JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Jon Banks on August 22, 2018, 06:23:24 AM
-
Based on the testimonies of Marina and Ruth Paine, it's assumed that LHO didn't have a Drivers License but Mrs. Paine was teaching him how to Drive. So it's probable that he knew how to drive by the Fall of 1963.
Several people claimed to have witnessed Oswald driving, including Albert Bogard who told investigators he inquired about buying a car 2 weeks before Kennedy's assassination.
Mr. BOGARD. A gentleman walked in the door and walked up and introduced himself to me, and tells me he wants to look at a car. I show him a car on the showroom floor, and take him for a ride out Stemmons Expressway and back, and he was driving at 60 to 70 miles an hour and came back to the showroom. And I made some figures, and he told me that he wasn't ready to buy, that he would be in a couple or 3 weeks, that he had some money coming in. And when he finally started to leave I got his name and wrote it on the back of one of my business cards, and never heard from the man any more. And the day that the President was shot, when I heard that--they had the radio on in the showroom, and when I heard the name, that he had shot a policeman over in Oak Cliff, I pulled out some business cards that I had wrote his name on the back on, and said, "He won't be a prospect any more because he is going to jail," and ripped the card up...
--------------------------
Mr. BALL. Did he appear to know how to drive the car?
Mr. BOGARD. Well, he had drove before, I'm sure, because he took off.
Mr. BALL. Did he----
Mr. BOGARD. He might have drove a little reckless, but other than that, he knew how to drive.
Mr. BALL. What do you mean, "He might have drove it a little reckless"?
Mr. BOGARD. Well, going 60 and 70 miles an hour right up a Freeway and took curves kind of fast.
Mr. BALL Did it appear to you that he knew how to handle the car?
Mr. BOGARD. Yes.
I'm inclined to believe the Bogard story is true.
Does it matter that Oswald claimed to have "some money" coming in a few weeks? If Oswald was part of some sort of conspiracy and expected to be paid a large sum of money, he might've considered buying a car shortly after. On the otherhand, maybe he was simply saving up to make a down payment on a car.
-
I was always amazed that the Dallas Police official who led the charge up to the rooftop (initially) and was with the business owner and inquired who Oswald was when he saw him getting a Coke out of a vending machine (or pretending to do so, maybe to turn his face), never instructed one of his patrolmen to detain Oswald. I know I would be thinking WTF there is great pandemonium on the street outside and this guy is acting like it is a normal lunch hour? I want to talk to him later!
-
And further, yes I know the owner ID him as an employee but as the officer I still would be questioning his laissez faire attitude at that point in time!
-
And further, yes I know the owner ID him as an employee but as the officer I still would be questioning his laissez faire attitude at that point in time!
I guess they would have needed to detain Dougherty, West, and Piper as well then.
-
I was always amazed that the Dallas Police official who led the charge up to the rooftop (initially) and was with the business owner and inquired who Oswald was when he saw him getting a Coke out of a vending machine (or pretending to do so, maybe to turn his face), never instructed one of his patrolmen to detain Oswald. I know I would be thinking WTF there is great pandemonium on the street outside and this guy is acting like it is a normal lunch hour? I want to talk to him later!
You have had 50+ plus years to have made that decision with the benefit of hindsight. Baker was making decisions on the fly. He ran into a building, encountered a guy in the lunch room who was vouched for as an employee, and made the understandable decision in that moment to move on to the upper floors where the shots came from. There was no other patrolman to instruct to detain Oswald even if he had any cause to do so.
-
You don't have to have a license to know how to drive.
Neither applied to the guy police arrested...However---
Marina and the Paines clearly testified that Oswald did not drive and did
not have a driver's license. It is remarkable, then, that more than thirty
people told the Warren Commission, the FBI, and/or Garrison investigators
that Oswald did drive, some saying they had seen his Texas driver's license.
Here is the complete list of names assembled as of 1997 by John Armstrong:
Cliff Shasteen Joyce Bostic
Leonard Hutchinson Inez Laake
Fred Moore Gayle Scott
Malcolm Price Peggy Smith
Floyd Guy Davis Mrs. Ernie Isaacs
Gertrude Hunter Margaret Budreau
Edith Whitworth Clifford Wormser
Red Pope FBI Agent Bob Barrett
Leo Sepulveda Captain Westbrook
Sonny Stewart Edward Brand
Robert Janca Garland Slack
Robert Roy William J. Chesher
Al Bogard Howard Price
W.M. Hannie Sterling Wood
Mrs. Lee Bozarth Dr. Homer Wood
Aletha Frair Randy Sundy
Ignore the imposter..ignore the truth.
-
I can tell you that even now in Texas you don't make an appointment. You just show up and take a number.
-
Drove but no driver's license.
-
Im not sure who else he found suspicious, but I make the point it is suspicious being in a lunchroom with the President cruising by outside and then with people running willy nilly into the TSBD as well as around outside (and presumably shouting, etc) not to show any interest whatsoever? I personally would have had him detained as a person of interest.
The police would have to actually had probable cause in order to detain somebody. Not that they really cared about that, as evidenced by what happened in the theater. It's not like Oswald was the only person who remained in the building and wasn't all that into the parade.
-
The police would have to actually had probable cause in order to detain somebody. Not that they really cared about that, as evidenced by what happened in the theater. It's not like Oswald was the only person who remained in the building and wasn't all that into the parade.
What happened in the TT
What happened in Dealey Plaza
Do tell
-
The police would have to actually had probable cause in order to detain somebody. Not that they really cared about that, as evidenced by what happened in the theater. It's not like Oswald was the only person who remained in the building and wasn't all that into the parade.
Well I dont think they would care that much and probable cause would be the shots came from the TSBD. If he wasnt involved I would assume as a good citizen he would be willing to undergo some questioning regarding the assassination of the POTUS
-
Well I dont think they would care that much and probable cause would be the shots came from the TSBD. If he wasnt involved I would assume as a good citizen he would be willing to undergo some questioning regarding the assassination of the POTUS
You said "detain", not question.
-
Im not sure who else he found suspicious, but I make the point it is suspicious being in a lunchroom with the President cruising by outside and then with people running willy nilly into the TSBD as well as around outside (and presumably shouting, etc) not to show any interest whatsoever? I personally would have had him detained as a person of interest.
Maybe he didn't like crowds?
As mentioned by others, there were several employees at TSBD who didn't go out to watch the parade.
-
You said "detain", not question.
John, youre right. Not arrest him but not allow him to depart the building until questioned. Is that detain for questioning I guess.
-
Maybe he didn't like crowds?
As mentioned by others, there were several employees at TSBD who didn't go out to watch the parade.
Jon, I wouldnt be questioning him if he declined to watch the parade but for the fact that he isnt curious as to what the bedlam going on outside the building is about. Thats the suspicious nature I would find interesting as an officer, that it doesn't reflect normal human action. Obviously, it did get attention from the officer as he stopped and asked the supervisor who Lee was when he saw him in the break room. The supervisor replied he was an employee. Nonetheless, I personally would have found his NON reaction curious and directed someone to stay with him.
-
John, youre right. Not arrest him but not allow him to depart the building until questioned. Is that detain for questioning I guess.
From what I've read, the courts have long held that in "exigent" or emergency situations that people's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures can be suspended.
This is clearly for me one of those instances. Was Baker supposed to get a search warrant? Stop and ask Oswald questions?
Although who knows what the Oswald defenders will say in response. It's always a crapshoot.
-
From what I've read, the courts have long held that in "exigent" or emergency situations that people's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures can be suspended.
This is clearly for me one of those instances. Was Baker supposed to get a search warrant? Stop and ask Oswald questions?
Although who knows what the Oswald defenders will say in response. It's always a crapshoot.
True. And like I said, an innocent party would have no problem helping out the police in the situation.
-
Jon, I wouldnt be questioning him if he declined to watch the parade but for the fact that he isnt curious as to what the bedlam going on outside the building is about. Thats the suspicious nature I would find interesting as an officer, that it doesn't reflect normal human action. Obviously, it did get attention from the officer as he stopped and asked the supervisor who Lee was when he saw him in the break room. The supervisor replied he was an employee. Nonetheless, I personally would have found his NON reaction curious and directed someone to stay with him.
I think you're assuming too much. Officer Baker didn't have enough time to closely inspect every single person he encountered.
There were people standing in the doorway of TSBD. For all Baker knew, Oswald could've been one of the people who watched the parade from the First Floor Lobby
What I've found more suspicious than your example is the fact that the men who watched the parade from the 5th Floor window claimed they heard shell casings drop above them but didn't call the police.
-
From what I've read, the courts have long held that in "exigent" or emergency situations that people's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures can be suspended.
Only if there exists probable cause that the person has committed a crime. They had none.
It was later adjudicated to allow a "stop and frisk" for weapons if the officer had reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous. But this was several years away, still. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
However, they had no such reasonable suspicion towards a guy buying a coke in a second floor lunchroom.
This is clearly for me one of those instances. Was Baker supposed to get a search warrant? Stop and ask Oswald questions?
A cop can ask anybody whatever questions they like. It's free speech. Just not detain, search, or arrest them.
-
True. And like I said, an innocent party would have no problem helping out the police in the situation.
Declining to cooperate with whatever a police officer wants you to do does not make a person guilty of a crime.
-
Only if there exists probable cause that the person has committed a crime. They had none.
It was later adjudicated to allow a "stop and frisk" for weapons if the officer had reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous. But this was several years away, still. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
However, they had no such reasonable suspicion towards a guy buying a coke in a second floor lunchroom.
A cop can ask anybody whatever questions they like. It's free speech. Just not detain, search, or arrest them.
FFS
If one has nothing to hide, why would one not be willing to set aside those details of law in order assist the authorities especially on 11.22.63? Seems one would need to have an uncommon, even pathological, problem with authority to not want to offer assistance.
-
Only if there exists probable cause that the person has committed a crime. They had none.
As soon as Oswald punched McDonald in the face, Oswald had committed a crime.
JohnM
-
Only if there exists probable cause that the person has committed a crime. They had none.
It was later adjudicated to allow a "stop and frisk" for weapons if the officer had reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous. But this was several years away, still. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
However, they had no such reasonable suspicion towards a guy buying a coke in a second floor lunchroom.
A cop can ask anybody whatever questions they like. It's free speech. Just not detain, search, or arrest them.
I have no understanding at all about Texas laws in 1963 - and am unsure about US law at that time (pre-Terry) - but under current law there is no requirement of "probable cause" for the police to use in order to detain or question a person in exigent or emergency situations. That is the standard for so-called "Terry stops" and not for an emergency situation involving a crime in progress, which this was.
Again: emergencies.
The standard in emergency situations is: "Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984)."
Baker's situation, for me, clearly falls in the above circumstances since he did not know who Oswald was or what he was doing. As he said in his 11/22 affidavit: "As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me."
Nothing about a man in the lunch roon buying a Coke. Who was this person? Was he a shooter? Was he an accomplice? Was he a lookout? It was certainly reasonable to me that this person could have been involved in some way (guess what? he was). Baker was investigating a situation in flux, a shooting in progress. How would he know who was part of that shooting and who wasn't? He couldn't, it was an emergency.
In fact, as we know, right after the shooting the DPD secured the entire building and detained every employee for questioning. Oswald would have been one of them had he not left earlier.
-
There were numerous sightings of either LHO or someone who strongly resembled him driving an automobile and these can be found in the twenty-six volumes.
-
True. And like I said, an innocent party would have no problem helping out the police in the situation.
I agree. Remember that right after the shooting the police secured the TSBD and prevented everyone inside from leaving. And anyone outside from going in.
They were all questioned - except Oswald who had fled (in my opinion) earlier - and as far as I know all cooperated. Why wouldn't they?
There was no "reasonable suspicion" standard needed, as far as I know, to detain and question them since the police were involved in an emergency situation. Maybe the law has changed since then. I don't know anything about Texas laws on the matter and I'm very limited on my knowledge about US case law at that time.
-
As soon as Oswald punched McDonald in the face, Oswald had committed a crime.
JohnM
Since you live in Australia you may not be familiar with American law. In America if a police officer illegally stops you and attempts to detain you physically you have a right to defend yourself. This has been stated in numerous court rulings.
-
Since you live in Australia you may not be familiar with American law. In America if a police officer illegally stops you and attempts to detain you physically you have a right to defend yourself. This has been stated in numerous court rulings.
So haul him up before a judge. Let the judge decide. You don't expect him to be allowed to simply walk away after punching a cop in the mouth. There's no country on earth where that would be allowed to happen.
-
So haul him up before a judge. Let the judge decide. You don't expect him to be allowed to simply walk away after punching a cop in the mouth. There's no country on earth where that would be allowed to happen.
In US tort law you can be charged with assault just by raising your fist in a threatening manner towards another person. It only has to be shown that the person doing said threatening has the means to harm the other person.
-
Since you live in Australia you may not be familiar with American law. In America if a police officer illegally stops you and attempts to detain you physically you have a right to defend yourself. This has been stated in numerous court rulings.
Since you live in Australia you may not be familiar with American law.
Hahaha, you've lied about you name, you've lied about your photo and you hate the American Government can only prove that you are very unlikely to be an American. Komrade!
