The hunt for Raoul Moat

uk_dave said:
Upon my signal, unleash the hounds of conspiracy!!
Click to expand...

Where's my million?

From up thread.

Delscottio said:
According to reports Moat is currenlty surrounded on the outskirts of Rothbury with his own gun to his head. Hope the police are filming it for their own 'safety'- it doesn't look like he is going to walk out of it alive and a lot of people assume the police will kill him in revenge.

What a pointless situation.
Click to expand...


If they were going to top him it would have been pretty much straight away imo.

What changed after 6 hours of sitting in the rain for them to dischanrge a Taser? More than likely a last throw of the dice after he went to top himself.
 
You've got the media covering everything, including helicopters overhead. You've got one of the most widely covered and watched news events in recent history. You've got police who, if they wanted to take this guy out, could have easily manufactured dozens of different ways to force the issue (the easiest, send police in on his position, forcing him to either fire at them, and they kill him in self-defense, or he kills himself to prevent capture).

Instead, they wait for hours, and apparently the most 'lethal' weapon they use is a taser.

This, of course, screams of conspiracy. "It was too easy" "It was too convenient"

No.

"Easy" would have been simply lobbing some tear gas grenades in his direction. "Easy" would have been ruling him too serious a risk, and having a sniper take him out. And "convenient" would be Gazza getting permission to go in and sit down with him, then the two of them getting ****-faced while fishing together, and then having the police pick him up after he's in a drunken coma (and add "public intoxication" to his list of charges).
 
brodski said:
You're way behind
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=124733

I was bout to post a second link but there are some very unpleasant images in those threads, be warned.
Click to expand...

Good grief, those people can't hold a thought in their head for two seconds without saying something that contradicts it.
4.) He shot a bloke dead - and shot his ex missus - but she survied and made a statment - but we have seen no footage of her.

5.) Some random cop that gets shot - his photo is released covered in blood for some kind of dramatic effect. What was the point of releasing that pic?
Click to expand...
WHY HAVE THEY NOT RELEASED FOOTAGE OF THIS VICTIM? THIS IS SUSPICIOUS!

WHY HAVE THEY RELEASED A PHOTO OF THIS VICTIM? THIS IS SUSPICIOUS!

:rolleyes:
 
interesting reactions here.

I don't think it's crying conspiracy theory on my part to suggest that there was a possibility that the taser shock may have made the gun go off. I at no point said that was deliberate.

I do think that it is possible that the police selectively released information in order to create a counter to the feelings of empathy and it would seem apathy about his capture. What better way to do that than selectively create worry.

The subsequent posts, the ones that seem to imply anything otherwise really highlight how this board has gone recently.

The formation of preconceived ideas when posts merely ask some questions. The tar dripping from that one brush many of you have really does stain.

I am against manipulation of the media by the police, however "noble" the cause, I am against the police covering up their mistakes.
 
The BBC say they have had access to the PM findings and no marks consistant with a TASER have been found on his body. May be boll*cks like.
 
Reginald said:
I don't think it's crying conspiracy theory on my part to suggest that there was a possibility that the taser shock may have made the gun go off. I at no point said that was deliberate.
Click to expand...

There is that possibility: there is also the possibility that the police used the taser to try to prevent him from shooting himself: and that the police used the taser somewhat earlier for some other reason. Or did not use it at all. I have no idea

I do think that it is possible that the police selectively released information in order to create a counter to the feelings of empathy and it would seem apathy about his capture. What better way to do that than selectively create worry.
Click to expand...

I can accept that some people identified with/had empathy for this man. I do not see any reason to believe this was widespread. I certainly do not see any reason to believe that people were apathetic about his capture. It seems to me that he was on the loose with a gun and he had already killed. I think it would be very strange indeed if there was widespread apathy in those circumstances.

<snip>

I am against manipulation of the media by the police, however "noble" the cause, I am against the police covering up their mistakes.
Click to expand...

I do not see what you are objecting to. The police can say something or they can say nothing. If they say nothing they are criticised for lack of transparency: if they say something they may be accused of manipulation. But in this case it seems to me they had to say something because this man was armed and obviously dangerous. While he may have had a vendetta against the police alone, there was no certainty of that: and it was reported that he would widen his targets. That may have been a lie. If it was a lie it may have been a lie from the police or a lie from him. It might also have been true. I do not know. But if he did make such a statement then i think the police had to say so.

