Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,911
- Location
- Rutland
BBC has reported the two chaps picked out by the web manhunt are police officers.
*breaking news* Boston Marathon explosions
- Thread starter Azza
- Start date
BBC has reported the two chaps picked out by the web manhunt are police officers.
I think thats probably the other two, not these ones. Theres some guys wearing white kakis and black jackets with earpieces and carrying black backpacks. Theyre so obviously police makes you wonder why they didnt just wear uniforms.
Why do you think?
If there had been an internet court then they would most probably have already been convicted.
Given the two sets of guys, these two would strike me as more likely to have been police. From a mile away.
How about drop the attitude towards the fellow forum posters and forum mods? You won't get any more chances in this threaad from me.
Now let's keep it on topic.
I find it odd that the guys wearing the kakis, earpieces and rucksacks are police officers, what on earth are they doing there, undercover security ? why? were they expecting something? :S
They had enough plain clothes security for a marathon event anyway.
They had enough plain clothes security for a marathon event anyway.
What's odd about it? It's not out of the ordinary to have plain clothes police officers at an event like this.
Why not have undercover security at a large event? There don't seem to be any drawbacks as far as I can see.
Admittedly, my first thought when I saw those two guys was "Military" rather than "Police".
The guys seems to have the 'Craft' logo on his cap. The latest conspiracy is that they are both Navy Seals.
What they are doing there if they are is another question. Security maybe?
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 17,114
- Location
- Shepley
Were there not a lot of other people there in military garb, presumably because of Patriots' Day?
So far, all the conspiracy stuff that keeps getting spouted has been wrong. It's a case for people looking for a conspiracy where there is none, then when they hit a fact that might be right... they latch onto it, claiming they "told you so". Total BS. (This is nothing against you btw.. just the paranoid people that write this crap).
But easy to miss when you are looking around a large crowd for a police officer with a hat, or a security guy in a high viz. Given that they were doing sweeps of the area, they could easily be part of that team. They have been dismissed as officials anyway.
No idea. I haven't looked into any of it really. I just followed a link trail from something someone posted on Facebook. There is a guy that has posted a picture of the guy that had his legs blown off saying that he is a well known 'Veteran' that had his legs blown off in service. No blood etc ...yada yada yada.
Typical tin foil hat stuff
No idea. I haven't looked into any of it really. I just followed a link trail from something someone posted on Facebook. There is a guy that has posted a picture of the guy that had his legs blown off saying that he is a well known 'Veteran' that had his legs blown off in service. No blood etc ...yada yada yada.
Typical tin foil hat stuff
Precisely the sort of thing I was referring to. They are making out it was all a stunt by the government, and not real. Ridiculous. The vet is a totally different guy to the one with his legs blown off. Maybe they are missing the bright red oxygenated blood that I see on the floor and all over the guy, this is not a damn movie set.
So you are saying I am not allowed to express my opinion that:
1) People although meaning to cause no offense may actually impede the progress of the eventual investigation.
2) People may wrongly label someone else as being involved which could have dire consequences?
3) That I personally find the rabid voyeuristic way people get over this disgusting even if I know the people mean no malice behind.
Because if I am not allowed then to say that then you should just permaban me now because I will continue to point those things out. And you either accept that some people don't like that and find it as offensive as you do me pointing it out or you quell such opinion and do as I suggested. Your choice.
Dont engage with that nonsense. This speculation is fun and interesting and I suppose a natural by-product of the increasing use of social media. Pretty soon the 'internet' will be analysing events way before the professionals are able to collect and collate things - although in all likelihood on a million different tangents. Who knows one day law enforcement might figure out a way to use that. But when we get to 'these guys might be CIA planting the bomb', its time to politely decline to engage.
No, you're absolutely allowed to express your opinion. However such replies as:
"Are you incapable of reading? Obviously so."
"Someone else with an inability to read. I quite clearly stated I expected he most likely meant no offense. Or did you just not bother reading that part"
"Deal with it."
Completely OTT responses and not needed for. There's plenty of other examples too.
no one has said you can't express an opinion, please point it out to me where you believe I have said this. I just said to keep the replies civil, which the above aren't.
By replying to me and looking for a fight within this thread is pulling it off topic. If you want to discuss further then my email address is within my trust profile.
In the second pic it looks like the Punisher logo.