In America if a police officer illegally stops you and attempts to detain you physically you have a right to defend yourself.
No, Oswald was just asked an innocent question and then Oswald assaulted a Police Officer and you're saying that the cop should have just turned the other cheek? WOW!
This has been stated in numerous court rulings.
I'm sure it was stated but under what circumstances?
JohnM
-
Since you live in Australia you may not be familiar with American law. In America if a police officer illegally stops you and attempts to detain you physically you have a right to defend yourself. This has been stated in numerous court rulings.
Since you live in Kookland you don't understand that Saint Patsy wasn't 'illegally' stopped and was very lucky he only got his face caved in while trying to 'defend' himself.
-
I have no understanding at all about Texas laws in 1963 - and am unsure about US law at that time (pre-Terry) - but under current law there is no requirement of "probable cause" for the police to use in order to detain or question a person in exigent or emergency situations. That is the standard for so-called "Terry stops" and not for an emergency situation involving a crime in progress, which this was.
Again: emergencies.
The standard in emergency situations is: "Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984)."
Baker's situation, for me, clearly falls in the above circumstances since he did not know who Oswald was or what he was doing. As he said in his 11/22 affidavit: "As we reached the third or fourth floor I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back toward me."
Nothing about a man in the lunch roon buying a Coke. Who was this person? Was he a shooter? Was he an accomplice? Was he a lookout? It was certainly reasonable to me that this person could have been involved in some way (guess what? he was). Baker was investigating a situation in flux, a shooting in progress. How would he know who was part of that shooting and who wasn't? He couldn't, it was an emergency.
In fact, as we know, right after the shooting the DPD secured the entire building and detained every employee for questioning. Oswald would have been one of them had he not left earlier.
[/b]
TSBD wasn?t secured immediately. Lots of people entered and left the building in the minutes after the shooting. One of them was the news reporter who spoke to LHO moments before he left.
There was plenty of time for other Suspects to leave the building before the police locked it down.
This was 1963. The Dallas PD wasn?t prepared for events like that.
-
So haul him up before a judge. Let the judge decide. You don't expect him to be allowed to simply walk away after punching a cop in the mouth. There's no country on earth where that would be allowed to happen.
So you know the laws of every country on earth? In America, at least in theory anyway, the police are not above the law so they have no right to physically attack you with no legal cause. I have cited court rulings on this, but unfortunately they are no longer available.
-
unfortunately they are no longer available.
Yeah, sure you did.
:D
-
Hahaha, you've lied about you name, you've lied about your photo and you hate the American Government can only prove that you are very unlikely to be an American. Komrade!
And this has bearing on you living in Australia how?
No, Oswald was just asked an innocent question and then Oswald assaulted a Police Officer and you're saying that the cop should have just turned the other cheek? WOW!
Sadly for you, the evidence that you ignore shows otherwise. In all likelihood LHO was approached by police officers with guns drawn. At least McDonald's was as he said so in an early interview.
I'm sure it was stated but under what circumstances?
JohnM
I wasn't there and neither were you, but anyone who doesn't find 15 police officers descending on a movie theater because someone was allegedly "running, ducking and looking funny" when the POTUS and a police officer have just been shot odd is beyond logical discourse.
-
[/b]
TSBD wasn?t secured immediately. Lots of people entered and left the building in the minutes after the shooting. One of them was the news reporter who spoke to LHO moments before he left.
There was plenty of time for other Suspects to leave the building before the police locked it down.
I don't know about 'lots of people' entering and leaving the building in the minutes after the assassination, but there certainly would have been an opportunity for a suspect(s) to escape before the building was secured.
That being said, the suspect(s) would have had to have been in the building sometime before the assassination and not be noticed.
The unknown suspects would have to gain entry, linger while waiting for JFK, and remain unseen during that time in addition to escaping undetected after the event. Possible, but unlikely.
The fact remains that very few of the employees are unaccounted for during the assassination and left the scene of the crime in the minutes afterward.
And of course, of the few people known to have been in the building during the assassination and immediately leave afterwards, only one of them happened to own the rifle used to assassinate JFK.
That would be Saint Patsy.
-
And this has bearing on you living in Australia how?
Sadly for you, the evidence that you ignore shows otherwise. In all likelihood LHO was approached by police officers with guns drawn. At least McDonald's was as he said so in an early interview.
I wasn't there and neither were you, but anyone who doesn't find 15 police officers descending on a movie theater because someone was allegedly "running, ducking and looking funny" when the POTUS and a police officer have just been shot odd is beyond logical discourse.
And this has bearing on you living in Australia how?
How does this amateur bait and switch obsession of you, Weidmann and even Iacoletti has mentioned that I live in Australia wll in any way change 54 year old facts? If you all had a strong case then you'd deal with the evidence instead of this bizarre tactic.
Sadly for you, the evidence that you ignore shows otherwise.
For no reason at all Oswald punched a cop and was arrested, that's the fact Jack!
In all likelihood LHO was approached by police officers with guns drawn.
The evidence says that there was men with shotguns in the theater, so I'd say Oswald would have to be aware, which makes his actions even stranger.
At least McDonald's was as he said so in an early interview.
Didn't McDonald only say he had his hand on his weapon? But let's just say that your interpretation was correct and McDonald did have a gun out, then Oswald's behaviour was even more strange and would be considered suicidal and this would not be the first time, like slashing his wrist in Russia and the Walker note where he speculates he could be shot while being arrested. Oswald was ready for death!
I wasn't there and neither were you, but anyone who doesn't find 15 police officers descending on a movie theater because someone was allegedly "running, ducking and looking funny" when the POTUS and a police officer have just been shot odd is beyond logical discourse.
There was hundreds of police officers on duty that day and you're saying that only a tiny fraction went to the theater, that's weird, there should have been a lot more.
JohnM
-
Didn't McDonald only say he had his hand on his weapon? But let's just say that your interpretation was correct and McDonald did have a gun out, then Oswald's behaviour was even more strange and would be considered suicidal and this would not be the first time, like slashing his wrist in Russia and the Walker note where he speculates he could be shot while being arrested. Oswald was ready for death!
JohnM
Saint Patsy was very fortunate to have left the TT unventilated and not dead from lead poisoning.
I've always loved Johnny Brewer's reaction to Saint Patsy screaming 'I am not resisting arrest !' as he was being dragged from the TT:
'Yeah, you are'
-
Saint Patsy was very fortunate to have left the TT unventilated and not dead from lead poisoning.
I've always loved Johnny Brewer's reaction to Saint Patsy screaming 'I am not resisting arrest !' as he was being dragged from the TT:
'Yeah, you are'
Saint Patsy was very fortunate to have left the TT unventilated and not dead from lead poisoning.
No CT can explain this, the Dallas Police in the Texas Theater did everything they could to keep Oswald alive, then let the press question him and later even gave Oswald a public Forum to say as he pleased but somehow the DP were involved in setting up Oswald?
An officer approached him and he hit the officer and knocked him back. Several other officers then joined the fight and the man was taken out of the theater. This was the same man I had seen in front of the shoe store where I work. The reason I noticed the man in front of the store was because he acted so nervous, and I thought at the time he might be the man that had shot the policeman.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer1.htm
JohnM
-
I don't know about 'lots of people' entering and leaving the building in the minutes after the assassination, but there certainly would have been an opportunity for a suspect(s) to escape before the building was secured.
That being said, the suspect(s) would have had to have been in the building sometime before the assassination and not be noticed.
It?s not that difficult to slip into and out of a huge office building or warehouse unnoticed.
Plus most of the employees left the building to watch the parade.
-
No CT can explain this, the Dallas Police in the Texas Theater did everything they could to keep Oswald alive, then let the press question him and later even gave Oswald a public Forum to say as he pleased but somehow the DP were involved in setting up Oswald?
An officer approached him and he hit the officer and knocked him back. Several other officers then joined the fight and the man was taken out of the theater. This was the same man I had seen in front of the shoe store where I work. The reason I noticed the man in front of the store was because he acted so nervous, and I thought at the time he might be the man that had shot the policeman.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer1.htm
JohnM
?A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
-
As soon as Oswald punched McDonald in the face, Oswald had committed a crime.
Too bad McDonald illegally tried to search him before this alleged punch that he wasn?t arrested for.
-
In fact, as we know, right after the shooting the DPD secured the entire building and detained every employee for questioning. Oswald would have been one of them had he not left earlier.
No they didn?t. Several employees couldn?t get back in and went home.
-
So haul him up before a judge. Let the judge decide. You don't expect him to be allowed to simply walk away after punching a cop in the mouth. There's no country on earth where that would be allowed to happen.
He wasn?t arrested for ?punching a cop in the mouth?. He was arrested for murder.
-
No, Oswald was just asked an innocent question and then Oswald assaulted a Police Officer and you're saying that the cop should have just turned the other cheek? WOW!
?On your feet!? is not ?an innocent question?. As soon as McDonald touched Oswald it was assault.
-
No they didn?t. Several employees couldn?t get back in and went home.
Who said Oswald tried to get back in the building?
JohnM
-
?On your feet!? is not ?an innocent question?.
OMG lets arrest McDonald for using his voice.
Whatever it takes...
JohnM
-
The fact remains that very few of the employees are unaccounted for during the assassination and left the scene of the crime in the minutes afterward.
Why would the shooter have to have left the scene within a few minutes?
And of course, of the few people known to have been in the building during the assassination and immediately leave afterwards, only one of them happened to own the rifle used to assassinate JFK.
Repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over again doesn?t make it true.
-
?A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Yep. It?s their favorite tactic.
-
Why would the shooter have to have left the scene within a few minutes?
Repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over again doesn?t make it true.
Why would the shooter have to have left the scene within a few minutes?
You'll have to ask Oswald.
Repeating the same unsubstantiated claim over and over again doesn?t make it true.
Yeah, like we hear day after day, year after year and repeated ad nauseum and without one ounce of proof that there was a conspiracy, where is your evidence, John?
JohnM
-
Yep. It?s their favorite tactic.
Tactic!? LOL
JohnM
-
He wasn?t arrested for ?punching a cop in the mouth?. He was arrested for murder.
A guy (any guy) punches a cop in the mouth. That's reason enough to take him downtown for questioning and the likelihood of being charged with assaulting a police officer. In Oswald's case it all snowballed from there.
-
Who said Oswald tried to get back in the building?
Nobody. Go back to sleep, ?Mytton?.
Steve claimed that every employee was detained and questioned.
-
OMG lets arrest McDonald for using his voice.
Makes a false claim, gets called on it, changes the subject. Just another day in ?Mytton?land.
-
You'll have to ask Oswald.
I?m asking the guy who said that this was necessary. Seriously, ?Mytton?, if you?re not going to even pay attention before piping in then pipe down.
Yeah, like we hear day after day, year after year and repeated ad nauseum and without one ounce of proof that there was a conspiracy, where is your evidence, John?
Can?t prove your claims ? try to shift the burden. Just another day in Nutterland.
-
Makes a false claim, gets called on it, changes the subject. Just another day in ?Mytton?land.
Geez Louise, talk about taking a comment completely out of context, but I guess when you got nothing these dirty tricks become common place, no wonder you are known as "dishonest John".
But getting back to the topic at hand which you seem loathe to discuss, McDonald and according to Rob, 15 police officers went to the Texas theater looking for a Cop Killer and McDonald confronted the man who was viewed acting suspiciously, had a concealed weapon(which incidentally was later matched to the shells at the Tippit crime scene) and for his efforts to protect the public McDonald was punched in the face.
JohnM
-
I?m asking the guy who said that this was necessary. Seriously, ?Mytton?, if you?re not going to even pay attention before piping in then pipe down.
Can?t prove your claims ? try to shift the burden. Just another day in Nutterland.
I?m asking the guy who said that this was necessary. Seriously, ?Mytton?, if you?re not going to even pay attention before piping in then pipe down.
I asked a legitimate question, but I understand why you are avoiding it.
Can?t prove your claims ? try to shift the burden. Just another day in Nutterland.
Yawn. For the hundredth time John, we are not in court and you are not Oswald's defence lawyer, we are here to discover who killed Kennedy and all you want to do is pretend that you're strutting around in front of a judge.
Btw our claims were proved on Day 1 when Oswald was charged with the murder of Tippit and Kennedy, and since day 1 it's been your teams job to prove otherwise, and so far all you have is insignificant human derived discrepancies that don't add up to a plausible alternate reality.
JohnM
-
As soon as McDonald touched Oswald it was assault.
This means absolutely nothing at all, regarding whether Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit or not. Therefore, why do you feel the need to keep parroting your above claim?
-
And this has bearing on you living in Australia how?
Sadly for you, the evidence that you ignore shows otherwise. In all likelihood LHO was approached by police officers with guns drawn. At least McDonald's was as he said so in an early interview.
I wasn't there and neither were you, but anyone who doesn't find 15 police officers descending on a movie theater because someone was allegedly "running, ducking and looking funny" when the POTUS and a police officer have just been shot odd is beyond logical discourse.
Funny 'strange'
Not funny 'haha' as you are still foolishly implying
And the very reason that there had been a police officer and the POTUS shot made it even more critical for citizens to see/say.
Your boy clearly panicked both outside and inside the TT.
-
This means absolutely nothing at all, regarding whether Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit or not. Therefore, why do you feel the need to keep parroting your above claim?