I see no reason at all to believe that the police are covering up mistakes. It has been reported there will be an investigation into the police action. Either that is routine when someone dies in these circumstances; or there is something concrete to investigate in this particular case. I do not know

What I do know is that I am a bit fed up with some of the reporting today. There seem to be a lot of people with no apparent expertise ready to pronounce on the police action from a position of profound ignorance. I do not think that any such action is ever perfect: but nor do I think that police are incompetent or reckless. They went to talk to this man who was known to be armed and had already shot a police officer: they appear to me to have been patient and actually rather brave.

If you have some concrete basis for your suspicion I am very happy to hear it, however.
 
Last edited:
Fiona said:
It has been reported there will be an investigation into the police action. Either that is routine when someone dies in these circumstances; or there is something concrete to investigate in this particular case.
Click to expand...


The former. It's mandatory.

Rolfe.
 
Fiona said:
I can accept that some people identified with/had empathy for this man. I do not see any reason to believe this was widespread. I certainly do not see any reason to believe that people were apathetic about his capture. It seems to me that he was on the loose with a gun and he had already killed. I think it would be very strange indeed if there was widespread apathy in those circumstances.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure apathy is the right word. There was a lot of interest in the case, but quite a lot of that interest was in seeing whether he could indeed evade the manhunt. I think furthermore that from what I could see he was actually a rather pathetic figure who needed help and wasn't given it even when he was giving some pretty clear indications that he had snags; when his escape plan consisted of going to ground at a place where he remembered having happy holidays I think that did indeed raise some sympathy. Having his last reported words as "I don't have a dad" and "Nobody cares about me" is only going to increase that -today, we have people laying flowers outside his home which I think confirms that - but some of that sympathy was certainly there beforehand.

Thus, like Reginald I was dubious about these supposed claims of him being a "threat to the wider public" suddenly materialising. However I don't think that a bit of police PR work implies a great conspiracy, and I don't think Reginald does either.
 
richardm said:
I'm not sure apathy is the right word. There was a lot of interest in the case, but quite a lot of that interest was in seeing whether he could indeed evade the manhunt. I think furthermore that from what I could see he was actually a rather pathetic figure who needed help and wasn't given it even when he was giving some pretty clear indications that he had snags; when his escape plan consisted of going to ground at a place where he remembered having happy holidays I think that did indeed raise some sympathy. Having his last reported words as "I don't have a dad" and "Nobody cares about me" is only going to increase that -today, we have people laying flowers outside his home which I think confirms that - but some of that sympathy was certainly there beforehand.

Thus, like Reginald I was dubious about these supposed claims of him being a "threat to the wider public" suddenly materialising. However I don't think that a bit of police PR work implies a great conspiracy, and I don't think Reginald does either.
Click to expand...

You may be right Richardm. for me, as I read about him, he was a violent person who beat his partners and his children, as a matter of course: and he killed because "his" woman refused his control. I had very little sympathy for him. He came across as a whining bully with a great sense of entitlement: narcisstic at best. You may have seen him as pathetic and in need of help: but some of those who posted on his facebook appear to have seen him as a model for manhood. Just one of the lads, really. Not to me, though sadly not unusual.
 
Reginald said:
I do think that it is possible that the police selectively released information in order to create a counter to the feelings of empathy and it would seem apathy about his capture. What better way to do that than selectively create worry.
Click to expand...
Actually, it sounds more like you're claiming that the police lied about what Moat wrote in his letters (or made the letters up entirely). Because if A) he wrote the letters, and B) the police released Moat's actual words, then releasing that information to the public was pretty much their moral duty -- to give people warning that this was a seriously disturbed and dangerous individual.

Anyone can "ask questions". Watch, I'll do it:

"Is it possible that George W. Bush is actually an alien hybrid?"

However, the ability to simply ask questions does not, in and of itself, make one a skeptic. "Is it possible that the moon is really made out of green cheese" or "Is it possible that the Easter Bunny really exists" would not really be reasonable, "skeptical" questions for an adult with a decent knowledge of science to ask.

When a skeptic asks questions, they do so with evidence to demonstrate the validity of a question. The question addresses existing questions in a manner better than a prevailing theory does. Or it points out new problems that have not previously been considered.

Your question does neither. It not only is pure speculation based on no real evidence outside of your own mind, but it actually fits the evidence less well than current info does. Unless you have anything -- anything at all, outside of your imagination -- to indicate either that the letter the police released was not written by Moat, or that the contents released by the police were not Moat's words.
 
Last edited:
Wolfman said:
...Anyone can "ask questions". Watch, I'll do it:

"Is it possible that George W. Bush is actually an alien hybrid?"
Click to expand...

You call that a question? Here's the way it's supposed to be asked:

"George W. Bush is very obviously an alien hybrid...or is he?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom