Thread: After The Gatton Shooting

Can we close this tread two people have lost their lives one good bloke one bad finished

Have not looked at details of this case myself to see if the real gunman was almost certainly the one subsequently killed. However an accused should have the right of a fair trial considering evidence presented in court. In some cases the wrong person is charged or circumstances and details may differ considerably from those initially portrayed. Certainly don't want an immediate lynch mob mentality or "trial by media" which may be blatant contempt of court. Regarding an alleged offender shot dead immediately after the offences, in some cases it may not be the real one but the blame is then usually put on him unchallenged while the real offender gets away. This is sometimes what happens with "false flag" atrocities covertly arranged to falsely blame someone and/or pursue an agenda.

Nowadays thanks to the Internet, news and views that the mainstream media is unlikely to publish can be disseminated more than ever before. Including evidence that helps expose false flags, including some carried out long ago. Seems to have been plenty of them lately, including incidents in Syria and other terrorist attacks supposedly committed on sole initiative of Muslim fanatics. Another type has been mass shootings each allegedly committed on sole initiative of a deranged "lone nut gunman". When these have been quickly been followed by a barrage of anti gun propaganda and calls for tougher gun laws, some details of the case usually not publicised in mainstream media and "official" accounts may suggest these may have deliberate omissions and/or contain half truths or even blatant lies. Some in themselves could be just coincidences but combined, they virtually expose a "false flag".

One of these I have studied a lot of detail on is the Port Arthur Massacre. Especially note how Martin Bryant has been vilified. Including in TV programs aired by the major networks last year for the 20th anniversary. However, a large proportion of comments on their Facebook pages following these show that increasing numbers of people now recognise it was a false flag atrocity. The shootings were certainly real, but scrutiny of numerous details show that Martin could not have been the real gunman but was an appropriate dimwit selected beforehand and set up to take the blame. He was not and could not have been convicted of these crimes on evidence . Just sentenced after being successfully pressured to plead guilty by a crooked lawyer after being kept in illegal solitary confinement for six months. This was necessary after one important part of many false flags went wrong. ie Not having the alleged offender killed by police or supposedly commit suicide to avoid messy court proceedings. However, the anti gun psychopaths still managed to have implemented a significant proportion of draconian gun laws they wanted that largely affected mainly law abiding shooters though.

I expect that pointing out the PAM as a false flag will prompt name calling and other personal type abuse against me from a few who have been brainwashed to regard anything that questions the official accounts of it as crackpot "conspiracy theories" that should not even be listened to, let alone considered. Remember apparently the term was originally popularised by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as a description to use when trying to detract from dirty things it gets up to at times and attempting to discredit whistleblowers.

Re a reference being made to Ned Kelly, it seems some of his criminal activity was prompted by bad police officers. I remember hearing on local ABC radio once a lawyer representing his current Kelly family members. Pointed out it had been widely known that at least one of the police officers killed by Kelly gang, Lonergan, had been bragging he was going to kill Ned. So not surprising that if they knew he was among those shooting at them their aim would be to kill first. Seems the motivation of those who shoot at police is sometimes a form of retaliation against what a police officer has done. A possibility that should be considered in analysis of this latest incident.

And sometimes, bad people play stupid games and win stupid prizes. **** off and take your conspiracy crap elsewhere, this isn't the place for it

Originally Posted by mox

Have not looked at details of this case myself to see if the real gunman was almost certainly the one subsequently killed. However an accused should have the right of a fair trial considering evidence presented in court.

If he wasn't the real gunman then he was just another person with hate for police and got involved in a gunfight with police?
He could have had a fair trial if he hadn't of had a gun fight with police .

Have not looked at details of this case myself to see if the real gunman was almost certainly the one subsequently killed.

The Police simply fired back at the person that was shooting at them, No conspiracy theory or anything in a grey area here.
This bloke would have been given every opportunity to surrender and put down his weapon, He chose not to and died as a result of his OWN actions.
End of story.

Mox........I am speechless!!!!

Originally Posted by trout1105

This bloke would have been given every opportunity to surrender and put down his weapon

i hope so. otherwise its murder. two wrongs dont make a right. we have laws for a reason. qld police cant ignore them cause its convenient or cause people are emotional.

i hope so. otherwise its murder. two wrongs dont make a right. we have laws for a reason. qld police cant ignore them cause its convenient or cause people are emotional.

I have No doubts that the police followed every guideline and protocol in this matter, Especially because one of their own had been lost and that they would have been acutely aware everything that they did would be under scrutiny.