Well Bill, Iacoletti pretends he's Oswald's defence Lawyer and like OJ's defence team tactics, the only way to get Oswald off is to bait and switch and hope he can get the jury to forget the massive Mountain of evidence that towers over us all with it's inevitable conclusion and present stuff like "police brutality" and any other technical nonsense that he can dig up.
JohnM
-
Well Bill, Iacoletti pretends he's Oswald's defence Lawyer and like OJ's defence team tactics, the only way to get Oswald off is to bait and switch and hope he can get the jury to forget the massive Mountain of evidence that towers over us all with it's inevitable conclusion and present stuff like "police brutality" and any other technical nonsense that he can dig up.
JohnM
That's right, John... "technical nonsense" for sure.
Whether or not McDonald was out of line when he laid his hand on Oswald means absolutely nothing.
-
Geez Louise, talk about taking a comment completely out of context, but I guess when you got nothing these dirty tricks become common place, no wonder you are known as "dishonest John".
According to the guy who habitually lies about what I have said. We all know who the dishonest ?John? is around here.
What?s out of context? You falsely claimed that McDonald ?asked Oswald an innocent question?.
But getting back to the topic at hand which you seem loathe to discuss, McDonald and according to Rob, 15 police officers went to the Texas theater looking for a Cop Killer and McDonald confronted the man who was viewed acting suspiciously, had a concealed weapon(which incidentally was later matched to the shells at the Tippit crime scene) and for his efforts to protect the public McDonald was punched in the face.
That?s the story, all right. What makes you think I?m loath to discuss it?
-
That's right, John... "technical nonsense" for sure.
Whether or not McDonald was out of line when he laid his hand on Oswald means absolutely nothing.
Well in my opinion McDonald should be given a medal for his bravery and if Iacoletti tried to bring a case against McDonald for harmlessly touching a double murderer then let's see where that goes.
JohnM
-
What makes you think I?m loath to discuss it?
Because this is yet another attempt at not answering my questions, why are you so afraid?
JohnM
-
Btw our claims were proved on Day 1 when Oswald was charged with the murder of Tippit and Kennedy,
LOL. You have a strange idea of what it means to prove something. I know you really want a claim to be sufficient.
and since day 1 it's been your teams job to prove otherwise,
Why is this the job of ?my team? (I have a team?)? Just so you can avoid proving that what you claim is actually true?
-
This means absolutely nothing at all, regarding whether Lee Oswald killed J.D. Tippit or not. Therefore, why do you feel the need to keep parroting your above claim?
Because we were discussing the police illegally searching Oswald in the theater.
-
Well in my opinion McDonald should be given a medal for his bravery and if Iacoletti tried to bring a case against McDonald for harmlessly touching a double murderer then let's see where that goes.
JohnM
Agreed, on both counts.
-
Well Bill, Iacoletti pretends he's Oswald's defence Lawyer and like OJ's defence team tactics, the only way to get Oswald off is to bait and switch and hope he can get the jury to forget the massive Mountain of evidence that towers over us all with it's inevitable conclusion and present stuff like "police brutality" and any other technical nonsense that he can dig up.
?Mytton? pretends he?s Oswald?s prosecuting lawyer and makes up a ?mountain of evidence? that doesn?t actually exist.
-
Because we were discussing the police illegally searching Oswald in the theater.
So what? None of that affects Oswald's guilt in the death of Tippit.
-
Because this is yet another attempt at not answering my questions, why are you so afraid?
What was the question?
-
Agreed, on both counts.
Speaking of irrelevant. Who cares who you guys want to give a medal to?
-
So what? None of that affects Oswald's guilt in the death of Tippit.
Are you trying to dictate what people talk about again?
-
?Mytton? pretends he?s Oswald?s prosecuting lawyer and makes up a ?mountain of evidence? that doesn?t actually exist.
Hang on Sherlock let's get this straight, there is and always has been a mountain of evidence just because you think you can find insignificant discrepancies in this mountain doesn't make the mountain go away, got it!
JohnM
-
Hang on Sherlock let's get this straight, there is and always has been a mountain of evidence
So you keep claiming.
Like a ring in a cup... :D
-
So you keep claiming.
Like a ring in a cup... :D
:D :D :D
No, like in the 550+ people who gave testimony and interviews, and the 3000+ pieces of physical evidence.
JohnM
-
Are you trying to dictate what people talk about again?
Not at all. How can you make such a leap?
I am very clearly asking you to explain how a possible violation of Oswald's rights while inside the theater affect his guilt in the murders. Can you address that?
McDonald touched Oswald's belt line without an invitation by Oswald to do so. Who gives a rat's ass?
Oswald is all of a sudden not guilty because of it?
-
Are you trying to dictate what people talk about again?
Well at least you're not hiding that you are trying to introduce a red herring as a distraction but what we want to know is why you continually feel the need to do so?,
Whatever McDonald did doesn't change the evidence against Oswald and this interaction in itself has no bearing in a case against Oswald so why this charade?
JohnM
-
Funniest little nuggets of this thread so far:
"Because we were discussing the police illegally searching Oswald in the theater."
"Only if there exists probable cause that the person has committed a crime. They had none."
"I wasn't there and neither were you, but anyone who doesn't find 15 police officers descending on a movie theater because someone was allegedly "running, ducking and looking funny" when the POTUS and a police officer have just been shot odd is beyond logical discourse. "
"In all likelihood LHO was approached by police officers with guns drawn."
"Too bad McDonald illegally tried to search him before this alleged punch that he wasn?t arrested for."
"He wasn?t arrested for ?punching a cop in the mouth?. He was arrested for murder."
"?On your feet!? is not ?an innocent question?. As soon as McDonald touched Oswald it was assault."
Sergeant Ozzie's Bleeding Hearts Club Band is alive and well.
P.S. LOL!
-
How does this amateur bait and switch obsession of you, Weidmann and even Iacoletti has mentioned that I live in Australia wll in any way change 54 year old facts? If you all had a strong case then you'd deal with the evidence instead of this bizarre tactic.
This has to one of the most ridiculous things that you have ever written and that is saying a lot. I deal with the evidence. You can't so you whine until it is gone.
IF LHO was guilty as you endlessly claim then you would be able to cite evidence showing that he was, but you never have been able to. That tells us all we need to know.
For no reason at all Oswald punched a cop and was arrested, that's the fact Jack!
Since you weren't in the TT then you have no idea of knowing if this happened, but since you claim that it is a fact then prove it.
The evidence says that there was men with shotguns in the theater, so I'd say Oswald would have to be aware, which makes his actions even stranger.
Didn't McDonald only say he had his hand on his weapon? But let's just say that your interpretation was correct and McDonald did have a gun out, then Oswald's behaviour was even more strange and would be considered suicidal and this would not be the first time, like slashing his wrist in Russia and the Walker note where he speculates he could be shot while being arrested. Oswald was ready for death!
There was hundreds of police officers on duty that day and you're saying that only a tiny fraction went to the theater, that's weird, there should have been a lot more.
JohnM
He never said that his hand was on his gun. That was invention created by you LNers. Here is the quote from the newspaper article that carried McDonald's interview.
Quote on
I went up the aisle, and talked to two people sitting about in the middle. I was crouching low and holding my gun in case any trouble came.
I saw him going for his gun and I grabbed him around the waist. (Ibid.)
Quote off
McDonald clearly says that he was HOLDING his gun. If he was, and he was based on his own words, then it is safe to think that other police officers were too.
-
A guy (any guy) punches a cop in the mouth. That's reason enough to take him downtown for questioning and the likelihood of being charged with assaulting a police officer. In Oswald's case it all snowballed from there.
Except we have no witness for this alleged punching outside of the police. Furthermore, LHO was arrested and not detained for questioning. He was not arrested for assaulting a police officer either, but rather for murdering a police officer.
The arrest report was timed ELEVEN minutes BEFORE LHO's actual arrest and explicitly stated that he killed both JFK and JDT. How in the world could this be known at 1:40 p.m.?
-
I asked a legitimate question, but I understand why you are avoiding it.
Yawn. For the hundredth time John, we are not in court and you are not Oswald's defence lawyer, we are here to discover who killed Kennedy and all you want to do is pretend that you're strutting around in front of a judge.
Btw our claims were proved on Day 1 when Oswald was charged with the murder of Tippit and Kennedy, and since day 1 it's been your teams job to prove otherwise, and so far all you have is insignificant human derived discrepancies that don't add up to a plausible alternate reality.
JohnM
See, there is that Australia disconnect again. In America charging someone with a crime doesn't prove anything. It is just the beginning.
There is serious doubt that LHO was even arraigned for JFK's murder. He was allowed no defense counsel at the JDT arraignment (which most likely would have raised issues since it wasn't held in a court of law and the defendant was prevented from having legal representation) or the alleged JFK arraignment.
The bottom line is there is no way the DPD could have acquired firm evidence against LHO that fast.
-
Funny 'strange'
Not funny 'haha' as you are still foolishly implying
And the very reason that there had been a police officer and the POTUS shot made it even more critical for citizens to see/say.
Your boy clearly panicked both outside and inside the TT.
In a true democracy there is NO emergency that trumps constitutional rights. None. In fact, because this involved the murder of a president there was even more need for the DPD to follow the letter of the law and the rights of LHO. We saw neither occur on 11/22/63.
-
That's right, John... "technical nonsense" for sure.
Whether or not McDonald was out of line when he laid his hand on Oswald means absolutely nothing.
It only doesn't matter if you live in a police state.
-
So what? None of that affects Oswald's guilt in the death of Tippit.
Which you have never been able to cite one piece of supporting evidence for.
-
:D :D :D
No, like in the 550+ people who gave testimony and interviews, and the 3000+ pieces of physical evidence.
JohnM
If you actually ever bothered to learn the evidence you would see that none of the evidence points to LHO. I tried to help you, but all you did was whine about it.
-
Not at all. How can you make such a leap?
I am very clearly asking you to explain how a possible violation of Oswald's rights while inside the theater affect his guilt in the murders. Can you address that?
McDonald touched Oswald's belt line without an invitation by Oswald to do so. Who gives a rat's ass?
Oswald is all of a sudden not guilty because of it?
No, LHO is not guilty of shooting anyone because that is what the evidence shows.
-
No, like in the 550+ people who gave testimony and interviews, and the 3000+ pieces of physical evidence.
None of which actually show that Oswald killed JFK.
-
I am very clearly asking you to explain how a possible violation of Oswald's rights while inside the theater affect his guilt in the murders. Can you address that?
Why are you asking me to address a claim that I never made and that you just made up?
-
Well at least you're not hiding that you are trying to introduce a red herring as a distraction but what we want to know is why you continually feel the need to do so?,
I didn't introduce the subject of grounds for detaining somebody into this thread -- that was Doug Easterly. You need to pay more attention.
-
Funniest little nuggets of this thread so far:
"Because we were discussing the police illegally searching Oswald in the theater."
"Only if there exists probable cause that the person has committed a crime. They had none."
"I wasn't there and neither were you, but anyone who doesn't find 15 police officers descending on a movie theater because someone was allegedly "running, ducking and looking funny" when the POTUS and a police officer have just been shot odd is beyond logical discourse. "
"In all likelihood LHO was approached by police officers with guns drawn."
"Too bad McDonald illegally tried to search him before this alleged punch that he wasn?t arrested for."
"He wasn?t arrested for ?punching a cop in the mouth?. He was arrested for murder."
"?On your feet!? is not ?an innocent question?. As soon as McDonald touched Oswald it was assault."
Sergeant Ozzie's Bleeding Hearts Club Band is alive and well.
P.S. LOL!
You can't reason with people who cling to their faith-based conclusions no matter what the evidence actually does or does not show. It's like playing chess with pigeons: they knock the pieces over, sh*t on the board, and fly back to their nest to claim victory.
-
I saw him going for his gun and I grabbed him around the waist. (Ibid.)
Note also how the LN Big Lie morphed this into Oswald pulled a gun and tried to shoot McDonald.
-
It only doesn't matter if you live in a police state.
In Bill's world, people's rights don't matter if he thinks they "deserve" to be shot in the belly.
-
You can't reason with people who cling to their faith-based conclusions no matter what the evidence actually does or does not show. It's like playing chess with pigeons: they knock the pieces over, sh*t on the board, and fly back to their nest to claim victory.
Faith-based? And we all know you're an experienced argument whore when dealing with the faith-based, right?
-
Faith-based? And we all know you're an experienced argument whore when dealing with the faith-based, right?
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/Off_Topic.gif)
-
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/Off_Topic.gif)
Steal anything lately?
-
Funniest little nuggets of this thread so far:
"Because we were discussing the police illegally searching Oswald in the theater."
"Only if there exists probable cause that the person has committed a crime. They had none."
"I wasn't there and neither were you, but anyone who doesn't find 15 police officers descending on a movie theater because someone was allegedly "running, ducking and looking funny" when the POTUS and a police officer have just been shot odd is beyond logical discourse. "
"In all likelihood LHO was approached by police officers with guns drawn."
"Too bad McDonald illegally tried to search him before this alleged punch that he wasn?t arrested for."
"He wasn?t arrested for ?punching a cop in the mouth?. He was arrested for murder."
