to substantiate the claims I have made here and I'm beginning to look a pratt '

Posted by Spot

" Go on, click the Danziger Bridge link. "

Practice what you preach Spot and then we can progress.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:39 am

There's you oscar, and there's me, and there's the thread's consumers. I don't need to do anything at all, you've already done it for me.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:43 am

spot;1394776 wrote: There's you oscar, and there's me, and there's the thread's consumers. I don't need to do anything at all, you've already done it for me. All I have done Is highlight that you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that as a body, the US police are corrupt as you have claimed here.

You have been consistently erroneous throughout this thread. You just think that If you repeat your ludicrous claims hard enough and long enough, someone, somewhere will be Impressed with the drivel of which you have offered In this thread.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 11:52 am

oscar;1394777 wrote: All I have done Is highlight that you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that as a body, the US police are corrupt as you have claimed here.Wherever it's been investigated it's been found corrupt. Here - this is a useful contribution:"I am simply saying that the current institution of law enforcement in America does appear to reproduce itself according counter-legal norms, and that attempts to counteract this reproduction via the training one receives in police academies, the imposition of citizen review boards, departments of Internal Affairs, etc. do not appear to mitigate against this structural continuity between law enforcement and crime. Specifically the continuity between the breaking of procedural rules as a matter of routine and the kind of large scale criminal corruption we saw in Rampart bears further investigation." Judith Grant, "Assault Under Color of Authority: Police Corruption as Norm in the LAPD Rampart Scandal and in Popular Film," New Political Science 25, no. 3 (2003): 404.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_co ... corruption - footnote 8.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 12:24 pm

spot;1394780 wrote: Wherever it's been investigated it's been found corrupt. Here - this is a useful contribution:"I am simply saying that the current institution of law enforcement in America does appear to reproduce itself according counter-legal norms, and that attempts to counteract this reproduction via the training one receives in police academies, the imposition of citizen review boards, departments of Internal Affairs, etc. do not appear to mitigate against this structural continuity between law enforcement and crime. Specifically the continuity between the breaking of procedural rules as a matter of routine and the kind of large scale criminal corruption we saw in Rampart bears further investigation." Judith Grant, "Assault Under Color of Authority: Police Corruption as Norm in the LAPD Rampart Scandal and in Popular Film," New Political Science 25, no. 3 (2003): 404.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_co ... corruption - footnote 8.

Wikki ???? Are you serious ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 30, 2012 1:25 pm

Lalalalala

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 1:44 pm

oscar;1394782 wrote: Wikki ???? Are you serious ?

It's a direct quote from a Journal, New Political Science. The place I found it is surely immaterial.

"Manuscripts accepted for review are evaluated by a minimum of two scholars active in the field" - it sounds like a legitimate academic Journal. Have you good reason to think it isn't?

NEW POLITICAL SCIENCE

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 1:51 pm

spot;1394796 wrote: It's a direct quote from a Journal, New Political Science. The place I found it is surely immaterial.

"Manuscripts accepted for review are evaluated by a minimum of two scholars active in the field" - it sounds like a legitimate academic Journal. Have you good reason to think it isn't?

NEW POLITICAL SCIENCE

Then I'll have a good look at It.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed May 30, 2012 1:59 pm

You look younger than I imagined.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 2:10 pm

oscar;1394797 wrote: Then I'll have a good look at It.
That's more than I've managed, it's not held in JSTOR.

It does appear to argue along the lines I've been talking. Here's the abstract:This article argues that the frequency and intensity of police corruption scandals indicate that they are not "corruptions" but are the norm. Police believe that they must break the law in order to enforce it. I connect this to Austin Sarat's notions about the relationship between law and violence. I also situate the discussion in terms of theories of "new institutionalism." The article uses details of the LAPD Rampart scandal as an illustration. Finally, I argue that portrayals of corruption, brutality and scandal in film tend to reinforce the institutionalization of certain kinds of corruption as normative in urban police departments in the US.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed May 30, 2012 2:23 pm

spot;1394803 wrote: Finally, I argue that portrayals of corruption, brutality and scandal in film tend to reinforce the institutionalization of certain kinds of corruption as normative in urban police departments in the US.

