You have tried to put words in my mouth, the problem is you just don't realise it. What I ACTUALLY said: What you said I said: What I ACTUALLY Said: What YOU said I said:
Sounds reliable to me ER - he could clearly see that someone, from their facial expressions, was doing nothing wrong at all from 100 metres away. He should be a ref in the Premier league.
You know perfectly well that's what you meant, you're just feebly trying to squirm your way out of it. Can I play this game too? Ok, so how did you know this is why I was pissed off? Completely wrong, I've explained myself several times. You've also repeatedly danced around my question, let's give it another go, I've answered all your misguided points. Do you think it's ok for the Police to shoot an unarmed man that wasn't threatening them because they thought he was 'a bad guy'? At what point does being a criminal mean you can be shot without charges and without a trial?
You don't have to be an old **** with bad eyesight to know that a statement providing detailed information about an incident 100 metres away from where they were standing should be regarded with a certain amount of caution.
Yet they believed the officers were in fear for their lives? Maybe such panicy wee girls shouldn't have guns
I wasn't on the Jury so don't know what they did or did not believe. However, they must have had some grounds to believe that the killing wasn't unlawful or they wouldn't have reached that verdict.
I didn't think Juries had to explain their verdicts - certainly didn't happen the two times i was doing it.