"?On your feet!? is not ?an innocent question?. As soon as McDonald touched Oswald it was assault."
Sergeant Ozzie's Bleeding Hearts Club Band is alive and well.
P.S. LOL!
I'm just guessing, but aren't all of those comments coming from either Iacoletti or Caprio? Kooks, I tell ya.
-
Except we have no witness for this alleged punching outside of the police.
Nonsense.
Johnny Brewer is not "the police".
Learn the evidence.
-
Why are you asking me to address a claim that I never made and that you just made up?
Then do you agree that regardless of whether or not Oswald's rights were violated while inside the theater, it does not affect his guilt (or lack of guilt) in Tippit's murder?
-
You can't reason with people who cling to their faith-based conclusions no matter what the evidence actually does or does not show. It's like playing chess with pigeons: they knock the pieces over, sh*t on the board, and fly back to their nest to claim victory.
👍🤣
-
Note also how the LN Big Lie morphed this into Oswald pulled a gun and tried to shoot McDonald.
A gun that was never proven to be in the possession of LHO. Furthermore, what type of person would pull out a gun when at least one police officer already had their gun drawn? How did LHO make it out alive IF this was true?
-
In Bill's world, people's rights don't matter if he thinks they "deserve" to be shot in the belly.
I wouldn't want to live in that world. It's nice of him to elect himself as the judge and jury.
-
Nonsense.
Johnny Brewer is not "the police".
Learn the evidence.
Nonsense.
Firstly, you have to show that Brewer was relevant as he wasn't in the first few versions of what happened. Secondly, quote Brewer saying that LHO punched McDonald.
Learn the evidence.
-
Nonsense.
Firstly, you have to show that Brewer was relevant as he wasn't in the first few versions of what happened. Secondly, quote Brewer saying that LHO punched McDonald.
Learn the evidence.
Firstly, you have to show that Brewer was relevant...
This is why you are a Kook.
You clearly stated that no one "outside of the police" witnessed Oswald punching McDonald. Now you're moving the goal posts by ignorantly trying to raise the question of whether Brewer is "relevant" or not.
Secondly, quote Brewer saying that LHO punched McDonald.
"An officer approached him and he hit the officer and knocked him back."
12/6/63 Affidavit of Johnny Brewer
-
I'm just guessing, but aren't all of those comments coming from either Iacoletti or Caprio? Kooks, I tell ya.
Yes, true statements that you are unable to dispute are so "kooky", aren't they?
-
Then do you agree that regardless of whether or not Oswald's rights were violated while inside the theater, it does not affect his guilt (or lack of guilt) in Tippit's murder?
Yes. But it may have made whatever evidence they claimed to have gathered at that time to be inadmissible had it gone to trial.
-
Yes, true statements that you are unable to dispute are so "kooky", aren't they?
It's not about the level of truthfulness of your statements. It's about the spin you put on that truth.
-
Faith-based? And we all know you're an experienced argument whore when dealing with the faith-based, right?
If you think faith is a good way to determine what is true or not, then please explain why. Or namecalling for that matter.
-
Then do you agree that regardless of whether or not Oswald's rights were violated while inside the theater, it does not affect his guilt (or lack of guilt) in Tippit's murder?
Yes. But it may have made whatever evidence they claimed to have gathered at that time to be inadmissible had it gone to trial.
Yes.
Then you're doing nothing more than grandstanding when you argue that Oswald's rights were violated while inside the theater.
One could say that grandstanding is more important to you than the truth.
-
It's not about the level of truthfulness of your statements. It's about the spin you put on that truth.
There's no spin in any of my statements that you just quoted. They are just facts. You want to talk about spin? How about "Brennan saw the man with the rifle before the motorcade arrived". Such hypocrisy.
-
Then you're doing nothing more than grandstanding when you argue that Oswald's rights were violated while inside the theater.
No, when somebody makes the false claim that the cops should have detained Oswald without probable cause, then that misinformation should be corrected. You don't have a problem with correcting misinformation do you Bill?
One could say that grandstanding is more important to you than the truth.
One could say that wordplay and diversion is more important to you than the truth. If you think you can prove that Oswald shot JFK without injecting a mountain of spin, then by all means do so.
-
There's no spin in any of my statements that you just quoted. They are just facts. You want to talk about spin? How about "Brennan saw the man with the rifle before the motorcade arrived". Such hypocrisy.
There's no spin in any of my statements that you just quoted. They are just facts.
Facts, yes. But their value isn't what you imply.
You want to talk about spin? How about "Brennan saw the man with the rifle before the motorcade arrived".
Brennan did indeed see the man with the rifle before the motorcade arrived. This has been explained to you.
Before the motorcade arrived, Brennan saw a man up in the window. After the shooting, Brennan saw that same man with the rifle. Therefore, Brennan saw the man with the rifle before the motorcade arrived.
Perhaps you should learn the difference between that fact .... and a false claim that Brennan saw the rifle before the motorcade arrived.
-
If you think faith is a good way to determine what is true or not, then please explain why. Or namecalling for that matter.
You're the one that brought up faith-based not me. In my experienced professional opinion it's you and others that cannot show how Oswald's rights were violated in that theater. No matter if 15 or 50 law enforcement officers showed in response to a call from dispatch that the suspect is in the theater. What suspect you may ask? The armed one that killed the cop. The number one right that was present in that theater was the right of the cop to protect himself against an armed suspect.
-
No, when somebody makes the false claim that the cops should have detained Oswald without probable cause, then that misinformation should be corrected. You don't have a problem with correcting misinformation do you Bill?
You've agreed that Oswald could still be guilty for Tippit's death even if his rights were violated while inside the theater. That's good enough for me.
-
Facts, yes. But their value isn't what you imply.
Brennan did indeed see the man with the rifle before the motorcade arrived. This has been explained to you.
Before the motorcade arrived, Brennan saw a man up in the window. After the shooting, Brennan saw that same man with the rifle. Therefore, Brennan saw the man with the rifle before the motorcade arrived.
Perhaps you should learn the difference between that fact .... and a false claim that Brennan saw the rifle before the motorcade arrived.
Perhaps you shouldn't complain about spin when you engage in it in spades.
Fact, yes (once you play with the exact wording). But its value isn't what you imply.
-
In my experienced professional opinion it's you and others that cannot show how Oswald's rights were violated in that theater.
You're a cop. You of all people should understand probable cause.
-
You've agreed that Oswald could still be guilty for Tippit's death even if his rights were violated while inside the theater. That's good enough for me.
I'm sure it is. But you're the one who claims that there is no doubt of Oswald's guilt. "Could be guilty" isn't particularly useful. He could NOT be guilty as well.
-
This is why you are a Kook.
You clearly stated that no one "outside of the police" witnessed Oswald punching McDonald. Now you're moving the goal posts by ignorantly trying to raise the question of whether Brewer is "relevant" or not.
It is very relevant as the first two versions of events did not include Brewer at all. Therefore, he may not have been in a position to see anything. Your lack of knowledge of the evidence doesn't make me a kook.
"An officer approached him and he hit the officer and knocked him back."
12/6/63 Affidavit of Johnny Brewer
Where is the word "punch"? Where is the name "McDonald"? Remember according to McDonald he was the one grabbing LHO.
-
It is very relevant as the first two versions of events did not include Brewer at all. Therefore, he may not have been in a position to see anything. Your lack of knowledge of the evidence doesn't make me a kook.
Where is the word "punch"? Where is the name "McDonald"? Remember according to McDonald he was the one grabbing LHO.
The name 'McDonald' is in the part of Brewer's testimony that you conveniently left out.
John Calvin Brewer WC Testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
(...)
BREWER - Well, I saw this policeman approach Oswald, and Oswald stood up and I heard some hollering. I don't know exactly what he said, and this man hit Patrolman McDonald.
Mr. BELIN - You say this man hit Patrolman McDonald. Did you know it was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - I didn't know his name, but I had seen him quite a few times around Oak Cliff. But I didn't know his name.
Mr. BELIN - Then you later found out this was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Did you say this man was the same man?
Mr. BREWER - The same man that had stood in my lobby that I followed to the show.
Mr. BELIN - Who hit who first?
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
(...)
-
Perhaps you shouldn't complain about spin when you engage in it in spades.
Fact, yes (once you play with the exact wording). But its value isn't what you imply.
I'm not complaining about anything. To say I am complaining is nothing more than that Iacoletti spin I was speaking about earlier.
What I am doing is telling you that regarding Oswald's guilt in the death of a police officer, no one gives a rat's ass whether or not his rights were violated when McDonald "assaulted" him by touching his belt line.
-
I'm sure it is. But you're the one who claims that there is no doubt of Oswald's guilt. "Could be guilty" isn't particularly useful. He could NOT be guilty as well.
Both are absolutely unrelated to whether or not Oswald's rights were violated while he was inside the theater.
But don't let that stop you from grandstanding some more.
-
It is very relevant as the first two versions of events did not include Brewer at all. Therefore, he may not have been in a position to see anything. Your lack of knowledge of the evidence doesn't make me a kook.
Where is the word "punch"? Where is the name "McDonald"? Remember according to McDonald he was the one grabbing LHO.
It is very relevant as the first two versions of events did not include Brewer at all. Therefore, he may not have been in a position to see anything.
What a bunch of Kookspeak.
You basically said that no one "outside of the police" saw Oswald punch McDonald. Brewer saw Oswald punch McDonald. Brewer was never a member of the "police".
Your lack of knowledge of the evidence doesn't make me a kook.
My lack of knowledge? Nice try, but that dog don't hunt.
I have personally corrected you on at least three dozen points since you've been a member of this forum and the previous one.
I even challenged you to a live debate where neither of us can rely on a Google search for their information. All you did was make excuses for why you won't agree to that.
-
Both are absolutely unrelated to whether or not Oswald's rights were violated while he was inside the theater.
How is a discussion about illegal police behavior grandstanding? Nobody ever claimed that this was related to whether Oswald was guilty or not. That was just a strawman you made up to be belligerent and to deflect the thread. Which is what you do.
But don't let that stop you from grandstanding some more.
You're projecting again. It's claiming that "there is no doubt" of Oswald's guilt that is grandstanding.
-
For argument's sake, let's agree that Oswald's rights were violated while inside the theater. What now?
-
For argument's sake, let's agree that Oswald's rights were violated while inside the theater. What now?
Well, Bill, if you had actually read through the thread before chiming in you would have seen the comment that Doug Easterly made that sparked this tangent about rights. He suggested that Oswald should have been detained by the police as a person of interest for daring to be in the lunchroom and not showing enough interest (whatever that means) in what was going on outside. That led to a discussion of probable cause and what the grounds are/were for detaining or searching someone.
So, to answer your question, if for argument's sake we agree that Oswald's rights were violated while inside the theater then Doug and everybody else learns something new about how people's rights are protected in this country and why Baker couldn't have legitimately done so, even if he had wanted to. Baker's reputation is then somewhat assuaged despite not remembering where he stopped the guy or what he was wearing.
We all come out more enlightened and dance off into the sunset together.
Next topic?
-
Yeah it's my right to watch a movie and know that everyone in that theater is unarmed and if I have to be patted down to determine if I have a weapon to make the World a safer place then who besides a hard core conspiracy Kook would think otherwise?
All these concertgoers were patted down, I wonder how many punched those security guys in the face? LOL!!!
(https://www.reviewjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/10993120_web1_WEB-MandalayBAYSHooting-OCT02-17_10022017_RB_001.jpg)
JohnM
-
Well, Bill, if you had actually read through the thread before chiming in you would have seen the comment that Doug Easterly made that sparked this tangent about rights. He suggested that Oswald should have been detained by the police as a person of interest for daring to be in the lunchroom and not showing enough interest (whatever that means) in what was going on outside. That led to a discussion of probable cause and what the grounds are/were for detaining or searching someone.
So, to answer your question, if for argument's sake we agree that Oswald's rights were violated while inside the theater then Doug and everybody else learns something new about how people's rights are protected in this country and why Baker couldn't have legitimately done so, even if he had wanted to. Baker's reputation is then somewhat assuaged despite not remembering where he stopped the guy or what he was wearing.
We all come out more enlightened and dance off into the sunset together.
Next topic?
Can you knock off the pen*s-measuring and dancing off into the sunset together?
Maybe save that for Grinder...
???
-
Well, Bill, if you had actually read through the thread before chiming in you would have seen the comment that Doug Easterly made that sparked this tangent about rights. He suggested that Oswald should have been detained by the police as a person of interest for daring to be in the lunchroom and not showing enough interest (whatever that means) in what was going on outside. That led to a discussion of probable cause and what the grounds are/were for detaining or searching someone.
So, to answer your question, if for argument's sake we agree that Oswald's rights were violated while inside the theater then Doug and everybody else learns something new about how people's rights are protected in this country and why Baker couldn't have legitimately done so, even if he had wanted to. Baker's reputation is then somewhat assuaged despite not remembering where he stopped the guy or what he was wearing.
We all come out more enlightened and dance off into the sunset together.
Next topic?
Oh come on now.
Don't pretend like a comment by Doug Easterly is what finally set you off about a supposed violation of Oswald's rights while inside the theater.
You've been As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'ing about McDonald touching Oswald's belt line long before this particular thread ever came along.
