Has Thingy-me-Bobs Surfaced Yet?
Amid all these COVIDS.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/31/us/nypd-truck-george-floyd-protest/index.html
How can I overstate how emotionally unattached I am to all this;
https://twitterwithbraincells.blogspot.com/2019/12/khanistan-police-still-racist.html
In the UK we have a supermarket chain called; "Sainsbury's."
They do a very nice "festive" sandwich. Made up of Turkey, Bacon, Pork Sausage, Cranberry Sauce, Mayonnaise. All on malted bread.
December 23rd is, like, one of the last days to buy one of those sandwiches.
Whatever that was. It stood between me and that sandwich.
Getting me up and out of my chair. Calling 999 on my phone. Was the thought;
"This could require the NHS."
"Knowing the scene the NHS won't enter without the police."
So;
"Police, please."
While doing that I have no idea how we got from; "inside of the vehicle" to; "outside of the vehicle."
If I ever do ever learn the name. I will definitely applaud.
Anyway.
I believe both black aggressors were arrested.
It is though the van driver I think we're most interested in.
Normally when matters are sub judice (under judgement) you can only say; "Alleged."
However in this particular judice I'm doing the alledging. So if I can't say he's guilty we might as well all go home.
Britain's adversarial legal system would collapse even further if I suddenly started acting as the alledged's defence attorney.
However the most commonly used defence is; "Dispute of Fact."
His actions were witnessed by 4 witnesses. 3 of whom are independent of each.
The events occurred during daylight hours.
Those witnesses detained him at the scene. So legally there is no break in the chain between him committing the offence and appearing in this Courtroom.
Those are some pretty big facts he needs to dispute.
He may also be tempted to run the defence of; "Lawful Excuse."
Basically; "Defence of Self/Other." In short, he feared for his life.
Although I think most reasonable persons would agree that under those circumstances locking the van doors and calling the police should be your first recourse.
In fact I suspect there is a UK legal precedent which insists upon it.
So in his position I would've taken the 6 months for the Actual Bodily Harm (ABH). Contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
After all that carries a certain cache on a building site.
Whereas driving bans are just annoying.
As for this continuing Kaiser Wilhelm bullsh't.
https://www.fox5ny.com/video/689654
The moment one person threatened that vehicle. Let alone the 20th. Those police officers had lawful excuse.
After all it's not like they can call the police. They are police.
Certainly from the moment the first incendiary went into the roof they were lawfully entitled to shoot and kill every single person there.
Personally I'd settle for a couple of bruised hips.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/31/us/nypd-truck-george-floyd-protest/index.html
How can I overstate how emotionally unattached I am to all this;
https://twitterwithbraincells.blogspot.com/2019/12/khanistan-police-still-racist.html
In the UK we have a supermarket chain called; "Sainsbury's."
They do a very nice "festive" sandwich. Made up of Turkey, Bacon, Pork Sausage, Cranberry Sauce, Mayonnaise. All on malted bread.
December 23rd is, like, one of the last days to buy one of those sandwiches.
Whatever that was. It stood between me and that sandwich.
Getting me up and out of my chair. Calling 999 on my phone. Was the thought;
"This could require the NHS."
"Knowing the scene the NHS won't enter without the police."
So;
"Police, please."
While doing that I have no idea how we got from; "inside of the vehicle" to; "outside of the vehicle."
If I ever do ever learn the name. I will definitely applaud.
Anyway.
I believe both black aggressors were arrested.
It is though the van driver I think we're most interested in.
Normally when matters are sub judice (under judgement) you can only say; "Alleged."
However in this particular judice I'm doing the alledging. So if I can't say he's guilty we might as well all go home.
Britain's adversarial legal system would collapse even further if I suddenly started acting as the alledged's defence attorney.
However the most commonly used defence is; "Dispute of Fact."
His actions were witnessed by 4 witnesses. 3 of whom are independent of each.
The events occurred during daylight hours.
Those witnesses detained him at the scene. So legally there is no break in the chain between him committing the offence and appearing in this Courtroom.
Those are some pretty big facts he needs to dispute.
He may also be tempted to run the defence of; "Lawful Excuse."
Basically; "Defence of Self/Other." In short, he feared for his life.
Although I think most reasonable persons would agree that under those circumstances locking the van doors and calling the police should be your first recourse.
In fact I suspect there is a UK legal precedent which insists upon it.
So in his position I would've taken the 6 months for the Actual Bodily Harm (ABH). Contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
After all that carries a certain cache on a building site.
Whereas driving bans are just annoying.
As for this continuing Kaiser Wilhelm bullsh't.
https://www.fox5ny.com/video/689654
The moment one person threatened that vehicle. Let alone the 20th. Those police officers had lawful excuse.
After all it's not like they can call the police. They are police.
Certainly from the moment the first incendiary went into the roof they were lawfully entitled to shoot and kill every single person there.
Personally I'd settle for a couple of bruised hips.
Comments
Post a Comment