It always amuses me that people don't get it that the stories we tell ourselves direct us, not the other way around.

We mimic what we see and hear.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed May 30, 2012 2:45 pm

oscar;1394766 wrote: Here's a more In depth account from today's Mail...

Rudy Eugene: Miami cannibal attack video shows victim Ronald Poppo was still conscious | Mail Online

The article states:

After he strips and punches his victim, he straddles him before starting to eat his face off. Cars and a number of cyclists passed the two men while the attack took place.

I think that's a safe Indicator that If he was asleep when attacked, he's pretty much the victim and Spot Is again wrong.

Rudy Eugene, 31, originally from Haiti, chewed lumps of flesh from Mr Poppo's face after stripping and beating him.

Two naked men... check.

Only Mr Poppo's goatee remains, left, after the attack, right, in these pictures which MailOnline has chosen to heavily censor

Heavily censored but the blurred area is completely blood red. Man's face chewed off... check.

So spot's completely wrong. I don't give a rat's ass about the corrupt American police argument, I'm interested in this story and SPOT'S COMPLETELY WRONG.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 3:04 pm

I'll say so if it turns out so. I always do, on those rare occasions.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed May 30, 2012 3:24 pm

What else do you need? Both your claims have been shot down in flames... because YOU'RE WRONG.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed May 30, 2012 3:27 pm

I was wrong once. It's not so bad. But boy the length some people will go to in order for you to be wrong. This guy would have never cannibalized and the cop would have never shot him unless there was a chance you'd be wrong about something in the situation. You are one important dude.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed May 30, 2012 3:28 pm

Wrong wrong wrong!!!

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 3:39 pm

SnoozeAgain;1394833 wrote: What else do you need? Both your claims have been shot down in flames... because YOU'RE WRONG.

Well, no, actually. What you can say is that the chap's face appeared to have been chewed to smithereens - blood tends to do that even in car crashes. The real test is what he looks like when he gives his press conference. Which is why we have to wait before we can find out.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed May 30, 2012 3:43 pm

spot;1394846 wrote: Well, no, actually. What you can say is that the chap's face appeared to have been chewed to smithereens - blood tends to do that even in car crashes. The real test is what he looks like when he gives his press conference. Which is why we have to wait before we can find out.

Are you serious? That's ridiculous. And WRONG!!!!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 30, 2012 3:45 pm

I think we have a group of reasonable people trying to analyse the News equivalent of a game of Chinese whispers, relaying what they think they heard.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed May 30, 2012 3:47 pm

spot;1394846 wrote: Well, no, actually. What you can say is that the chap's face appeared to have been chewed to smithereens - blood tends to do that even in car crashes. The real test is what he looks like when he gives his press conference. Which is why we have to wait before we can find out.
So let's get this right In Spot's world shall we?

There Is a 50/50 chance the victim will not want to give a press conference once he's recovered. There's a 50/50 chance that even If he does, It may not make the media.... In fact, why should he... what? To appease you because you are just soooooooo Important In your forum ramblings?

If the chap doesn't give a press conference then what? You pat yourself on the back that you were right all along..

A perfectly reasonable witness testament has been cited but no, as soon as the bandages are off, you expect the chap to give a press statement.

Get In the real world Spot.... you're wrong. You have been wrong time and time again In this thread and you just make yourself look stupid.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 30, 2012 3:53 pm

oscar;1394850 wrote: Get In the real world Spot.... you're wrong. You have been wrong time and time again In this thread and you just make yourself look stupid.You've not had a good day, all things considered. Everything I've seen indicates the classic symptoms of dementia on your part. The only consolation I can offer is that at least you've had a full innings - the early onset version is much more of a personal tragedy.