-
Yeah it's my right to watch a movie and know that everyone in that theater is unarmed and if I have to be patted down to determine if I have a weapon to make the World a safer place then who besides a hard core conspiracy Kook would think otherwise?
All these concertgoers were patted down, I wonder how many punched those security guys in the face? LOL!!!
(https://www.reviewjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/10993120_web1_WEB-MandalayBAYSHooting-OCT02-17_10022017_RB_001.jpg)
JohnM
'Your right to throw punches ends where my nose begins' goes the old saying.
-
You've been As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'ing about McDonald touching Oswald's belt line long before this particular thread ever came along.
And long after this thread is dead and buried whenever the topic of Oswald's arrest is debated you can be sure as heck that Iacoletti will again present this strawman to bolster his lack of evidence. You gotta laugh at what they're reduced to.
JohnM
-
Yeah it's my right to watch a movie and know that everyone in that theater is unarmed and if I have to be patted down to determine if I have a weapon to make the World a safer place then who besides a hard core conspiracy Kook would think otherwise?
Must be an Australia thing...
-
Oh come on now.
Don't pretend like a comment by Doug Easterly is what finally set you off about a supposed violation of Oswald's rights while inside the theater.
You've been As I was walking a' alane, I heard twa corbies makin' a mane. The tane untae the tither did say, Whaur sail we gang and dine the day, O. Whaur sail we gang and dine the day? It's in ahint yon auld fail dyke I wot there lies a new slain knight; And naebody kens that he lies there But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair, O. But his hawk and his hound, and his lady fair. His hound is to the hunting gane His hawk to fetch the wild-fowl hame, His lady ta'en anither mate, So we may mak' our dinner swate, O. So we may mak' our dinner swate. Ye'll sit on his white hause-bane, And I'll pike oot his bonny blue e'en Wi' ae lock o' his gowden hair We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare, O. We'll theek oor nest when it grows bare. There's mony a ane for him maks mane But nane sail ken whaur he is gane O'er his white banes when they are bare The wind sail blaw for evermair, O. The wind sail blaw for evermair.'ing about McDonald touching Oswald's belt line long before this particular thread ever came along.
Yes, when the subject comes up about how the cops illegally searched, beat up, and arrested Oswald for murder based on a shoe store salesman thinking he looked funny.
Do you have a problem with people discussing things?
-
And long after this thread is dead and buried whenever the topic of Oswald's arrest is debated you can be sure as heck that Iacoletti will again present this strawman to bolster his lack of evidence.
My lack of evidence for what? It's you who makes claims without evidence.
-
The name 'McDonald' is in the part of Brewer's testimony that you conveniently left out.
John Calvin Brewer WC Testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
(...)
BREWER - Well, I saw this policeman approach Oswald, and Oswald stood up and I heard some hollering. I don't know exactly what he said, and this man hit Patrolman McDonald.
Mr. BELIN - You say this man hit Patrolman McDonald. Did you know it was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - I didn't know his name, but I had seen him quite a few times around Oak Cliff. But I didn't know his name.
Mr. BELIN - Then you later found out this was Patrolman McDonald?
Mr. BREWER - Yes.
Mr. BELIN - Did you say this man was the same man?
Mr. BREWER - The same man that had stood in my lobby that I followed to the show.
Mr. BELIN - Who hit who first?
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of the seats. And then real quick he was back up.
(...)
I conveniently left out? If you are going to butt into other people's conversations then make sure you read what was said and quoted. Brown's quote did NOT include McDonald's name. Hit is not the same as punch.
-
What a bunch of Kookspeak.
You basically said that no one "outside of the police" saw Oswald punch McDonald. Brewer saw Oswald punch McDonald. Brewer was never a member of the "police".
Now all you have to is show that Brewer was actually there to see anything. Then you have to show that hit means punch. Well?
My lack of knowledge? Nice try, but that dog don't hunt.
You wish. Didn't you think that the TT was only 5 or 6 blocks from the JDT murder scene. You are clueless about the evidence.
I have personally corrected you on at least three dozen points since you've been a member of this forum and the previous one.
That koolade is really strong as you are really hallucinating.
I even challenged you to a live debate where neither of us can rely on a Google search for their information. All you did was make excuses for why you won't agree to that.
Wasn't this Paul May's challenge? I think so. 🤫
-
Yeah it's my right to watch a movie and know that everyone in that theater is unarmed and if I have to be patted down to determine if I have a weapon to make the World a safer place then who besides a hard core conspiracy Kook would think otherwise?
All these concertgoers were patted down, I wonder how many punched those security guys in the face? LOL!!!
(https://www.reviewjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/10993120_web1_WEB-MandalayBAYSHooting-OCT02-17_10022017_RB_001.jpg)
JohnM
Great example of the violation of the Fourth Amendment. They use fear to get people to surrender their rights. Exactly what sporting event or concert have the terrorists attacked again?
This is nothing but an illegal search and an assumption of guilt.
-
Yes, when the subject comes up about how the cops illegally searched, beat up, and arrested Oswald for murder based on a shoe store salesman thinking he looked funny.
Do you have a problem with people discussing things?
Yep, Saint Patsy was arrested and his problems all began because he looked funny.
Hey, at least you're an expert on looking funny, so ok, you're right - your hero client was illegally searched, beaten and arrested because he looked funny.
-
Yep, Saint Patsy was arrested and his problems all began because he looked funny.
Hey, at least you're an expert on looking funny, so ok, you're right - your hero client was illegally searched, beaten and arrested because he looked funny.
I believe that's the "Post of the Week". :D
-
Now all you have to is show that Brewer was actually there to see anything. Then you have to show that hit means punch. Well?
punch
pən(t)SH
verb
1.
strike with the fist.
"she punched him in the face and ran off"
synonyms: hit, strike, thump, jab, smash, welt, cuff, clip; batter, buffet, pound, pummel; informal: sock, slug, bop, wallop, clobber, bash, whack, thwack, clout, whomp, cold-cock; literary: smite
"Diana punched him in the face"
2.
press (a button or key on a machine).
noun
1.
a blow with the fist.
synonyms: blow, hit, knock, thump, box, jab, clip, uppercut, hook; informal: sock, slug, bop, wallop, bash, whack, clout, belt, knuckle sandwich; datedbuffet
"a punch on the nose"
-----------------------------------
hit
verb
1.
bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully.
"the woman hit the mugger with her umbrella"
synonyms: strike, slap, smack, spank, cuff, punch, thump, swat; beat, thrash, batter, pound, pummel, box someone's ears; whip, flog, cane; informalwhack, wallop, bash, bop, clout, clip, clobber, sock, swipe, crown, beat the living daylights out of, knock someone around, belt, tan, lay into, let someone have it, deck, floor, slug; literarysmite
"she hit her child"
2.
cause harm or distress to.
"the area has been badly hit by business closures"
noun
1.
an instance of striking or being struck.
"few structures can withstand a hit from a speeding car"
synonyms: blow, thump, punch, knock, bang, cuff, slap, smack, spank, tap, crack, stroke, welt, karate chop; impact, collision, bump, crash; informalwhack, thwack, wallop, bash, belt, clout, sock, swipe, clip, slug
"he received a hit from behind"
2.
an instance of striking the target aimed at.
"one of the bombers had scored a direct hit"
-
Must be an Australia thing...
Yeah must be, Australia's firearm-related death rate is less than a quarter of the United States* so doing our thing is obviously working. I can go to any part of my city at any time of night and feel completely safe, how about you?
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
JohnM
-
Now all you have to is show that Brewer was actually there to see anything. Then you have to show that hit means punch. Well?
You wish. Didn't you think that the TT was only 5 or 6 blocks from the JDT murder scene. You are clueless about the evidence.
That koolade is really strong as you are really hallucinating.
Wasn't this Paul May's challenge? I think so. 🤫
Now all you have to is show that Brewer was actually there to see anything.
No.
All you really have to do is show that Brewer was NOT there. Go on. I'll wait.
You wish. Didn't you think that the TT was only 5 or 6 blocks from the JDT murder scene. You are clueless about the evidence.
You stated the theater was eight blocks from Tenth and Patton. You were wrong. The theater is six blocks (give or take a half block) from the Tippit murder scene.
Why do you feel the need to bring up your ignorant mistake again?
-
Also John, I remember Paul May challenging me and not Brown. What the heck is a live debate going to prove?
About nine or ten months ago, you made a comment about my "lack of knowledge" regarding the assassination and the Tippit murder, comparing it to your supposed wide range of knowledge of the same.
So, I created a thread calling out both you and Martin Weidmann to a live debate where the two of you would be welcomed to bring up anything you wished.
Instead of accepting, both of you gave excuses for why you would not participate in such a thing.
This was before Paul May challenged you. If I were you, I'd try to forget it, too.
-
So, I created a thread calling out both you and Martin Weidmann to a live debate where the two of you would be welcomed to bring up anything you wished.
A"live debate"? On CNN?
-
A"live debate"? On CNN?
FOX would be better. CNN is fake news.
-
FOX would be better. CNN is fake news.
CNN would be better for Carpio though. No one would see it.
-
To be clear, in challenging Caprio to a live debate where neither of us could go running off to Google, I'm not trying to toot my own horn.
I'm simply showing how full of chit Caprio really is.
-
FOX would be better. CNN is fake news.
Yeah, Cuomo and Lemon can look in the camera and outright lie or "spin".
But it's worst than that at Fox News, which disingenuously propagandizes racism, bigotry and class discrimination. Oh, sorry.
-
Yeah, Cuomo and Lemon can look in the camera and outright lie or "spin".
But it's worst than that at Fox News, which disingenuously propagandizes racism, bigotry and class discrimination. Oh, sorry.
Wait, let me tune up my violin . Thanks for your opinion. How's Castro Jr. doing up there?
-
Wait, let me tune up my violin . Thanks for your opinion. How's Castro Jr. doing up there?
Well, he ain't cavorting with Kim Jong-un.
Have you looked inward lately?
-
Well, he ain't cavorting with Kim Jong-un.
Have you looked inward lately?
Have you looked inward lately?
Yes, every day.
My wallet, my bank accounts, IRA's, 401k, low volatility funds, large cap stock funds , large cap value funds.
I look inward all the time. Laissez les bon temps rouler!
-
punch
pən(t)SH
verb
1.
strike with the fist.
"she punched him in the face and ran off"
synonyms: hit, strike, thump, jab, smash, welt, cuff, clip; batter, buffet, pound, pummel; informal: sock, slug, bop, wallop, clobber, bash, whack, thwack, clout, whomp, cold-cock; literary: smite
"Diana punched him in the face"
2.
press (a button or key on a machine).
noun
1.
a blow with the fist.
synonyms: blow, hit, knock, thump, box, jab, clip, uppercut, hook; informal: sock, slug, bop, wallop, bash, whack, clout, belt, knuckle sandwich; datedbuffet
"a punch on the nose"
-----------------------------------
hit
verb
1.
bring one's hand or a tool or weapon into contact with (someone or something) quickly and forcefully.
"the woman hit the mugger with her umbrella"
synonyms: strike, slap, smack, spank, cuff, punch, thump, swat; beat, thrash, batter, pound, pummel, box someone's ears; whip, flog, cane; informalwhack, wallop, bash, bop, clout, clip, clobber, sock, swipe, crown, beat the living daylights out of, knock someone around, belt, tan, lay into, let someone have it, deck, floor, slug; literarysmite
"she hit her child"
2.
cause harm or distress to.
"the area has been badly hit by business closures"
noun
1.
an instance of striking or being struck.
"few structures can withstand a hit from a speeding car"
synonyms: blow, thump, punch, knock, bang, cuff, slap, smack, spank, tap, crack, stroke, welt, karate chop; impact, collision, bump, crash; informalwhack, thwack, wallop, bash, belt, clout, sock, swipe, clip, slug
"he received a hit from behind"
2.
an instance of striking the target aimed at.
"one of the bombers had scored a direct hit"
In hockey they descibe body checks as hits. Hit is vague. Punch is not.
-
Yeah must be, Australia's firearm-related death rate is less than a quarter of the United States* so doing our thing is obviously working. I can go to any part of my city at any time of night and feel completely safe, how about you?
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
JohnM
Wasn't there a mass shooting in Australia recently? I think so. Do your cops carry guns? Yes or no.
-
No.
All you really have to do is show that Brewer was NOT there. Go on. I'll wait.
The burden is ON you to show that he was. Go on. I'll wait.
You stated the theater was eight blocks from Tenth and Patton. You were wrong. The theater is six blocks (give or take a half block) from the Tippit murder scene.
I stated what your beloved WC said. If I am wrong then they are wrong. If they can't get this simple issue correctly what else did they get wrong?
Why do you feel the need to bring up your ignorant mistake again?
Priceless. You are calling the WC ignorant. That may cost you your LNer membership card. 🤣
-
About nine or ten months ago, you made a comment about my "lack of knowledge" regarding the assassination and the Tippit murder, comparing it to your supposed wide range of knowledge of the same.
So, I created a thread calling out both you and Martin Weidmann to a live debate where the two of you would be welcomed to bring up anything you wished.
Instead of accepting, both of you gave excuses for why you would not participate in such a thing.
This was before Paul May challenged you. If I were you, I'd try to forget it, too.
