paulus
-
Content Count
33,296 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
67
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by paulus
-
http://www.agouti-nets.co.uk/
-
because im having a slack day
-
confused me
-
stand ons more like
-
he has catapult elastic for a strap
-
theres one here somewhere
-
and theres more
-
hide very well as they can spot the slightest movement and soon cackle your presence to the rest
-
well no point in spoofing eyes like a shit house rat me
-
-
10 Years Extra Life.v.no Alcohol/ciggies/drugs/coffee.ect
paulus replied to nans pat's topic in General Talk
The older i get the worse i get -
anything legal stays, it really is as simple as that
-
place a dead rabbit with its belly opened up in an open space and wait
-
10 Years Extra Life.v.no Alcohol/ciggies/drugs/coffee.ect
paulus replied to nans pat's topic in General Talk
-
but he was in possession of an illegal firearm that he had not long picked up, had he not have picked up that gun then perhaps he would still be alive Again read the evidence The police shot mark because they had reason to believe only. If you are not carrying its unlawful killing Thats the law and thats the evidence shown to the jury. This was unlawfull killing no matter what you think. had he shot the police marksman then that would have been unlawful killing. he was in possession of an illegal firearm as he had picked it up, he didn't do that with the intention of peeling spuds
-
faced with the uncertainty of gun or no gun and only a split second to make a decision that could at best effect the rest of your life and at worse put you in tany people would volunteer to do, but than goodness some do or the alternative would be to arm everybody,I know mate it's a hard job but it still don't make it right killing an innocent man and when I say that I don't mean scrotes like Duggan. It's the same old excuse split decision but they've actually killed innocent people that have no involment in any crime. innocent people get killed all over the world every second of everyday,
-
but he was in possession of an illegal firearm that he had not long picked up, had he not have picked up that gun then perhaps he would still be alive
-
faced with the uncertainty of gun or no gun and only a split second to make a decision that could at best effect the rest of your life and at worse put you in the ground is something not many people would volunteer to do, but thank goodness some do or the alternative would be to arm everybody,
-
Yet he was involved with collecting, transporting, using, possesing a gun which is the reason he was under close surveillance right? That's my understanding. Did the police KNOW he wasn't in immediate possesion of that firearm? They responded to a percieved threat with a split second decision. I wouldn't like to second guess them. Unfortunate outcome but could have all been avoided by keeping his hands and life clean of all that shit. There was No evidence. Read the evidence. The police evidence was (reason to believe) So not one person see a firearm on mark . There was a handg
-
10 Years Extra Life.v.no Alcohol/ciggies/drugs/coffee.ect
paulus replied to nans pat's topic in General Talk
smoke like a chimney and drink like a fish -
do we still get summers
-
none of that has any relevance in this case, the officer that shot him believed him to have a gun and believed him to be an imminent danger to himself and or the public, that has been proved in court, it has also been proved he was in fact unarmed at the time he was shot, some strange cover up that why are the families lawyers not contesting the fact he had a gun only the fact he was not carrying it at the time he was shot no it does THEY BELIEVIED HIM TO BE A THREAT as well they killed him the fact the man who gave him the gun pleaded guilty to doing so and is serving
-
none of that has any relevance in this case, the officer that shot him believed him to have a gun and believed him to be an imminent danger to himself and or the public, that has been proved in court, it has also been proved he was in fact unarmed at the time he was shot, some strange cover up that why are the families lawyers not contesting the fact he had a gun only the fact he was not carrying it at the time he was shot
-
if he had been wearing a suicide vest, would the fact the police shot him with or without his finger on the button have made a difference, would it indeed have gone to court ?? the fact is the firearms officer shot him lawfully, i.e in accordance with what the law says is acceptable, the jury also returned a verdict that he was indeed unarmed at the time he was shot. different verdicts for different points in law, the main question now should be did he indeed pick that gun up in a shoebox whilst travelling in that taxi, what did the evidence of the man who allegedly gave him the gun say??