Prove it.
-
CNN would be better for Carpio though. No one would see it.
Geek wishes.
-
To be clear, in challenging Caprio to a live debate where neither of us could go running off to Google, I'm not trying to toot my own horn.
I'm simply showing how full of chit Caprio really is.
You wish. All you do is repost the same JDT stuff over and over. I have hundreds of posts utilizing the actual evidence. Who do you think needs Google more? You of course.
It would be a waste of time as no matter how many times you are shown the evidence you keep on misrepresenting it.
-
Yep, Saint Patsy was arrested and his problems all began because he looked funny.
I'm glad you agree.
...or was that supposed to be a rebuttal? :D
-
The burden is ON you to show that he was. Go on. I'll wait.
I stated what your beloved WC said. If I am wrong then they are wrong. If they can't get this simple issue correctly what else did they get wrong?
Priceless. You are calling the WC ignorant. That may cost you your LNer membership card. 🤣
The burden is ON you to show that he was. Go on. I'll wait.
This is simply not true. Brewer's testimony and the testimony of others place Brewer there. If you mistakenly believe Brewer was not present to see the scuffle, then state your case for it. So far, you haven't come close to doing so.
I stated what your beloved WC said. If I am wrong then they are wrong.
Yes, you were wrong. This is a fact.
Priceless. You are calling the WC ignorant.
Regarding the distance from Tenth and Patton to the Texas Theater, yes, the Commission was ignorant of the distance; so were you.
-
You wish. All you do is repost the same JDT stuff over and over. I have hundreds of posts utilizing the actual evidence. Who do you think needs Google more? You of course.
It would be a waste of time as no matter how many times you are shown the evidence you keep on misrepresenting it.
Another excuse.
-
Yeah must be, Australia's firearm-related death rate is less than a quarter of the United States* so doing our thing is obviously working. I can go to any part of my city at any time of night and feel completely safe, how about you?
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
...though being an Australian you probably don't know who that was.
-
Regarding the distance from Tenth and Patton to the Texas Theater, yes, the Commission was ignorant of the distance; so were you.
You recently made a big issue over the relevance of the cops illegally searching and arresting Oswald.
Can you explain the relevance of how many blocks away the theater was?
-
I'm glad you agree.
...or was that supposed to be a rebuttal? :D
No, I'm agreeing with you.
Really.
The only thing Saint Patsy did wrong that day was to look funny.
How could anyone think differently ?
You're such a great lawyer !
And handsome too.
-
You recently made a big issue over the relevance of the cops illegally searching and arresting Oswald.
Can you explain the relevance of how many blocks away the theater was?
First, I haven't agreed that the "cops illegally" searched and arrested Oswald.
Caprio was making some dumb ass point and in trying to bolster that point, misrepresented the distance between the theater and Tenth and Patton. I honestly don't even remember the point he was failing at making.
Regarding Oswald's guilt in the murder of J.D. Tippit, the distance between the two locations is relevant.
-
No, I'm agreeing with you.
Really.
The only thing Saint Patsy did wrong that day was to look funny.
How could anyone think differently ?
You're such a great lawyer !
And handsome too.
Thanks! You're still a troll.
-
Thanks! You're still a troll.
He actually thought his avatar warranted compliments.
-
First, I haven't agreed that the "cops illegally" searched and arrested Oswald.
I don't care.
Caprio was making some dumb ass point and in trying to bolster that point, misrepresented the distance between the theater and Tenth and Patton. I honestly don't even remember the point he was failing at making.
...but you'll sure divert a thread for days for pages and pages to quibble about it.
-
This is simply not true. Brewer's testimony and the testimony of others place Brewer there. If you mistakenly believe Brewer was not present to see the scuffle, then state your case for it. So far, you haven't come close to doing so.
I could call you to testify, but what does that prove? In my series I showed that three different members of the police did NOT say they were told about LHO from Brewer. That's called reasonable doubt.
You have to show what the WC and himself claimed he did. Well?
Yes, you were wrong. This is a fact.
If so, then the WC is too.
https://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0100b.htm
By the way, who says that this is wrong? You? 😃 You aren't right about anything.
Regarding the distance from Tenth and Patton to the Texas Theater, yes, the Commission was ignorant of the distance; so were you.
Prove it. What else were they ignorant of?
-
Another excuse.
I don't need an excuse. You would be a waste of time to debate based on your posts on this board.
-
First, I haven't agreed that the "cops illegally" searched and arrested Oswald.
Caprio was making some dumb ass point and in trying to bolster that point, misrepresented the distance between the theater and Tenth and Patton. I honestly don't even remember the point he was failing at making.
Regarding Oswald's guilt in the murder of J.D. Tippit, the distance between the two locations is relevant.
These LNers blame me for everything. Read the first sentence under "Oswald's Arrest" and you will see that the WC wrote the distance that I said. He can't blame them or his LNer membership card will be revoked.
https://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0100b.htm
-
He actually thought his avatar warranted compliments.
Howard is coming on to me. This all makes perfect sense now. He has a repressed thing for bald men.
-
...but you'll sure divert a thread for days for pages and pages to quibble about it.
If it's relevant, yes. The distance between the theater and Tenth and Patton is relevant.
McDonald touching Oswald's belt line is not relevant at all.
-
Wasn't there a mass shooting in Australia recently?
Let's put this into perspective, this century I am aware of 1 or 2 mass shootings where a Father murdered his family then committed suicide whereas in America in the year 2015 alone;
(https://i.imgur.com/Is0oFGa.png)
JohnM
-
I could call you to testify, but what does that prove? In my series I showed that three different members of the police did NOT say they were told about LHO from Brewer. That's called reasonable doubt.
You have to show what the WC and himself claimed he did. Well?
If so, then the WC is too.
https://www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0100b.htm
By the way, who says that this is wrong? You? 😃 You aren't right about anything.
Prove it. What else were they ignorant of?
In my series I showed that three different members of the police did NOT say they were told about LHO from Brewer.
These men did NOT say that the man who pointed out Oswald to them was NOT Brewer either.
That's called reasonable doubt.
Only in your Kook world.
Prove it.
Already have.
-
I don't need an excuse. You would be a waste of time to debate based on your posts on this board.
Prove it.
-
If it's relevant, yes. The distance between the theater and Tenth and Patton is relevant.
McDonald touching Oswald's belt line is not relevant at all.
So you admit that the WC got something relevant wrong. How many other relevant things did they get wrong?
-
If it's relevant, yes. The distance between the theater and Tenth and Patton is relevant.
I'll bite. How?
-
I'll bite. How?
Regarding whether or not Oswald was guilty in Tippit's death, the distance between the shooting scene and the theater is relevant.
Oswald has to make it to the theater in time to be arrested if he shot Tippit as late as 1:15 p.m., right?
I cannot recall the point Caprio was trying to make when he incorrectly stated that the distance was eight blocks.
Whether or not McDonald was violating Oswald's rights when he touched Oswald's belt line is NOT relevant at all, regarding whether or not Oswald killed Tippit.
-
Whether or not McDonald was violating Oswald's rights when he touched Oswald's belt line is NOT relevant at all, regarding whether or not Oswald killed Tippit.
Geez louise, are they still pushing McDonald's actions what a weak deflection but what do you expect after the realization sets in that Oswald was caught with the revolver which was directly linked to the shells seen being discarded at the Tippit crime scene.
JohnM
-
Regarding whether or not Oswald was guilty in Tippit's death, the distance between the shooting scene and the theater is relevant.
Oswald has to make it to the theater in time to be arrested if he shot Tippit as late as 1:15 p.m., right?
25-30 minutes to cover either distance is not much of a problem. A better question would be why it took so long if it was Oswald.
-
Geez louise, are they still pushing McDonald's actions what a weak deflection but what do you expect after the realization sets in that Oswald was caught with the revolver which was directly linked to the shells seen being discarded at the Tippit crime scene.
Actually it was the revolver that Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later that was linked to shells not recovered by the police at the crime scene.
-
Actually it was the revolver that Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later that was linked to shells not recovered by the police at the crime scene.
Actually it was the revolver that Hill pulled out of his pocket 2 hours later
Ffs so what, does it matter if it was 2 seconds, 2 minutes, 2 hours or 2 days?, again what a nothing argument.
that was linked to shells not recovered by the police at the crime scene.
So on top of your forgers and your massive cast of people involved in the rifle order you are now are including even more people on Tenth street. Far out Bro!
JohnM
-
Let's put this into perspective, this century I am aware of 1 or 2 mass shootings where a Father murdered his family then committed suicide whereas in America in the year 2015 alone;
(https://i.imgur.com/Is0oFGa.png)
JohnM
The amount of people who die from a gunshot is miniscule to the number of people who die from smoking. Why aren't cigarettes made illegal?
The police have killed 1,100 plus for years now, but you are probably okay with them having guns.
-
These men did NOT say that the man who pointed out Oswald to them was NOT Brewer either.
Only in your Kook world.
Already have.
Their description eliminated him as a possibility. You've got nothing. What else is new?
-
Prove it.
It's proven everytime that you post.
-
Their description eliminated him as a possibility. You've got nothing. What else is new?
This is absolutely not true.
Are you seriously claiming that Johnny Brewer wasn't present inside the theater when Oswald was apprehended?
-
The amount of people who die from a gunshot is miniscule to the number of people who die from smoking. Why aren't cigarettes made illegal?
The police have killed 1,100 plus for years now, but you are probably okay with them having guns.
The amount of people who die from a gunshot is miniscule to the number of people who die from smoking. Why aren't cigarettes made illegal?
No offence but that's a real Kook's reply. If I choose to smoke then I know the risks but if i go to the cinema, a nightclub, an outdoor concert, a videogame competition or even a church then I expect to be safe, how can some maniac on the loose possibly be my fault?
The police have killed 1,100 plus for years now, but you are probably okay with them having guns.
Well of course, violence breeds violence.
The Washington Post newspaper counted 963 fatalities in 2016. A public interest group, Fatal Encounters, estimated 1,500 people were shot by police each year from 2013 to 2015.
Let's take a conservative approach and agree the number to be 1,200 deaths per year. The US has a population of about 326 million.
In Australia, on average, around six to eight people are killed by police firearms each year. We have a population of 24 million.
This means that a civilian is about 12 times more likely to be shot and killed by a police firearm in the US than by a police firearm in Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-21/justine-damond-mohamed-noor-police-officer-charges/9573122
JohnM
-
Ffs so what, does it matter if it was 2 seconds, 2 minutes, 2 hours or 2 days?, again what a nothing argument.
So on top of your forgers and your massive cast of people involved in the rifle order you are now are including even more people on Tenth street. Far out Bro!
LOL, you think that any old thing that somebody pulls out of their pocket or hands to a cop in a wad of kleenex should automatically be considered authentic evidence.
-
Confirmation that he does think the Davis sisters were part of the small conspiracy.
-
LOL, you think that any old thing that somebody pulls out of their pocket or hands to a cop in a wad of kleenex should automatically be considered authentic evidence.
Are we trying to solve this case or are you trying your damnedest to get Oswald off on any technicality that you can dream up and btw why wouldn't the Davis shells be considered evidence?
Let's take a close unbiased look at the facts, the murder could have happened anywhere but it randomly happened right near where the Davis sisters lived, so the sisters participation was based on events completely out of their control.
Other eyewitnesses saw a person who they all identified as Oswald dropping shells in the vicinity of the Davis sisters house.
The shells that were picked up matched the revolver that Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested with.
Some alternative scenarios;
The Davis sisters picked up shells that were dropped by the owner of the revolver at some other previous time.
The Davis sisters picked up shells that were fired through Oswald's revolver which were acquired and dropped by the real killer.
The Davis sisters were given the Oswald shells to give to the Police.
And yeah you're right my alternatives are just too far fetched to be believed but maybe you can come up with some other scenario?
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun. We walked outside and a woman was hollering "he's dead, he's dead, he's shot". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I saw the officer that had been shot lying on Tenth street after Jeanette had called the police. Jeanette found a empty shell [sic] that the man had unloaded and gave it to the police. After the Police had left I found a empty shell [sic] in our yard. This is the same shell I gave to Detective Dhority [sic]. The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up.
/s/ Mrs. Virginia Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Barbara Jeanette Davis w/f/22, 400 E. 10th, WH3 8120. Bus: same who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 shortly after 1:00 pm, my sister-in-law, Virginia Davis, and I were lying on the bed with the kids. I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming that "he shot him, he killed him" and pointed towards a police car. That is the first time I noticed a police car there. I ran back in the house and called the operator and reported this to the police. When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell. After the police had left I went back into the yard and Virginia found another shell which I turned over to the police. About 8:00 pm the same day, the police came after me and took me downtown to the city hall where I saw this man in a lineup. The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man I saw in my yard, also the one that was unloading the gun.
/s/ Barbara Jeanette Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
JohnM
-
Are we trying to solve this case or are you trying your damnedest to get Oswald off on any technicality that you can dream up and btw why wouldn't the Davis shells be considered evidence?
Let's take a close unbiased look at the facts, the murder could have happened anywhere but it randomly happened right near where the Davis sisters lived, so the sisters participation was based on events completely out of their control.
Other eyewitnesses saw a person who they all identified as Oswald dropping shells in the vicinity of the Davis sisters house.
The shells that were picked up matched the revolver that Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested with.
Some alternative scenarios;
The Davis sisters picked up shells that were dropped by the owner of the revolver at some other previous time.
The Davis sisters picked up shells that were fired through Oswald's revolver which were acquired and dropped by the real killer.
The Davis sisters were given the Oswald shells to give to the Police.
And yeah you're right my alternatives are just too far fetched to be believed but maybe you can come up with some other scenario?
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Mrs. Virginia Davis, w/m/16 [sic], of 400 E. 10th WH-3-8120 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 about 1:30 pm my sister-in-law and myself were lying down in our apartment. My sister-in-law is Jeanette Davis, we live in the same house in different apartments. We heard a shot and then another shot and ran to the side door at Patton Street. I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun. We walked outside and a woman was hollering "he's dead, he's dead, he's shot". This woman told Jeanette to call the Police and she did [sic]. I saw the officer that had been shot lying on Tenth street after Jeanette had called the police. Jeanette found a empty shell [sic] that the man had unloaded and gave it to the police. After the Police had left I found a empty shell [sic] in our yard. This is the same shell I gave to Detective Dhority [sic]. The man that was unloading the gun was the same man I saw tonight as number 2 man in a line up.
/s/ Mrs. Virginia Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Barbara Jeanette Davis w/f/22, 400 E. 10th, WH3 8120. Bus: same who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and says:
Today November 22, 1963 shortly after 1:00 pm, my sister-in-law, Virginia Davis, and I were lying on the bed with the kids. I heard a shot and jumped up and heard another shot. I put on my shoes and went to the door and I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun. A woman was standing across the street screaming that "he shot him, he killed him" and pointed towards a police car. That is the first time I noticed a police car there. I ran back in the house and called the operator and reported this to the police. When the police arrived Ishowed [sic] one of them where I saw this man emptying his gun and we found a shell. After the police had left I went back into the yard and Virginia found another shell which I turned over to the police. About 8:00 pm the same day, the police came after me and took me downtown to the city hall where I saw this man in a lineup. The #2 man in a 4-man lineup was the same man I saw in my yard, also the one that was unloading the gun.
/s/ Barbara Jeanette Davis
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963
/s/ Mary Rattan
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
JohnM
I think he needs to backpedal a bit.
Best to go back to the cops switched the shells after the Davis sisters turned them over.
That's after the canned 'Oswald's revolver, LOL' response.
-
Convincing the public Oswald was the assassin before all the evidence was even collected, let alone investigated?
-snip-
"...On November 23,1963, J. Edgar Hoover forwarded the results of the FBI's preliminary investigation to him.(LBJ) This report detailed the evidence that indicated LHO's guilt. On November 24, 1963, Hoover telephoned President Johnson aide Walter Jenkins and stated:
"The thing I am concerned about, and so is Mr. Katzenbach, is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin..."
-snip-
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=83#relPageId=9
------------------------------
11/23/63
J. Edgar Hoover: I just wanted to let you know of a development which I think is very important in connection with this case - this man in Dallas (Lee Harvey Oswald). We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong. We have just discovered the place where the gun was purchased and the shipment of the gun from Chicago to Dallas, to a post office box in Dallas, to a man - no, to a woman by the name of "A. Hidell."... We
had it flown up last night, and our laboratory here is making an examination of it.
Lyndon B. Johnson: Yes, I told the Secret Service to see that that got taken care of.
J. Edgar Hoover: That's right. We have the gun and we have the bullet. There was only one full bullet that was found. That was on the stretcher that the President was on. It apparently had fallen out when they massaged his heart, and we have that one. We have what we call slivers, which are not very valuable in the identification. As soon as we finish the testing of the gun for fingerprints ... we will then be able to test the one bullet we have with the gun. But the important thing is that this gun was bought in Chicago on a money order. Cost twenty-one dollars, and it seems almost impossible to think that for twenty-one dollars you could kill the President of the United States.
11/23/63
Lyndon B. Johnson: Have you established any more about the visit to the Soviet embassy in Mexico in September?
J. Edgar Hoover: No, that's one angle that's very confusing, for this reason - we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald's name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man's voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there. We do have a copy of a letter which was written by Oswald to the Soviet embassy here in Washington, inquiring as well as complaining about the harassment of his wife and the questioning of his wife by the FBI. Now, of course, that letter information - we process all mail that goes to the Soviet embassy. It's a very secret operation.
No mail is delivered to the embassy without being examined and opened by us, so that we know what they receive... The case, as it stands now, isn't strong enough to be able to get a conviction... Now if we can identify this man who was at the... Soviet embassy in Mexico City... This man Oswald has still denied everything. He doesn't know anything about anything, but the gun thing, of course, is a definite trend.
Getting Marina to cooperate by letting her stay in the US.
11/29/63
Lyndon B. Johnson: That there is no connection between he and Ruby that you can detect now. And whether he was connected with the Cuban operation with money, you're trying to...
J. Edgar Hoover: That's what we're trying to nail down now, because he was strongly pro-Castro, he was strongly anti-American, and he had been in correspondence, which we have, with the Soviet embassy here in Washington and with the American Civil Liberties Union and with this Committee for Fair Play to Cuba... None of those letters, however, dealt with any indication of violence or contemplated assassination. They were dealing with the matter of a visa for his wife to go back to Russia. Now there is one angle to this thing that I'm hopeful to get some word on today. This woman, his wife, had been very hostile. She would not cooperate, speaks... Russian only. She did say to us yesterday down there that if we could give her assurance that she would be allowed to remain in this country, she might cooperate. I told our agents down there to give her that assurance... and I sent a Russian-speaking agent into Dallas last night to interview her.... Whether she knows anything or talks anything, I, of course, don't know and won't know till -
-
This is absolutely not true.
Are you seriously claiming that Johnny Brewer wasn't present inside the theater when Oswald was apprehended?
This is what LNers do. They make it about you instead of the evidence. They can't refute that so they build straw men instead.
I am making NO claim. The evidence is. If you either knew it or didn't ignore it then you would know this.
-
No offence but that's a real Kook's reply. If I choose to smoke then I know the risks but if i go to the cinema, a nightclub, an outdoor concert, a videogame competition or even a church then I expect to be safe, how can some maniac on the loose possibly be my fault?
Well of course, violence breeds violence.
The Washington Post newspaper counted 963 fatalities in 2016. A public interest group, Fatal Encounters, estimated 1,500 people were shot by police each year from 2013 to 2015.
Let's take a conservative approach and agree the number to be 1,200 deaths per year. The US has a population of about 326 million.
In Australia, on average, around six to eight people are killed by police firearms each year. We have a population of 24 million.
This means that a civilian is about 12 times more likely to be shot and killed by a police firearm in the US than by a police firearm in Australia.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-21/justine-damond-mohamed-noor-police-officer-charges/9573122
JohnM
What an ignorant response, no offense, as second hand and third hand smoke kills people. Don't you know this?
All those places have restrictions against guns. Most people are more likely to die in an automobile accident than from a shooting. The government cannot protect you from crazy people so why should we lose all our rights as if they could?
-
Confirmation that he does think the Davis sisters were part of the small conspiracy.
I read that Jack Ruby had Virginia Davis' telephone number. It was found among his possessions after he killed LHO.
It was claimed that it belonged to Leona Miller, but it was actually listed to Virginia Davis in Oak Cliff. What a small world we see in the JFK assassination case.
-
You read?? You expect people who know your reputation for lying to believe ?you read?? Provide a citation.
-
What an ignorant response, no offense, as second hand and third hand smoke kills people. Don't you know this?
All those places have restrictions against guns. Most people are more likely to die in an automobile accident than from a shooting. The government cannot protect you from crazy people so why should we lose all our rights as if they could?
What an ignorant response, no offense, as second hand and third hand smoke kills people. Don't you know this?
That's why smoking is banned in nightclubs, shopping malls, schools, airports, restaurants, workplaces, pubs, football stadiums, ice hockey rinks, basketball courts, Lady tupperware parties, in cars with children, doctors waiting rooms, cafeterias, buses, planes, trains and most populated public places and if I see someone smoking it's quite easy for me to move away, but try and move away from a bullet.
Btw I don't smoke cigarettes and I think it's a filthy disgusting habit but I feel it's their right to smoke as long as they are responsible yet with the laws as they are, they have little choice.
All those places have restrictions against guns.
The figures speak for themselves.
Most people are more likely to die in an automobile accident than from a shooting.
Another stupid argument. Plenty of people die in all sorts of accidents, that's why they're called accidents! DUH! And btw how many USA mass shootings are attributable to an accident?
The government cannot protect you from crazy people so why should we lose all our rights as if they could?
That guy who killed all those concert goers in Vegas would have killed nobody with a gun if he didn't have access to a gun, it's so simple why can't you understand?
JohnM
-
That's why smoking is banned in nightclubs, shopping malls, schools, airports, restaurants, workplaces, pubs, football stadiums, ice hockey rinks, basketball courts, Lady tupperware parties, in cars with children, doctors waiting rooms, cafeterias, buses, planes, trains and most populated public places and if I see someone smoking it's quite easy for me to move away, but try and move away from a bullet.
Btw I don't smoke cigarettes and I think it's a filthy disgusting habit but I feel it's their right to smoke as long as they are responsible yet with the laws as they are, they have little choice.
The figures speak for themselves.
Another stupid argument. Plenty of people die in all sorts of accidents, that's why they're called accidents! DUH! And btw how many USA mass shootings are attributable to an accident?
That guy who killed all those concert goers in Vegas would have killed nobody with a gun if he didn't have access to a gun, it's so simple why can't you understand?
JohnM
Mass shootings are rare. 99.999% of Americans shouldn't suffer because of them.
-
Mass shootings are rare. 99.999% of Americans shouldn't suffer because of them.
?Suffer? :D
-
I think he needs to backpedal a bit.
:D Backpedal from what? The latest claim you invented and pretended that I made?
If you can't show that the shells that turned up in the evidence room actually came from the scene or that those shells even had anything to do with Tippit's death, or that Oswald ever actually had CE143 in his possession, then it really doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference what somebody matched those particular shells to.
Oswald's revolver. LOL.
-
An uneducated cashier at Publix is lecturing people about our rights as Americans. Can't make this spombleprofglidnoctobuns up.
-
An uneducated cashier at Publix is lecturing people about our rights as Americans. Can't make this xxxx up.
Your classism aside, he seems to know more about them than you do.
-
Yes. The loss of our inalienable rights is akin to suffering.
Not really?nothing like the suffering of the victims and the families.
The second amendment doesn?t even say that everybody has the right to own weapons, but rather that they should be held by a well-regulated militia.
Most LNers would be comfortable in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia
Doubt it.
-
Not really?nothing like the suffering of the victims and the families.
The second amendment doesn?t even say that everybody has the right to own weapons, but rather that they should be held by a well-regulated militia.
Doubt it.
10 years after Heller: Fiery gun rights rhetoric, but courts back Second Amendment limits ( Link (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/25/heller-ruling-courts-uphold-gun-control-second-amendment-limits-column/729202002/) )
In days past, the "militia" referred to usually took the form of the National Guard. In 2008, the Supreme Court decided the Second Amendment did cover the individual. But they didn't say the "right" was absolute, as the NRA and a few gun nuts might like people to think.
-
Mass shootings are rare. 99.999% of Americans shouldn't suffer because of them.
If mass shootings are rare then obviously you don't need a gun for protection, so tell us why do you need a gun?
JohnM
-
10 years after Heller: Fiery gun rights rhetoric, but courts back Second Amendment limits ( Link (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/25/heller-ruling-courts-uphold-gun-control-second-amendment-limits-column/729202002/) )
In days past, the "militia" referred to usually took the form of the National Guard. In 2008, the Supreme Court decided the Second Amendment did cover the individual. But they didn't say the "right" was absolute, as the NRA and a few gun nuts might like people to think.
You quoted a op-ed by guys identified as "Eric Tirschwell is the director of litigation and national enforcement policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, and Mark Falsetto is senior counsel, Second Amendment litigation for Everytown." Probably not the most highly extremely unbiased dogs in the fight.
And your take on what the word "militia" has previously meant is wrong. We know what the Founding-Father types thought the word meant because they defined it in the Militia Act of 1792. It assigned to the militia "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." 18th century commentators like Spooner (no, not Spat thooner, the other one) understood that the militia was something that was formed organically from the people from the bottom up.
And every one of these guys "shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball"
Every man between 18 and 45 was not only allowed to possess firearms, they were required to possess them, Swiss style!
"Militia" being therefore definedvery broadly, the 2nd amendment goes on to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Heller decision turns on fact that, when the Constitution says "the people," it really does mean "the people" and not "the States" or "the government." The guys who wrote the Constitution feared what they called "the Mob." But they feared tyranny radiating from centralized power even more. That fear informs the structure of the Federal government from the basement up. It's why there are three explicit branches of government entwined in a tangle of checks and balances. And why they wanted a small army that could only be funded one year at a time and very large militia.
-
You quoted a op-ed by guys identified as "Eric Tirschwell is the director of litigation and national enforcement policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, and Mark Falsetto is senior counsel, Second Amendment litigation for Everytown." Probably not the most highly extremely unbiased dogs in the fight.
Is anyone really unbiased?
And your take on what the word "militia" has previously meant is wrong. We know what the Founding-Father types thought the word meant because they defined it in the Militia Act of 1792. It assigned to the militia "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." 18th century commentators like Spooner (no, not Spat thooner, the other one) understood that the militia was something that was formed organically from the people from the bottom up.
Who would be under the control of a "Uniform Militia", sometimes called an early National Guard. They would only be enrolled "when called out to exercise, or into service".
And every one of these guys "shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball"
Every man between 18 and 45 was not only allowed to possess firearms, they were required to possess them, Swiss style!
The sole purpose of the Act was to create state militias, at least theoretically. There was no penalty in the Act for non-compliance. Estimates of compliance go as low as 10%. Weapons were a major expense at the time.
"Militia" being therefore defined very broadly, the 2nd amendment goes on to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Heller decision turns on fact that, when the Constitution says "the people," it really does mean "the people" and not "the States" or "the government." The guys who wrote the Constitution feared what they called "the Mob." But they feared tyranny radiating from centralized power even more. That fear informs the structure of the Federal government from the basement up. It's why there are three explicit branches of government entwined in a tangle of checks and balances. And why they wanted a small army that could only be funded one year at a time and very large militia.
And the Militia Act of 1903 repealed the 1792 Act, defining the militia as Unorganized (able-bodied men 17-45 who might be called up, I guess, with whatever arms they owned) and Organized (the National Guard). The Guard was to modernize, standardize, and have more interaction with the US Army. This is the era I was referring to with "in past days".
-
Is anyone really unbiased?
No. But, so far as bias goes, there's a mighty gulf separating "anyone" from paid activists.
We know what the Founding-Father types thought the word meant because they defined it in the Militia Act of 1792. It assigned to the militia "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia."
Who would be under the control of a "Uniform Militia", sometimes called an early National Guard. They would only be enrolled "when called out to exercise, or into service".
Which is beside the point. The Militia Act of 1792 defines "the militia" as, essentially, every able-bodied free man. That's what they were thinking of when they wrote the 2nd amendment.
The sole purpose of the Act was to create state militias, at least theoretically. There was no penalty in the Act for non-compliance. Estimates of compliance go as low as 10%.
No. States already had their own militias, ones that generally existed before the Revolution itself. But that's also beside the point. As far as we are concerned, and I know I'm being tedious and repetitive here, but the MAo1792 defines the militia and opens a window into the minds of the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights as to what they mean by "militia."
Weapons were a major expense at the time.
Automobiles and other motor vehicles are a major expense now. That doesn't prevent most Americans from owning at least one.
And the Militia Act of 1903 repealed the 1792 Act, defining the militia as Unorganized (able-bodied men 17-45 who might be called up, I guess, with whatever arms they owned) and Organized (the National Guard). The Guard was to modernize, standardize, and have more interaction with the US Army. This is the era I was referring to with "in past days".
That era wasn't the one that produced the second amendment, though. The argument over the the meaning of "militia" must not only begin with the 1792 act, but also center around it. Even then, as Scalia notes, bearing arms is a right given directly to the people. There were reasons for that. Someone can argue that it's an obsolete notion, but the remedy is via democratic activity and Constitutional amendment rather than by trying to twist words around.
-
No. But, so far as bias goes, there's a mighty gulf separating "anyone" from paid activists.
I just found that article randomly in a Google Search. I believe those "activists" mostly sought magazine restrictions and background checks, and recently tried to stop the 3-D printing of guns. Their advocacy and disruption of democracy is nothing compared to the NRA.
Which is beside the point. The Militia Act of 1792 defines "the militia" as, essentially, every able-bodied free man. That's what they were thinking of when they wrote the 2nd amendment.
Depends on how the Amendment is parsed. It's introduced with "A well regulated Militia". This confers onto the states the responsibility of militia, including that militia members have a right to keep (in their homes or militia arsenal) and "bear arms" (military-wise) which "shall not be infringed" upon by the federal gov't.
John Paul Stevens, associate justice of the Supreme Court 1975-2010 said a more-appropriate wording of the Second Amendment would go like this:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed."
The original version of the Amendment (passed by the House) was much like that:
"A well regulated militia composed of the body of the people,
being the best security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one
religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to
render military service in person."
No. States already had their own militias, ones that generally existed before the Revolution itself. But that's also beside the point.
The state militia (and the need to man them) goes back a long way. The colonies were supposed to supply arms but fell short. Bonuses were offered men who supplied their own weapon, but few showed up. When war came, the militias weren't very effective, mostly older poorly-armed men serving on their state's home-front; very little training firing-wise because of ammunition shortages. Hence the need to regulate the militia into something more effective.
As far as we are concerned, and I know I'm being tedious and repetitive here, but the MAo1792 defines the militia and opens a window into the minds of the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights as to what they mean by "militia."
Open that window a little higher.
Automobiles and other motor vehicles are a major expense now. That doesn't prevent most Americans from owning at least one.
Not many farmhands today (say, the equivalent of a laborer or farmer then) buy brand-new cars.
One estimate has a musket then costing about two-months wages for a skilled worker (that's about $14,400 today, based on manufacturer-worker $20-hourly-rate). That would be like a farmhand today (making an average of $4000-per-month) having to produce a lump-sum of $14,000 for a weapon that was sporadically-needed and ineffective at hunting.
That era wasn't the one that produced the second amendment, though. The argument over the the meaning of "militia" must not only begin with the 1792 act, but also center around it. Even then, as Scalia notes, bearing arms is a right given directly to the people. There were reasons for that.
I think he said the Constitution overall applied to the People.
Someone can argue that it's an obsolete notion, but the remedy is via democratic activity and Constitutional amendment rather than by trying to twist words around.
That last part ("twist words") sums up the NRA. "Democratic activity" better-applies to that Everytown group. The opinion of the people is what ought to prevail, though that process is undermined by NRA lobbying and pay-offs to corrupt politicians living the lives of millionaires.
(http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/06/20104608/PSDT_2017.06.22.guns-05-02.png)
Seems neck-and-neck.
-
Perhaps the gun control debate would be better conducted in the Off Topic section?
-
What does having a "ride" to do with leaving the rifle? If Oswald had a car, was he going to carry his rifle down the stairs and out of the building to the parking lot? LOL. Very funny. Isn't it a better question why his rifle was found in the building and your hero was making tracks like the place was on fire?
Why couldn't he have disassembled the rifle first? You laugh at this idea, but fully support the WC's claim that he brought in a disassembled rifle to his place of work with NO supporting evidence. What's the difference?
-
You have had 50+ plus years to have made that decision with the benefit of hindsight. Baker was making decisions on the fly. He ran into a building, encountered a guy in the lunch room who was vouched for as an employee, and made the understandable decision in that moment to move on to the upper floors where the shots came from. There was no other patrolman to instruct to detain Oswald even if he had any cause to do so.
But why did Baker pull a gun on LHO? Why didn't he pull a gun on anyone else in the TSBD? What was so suspicious about standing in a lunchroom near a vending machine on the second floor?
-
From what I've read, the courts have long held that in "exigent" or emergency situations that people's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures can be suspended.
This is clearly for me one of those instances. Was Baker supposed to get a search warrant? Stop and ask Oswald questions?
Although who knows what the Oswald defenders will say in response. It's always a crapshoot.
But why LHO? What made him stand out in a second floor lunchroom? Why did no one else warrant Baker's attention like this inside the TSBD?
-
As soon as Oswald punched McDonald in the face, Oswald had committed a crime.
JohnM
Not if he was hit first without probable cause. Under those circumstances he would be defending himself.
-
Since you live in Kookland you don't understand that Saint Patsy wasn't 'illegally' stopped and was very lucky he only got his face caved in while trying to 'defend' himself.
Says the guy who lives in "Geheime Staatspolizei" land.
-
How does this amateur bait and switch obsession of you, Weidmann and even Iacoletti has mentioned that I live in Australia wll in any way change 54 year old facts? If you all had a strong case then you'd deal with the evidence instead of this bizarre tactic.
Says the guy who uses bizarre tactics constantly because he has NO supporting evidence.
For no reason at all Oswald punched a cop and was arrested, that's the fact Jack!
Since it is a fact according to you then you must irrefutable evidence for this claim, right? Well?
The evidence says that there was men with shotguns in the theater, so I'd say Oswald would have to be aware, which makes his actions even stranger.
Exactly. We are asked to believe that LHO would assault a police officer when other police officers had guns and could have shot him down. Sure.
Didn't McDonald only say he had his hand on his weapon? But let's just say that your interpretation was correct and McDonald did have a gun out, then Oswald's behaviour was even more strange and would be considered suicidal and this would not be the first time, like slashing his wrist in Russia and the Walker note where he speculates he could be shot while being arrested. Oswald was ready for death!
There was hundreds of police officers on duty that day and you're saying that only a tiny fraction went to the theater, that's weird, there should have been a lot more.
JohnM
Quote him saying what you claim. Exactly. The official story makes no sense.
-
Geez Louise, talk about taking a comment completely out of context, but I guess when you got nothing these dirty tricks become common place, no wonder you are known as "dishonest John".
But getting back to the topic at hand which you seem loathe to discuss, McDonald and according to Rob, 15 police officers went to the Texas theater looking for a Cop Killer and McDonald confronted the man who was viewed acting suspiciously, had a concealed weapon(which incidentally was later matched to the shells at the Tippit crime scene) and for his efforts to protect the public McDonald was punched in the face.
JohnM
I never said that LHO had a concealed weapon. Based on the evidence I don't think he had any gun.
-
That's right, John... "technical nonsense" for sure.
Whether or not McDonald was out of line when he laid his hand on Oswald means absolutely nothing.
It means something to the law. What kind of country do you think this is?
-
Not really?nothing like the suffering of the victims and the families.
The second amendment doesn?t even say that everybody has the right to own weapons, but rather that they should be held by a well-regulated militia.
Doubt it.
That is sad, but since the vast majority of Americans had nothing to do with it, why should they lose their right to bear arms?
Study every country that has outlawed guns and see what happens. Criminals will always have guns. The police and military will have guns. Only the law abiding people will not have any way to protect themselves.
-
If mass shootings are rare then obviously you don't need a gun for protection, so tell us why do you need a gun?
JohnM
So you think mass shootings are the only danger? 🤣
-
A guy (any guy) punches a cop in the mouth. That's reason enough to take him downtown for questioning and the likelihood of being charged with assaulting a police officer. In Oswald's case it all snowballed from there.
Entering a movie theatre without buying a ticket is also a crime. That alone would allow the police to approach Oswald to question him. Of course, under the circumstance, they would not just be approaching a guy who hadn't bought a movie ticket but also a potential suspect in the murder of a police officer. Given the proximity in both time and distance to the crime, a person reported acting suspiciously, like Oswald, would be grounds for the police to proceed as though he might be armed and dangerous. Which, of course, he was. Had he been innocent and capable of explaining himself like the guy similarly confronted at the library, he might have gone on his merry way. Unfortunately for the strawman brothers and their kooky CT kindred, their hero Oswald was stone cold guilty. He even had the murder weapon on him. It was "all over now" as their hero acknowledged.
-
Entering a movie theatre without buying a ticket is also a crime. That alone would allow the police to approach Oswald to question him. Of course, under the circumstance, they would not just be approaching a guy who hadn't bought a movie ticket but also a potential suspect in the murder of a police officer. Given the proximity in both time and distance to the crime, a person reported acting suspiciously, like Oswald, would be grounds for the police to proceed as though he might be armed and dangerous. Which, of course, he was. Had he been innocent and capable of explaining himself like the guy similarly confronted at the library, he might have gone on his merry way. Unfortunately for the strawman brothers and their kooky CT kindred, their hero Oswald was stone cold guilty. He even had the murder weapon on him. It was "all over now" as their hero acknowledged.
Except there is no evidence that he entered the TT without paying.
-
Except there is no evidence that he entered the TT without paying.
No evidence? The police received a call from Julia Postal - the TT ticket seller - indicating that a man had just entered the theatre without buying a ticket. That is the report that they received as confirmed by her affidavit. Even if you entertain some kooky theory (with absolutely no evidence) that Oswald bought a ticket, the police were operating on a report that he had not. They had every good reason, therefore, to approach him and check him out.
-
Given that Julia Postal was out of her booth looking west down Jefferson at the time this man allegedly entered the theater, and given that she told Brewer that she wasn't sure whether he bought a ticket or not, is there any independent confirmation that she actually told the police dispatcher that Brewer's man didn't buy a ticket? They obviously didn't question Oswald about buying a ticket, they illegally searched him, assaulted him, and arrested him for murder.
-
No evidence? The police received a call from Julia Postal - the TT ticket seller - indicating that a man had just entered the theatre without buying a ticket. That is the report that they received as confirmed by her affidavit. Even if you entertain some kooky theory (with absolutely no evidence) that Oswald bought a ticket, the police were operating on a report that he had not. They had every good reason, therefore, to approach him and check him out.
Quote her saying this. John I. and others have cited/quoted documents repeatedly showing that she wasn't sure if she sold a ticket or not. Furthermore, since she was out at the curb she couldn't have even seen the man Brewer allegedly saw.