George Nkencho shooting *Mod warning Added to OP*

Annasopra

Kraftwerk wrote: »

It's been established that the reports and witness accounts indicate it was a large knife which would (by your own logic) show him to be very violent and justify the actions of the Gardai. Yet you're now changing your angle and digging in to claim the "machete" thing was manufactured to push a narrative.

Of course it was used to push a narrative. There were numerous posts in this thread at the beginning hopping up and down about a machete showing us images and distinguishing between a knife and a machete.

Lumen

Kraftwerk wrote: »

You said earlier that it was important to know because a machete means he was very violent and the Gardai were correct to act as they did but a butter knife would imply they weren't correct.

It's been established that the reports and witness accounts indicate it was a large knife. Yet you're now changing your angle and digging in to claim the "machete" thing was manufactured to push a narrative.

You've clearly got an agenda or narrative of your own here and are being disingenuous about only seeking clarity to understand if the Gardai were justified or not.

I'm not sure anyone in this thread has defended George. If you can find a clear example of that I'd like to see it. Neither has anyone that I recall been critical of the Garda response except those wishing that they'd intervened more strongly against the protestors.

What's happened is people critical of those attacking the Gardai on social media have dragged in posts from Twitter etc including references to butterknives and machetes.

tayto lover

tayto lover wrote: »

If it’s me you’re referring to then I’ll spell it out for you.

This is not a racist country.
People from all over the world have been welcomed here and looked after.
If they come and constantly whinge and complain about our country or our laws then they have the options -
(a) Leave - flights are cheap.
(b) stay but stop whinging and complaining and obey our laws.

Simple as that.

Ok, you said the ryanair quote in response to someone complaining about the lack of voting options for those who are concerned about recent events/trends.

I guess you meant something else.

enricoh

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The goal of my argument was to question the "fact" being presented he had a machete. We saw earlier on in the thread how the narrative of having a machete was used to paint and portray him as more violent and of course as others have pointed out it also has racist connotations and overtones. It seems to me that the machete story was manufactured in order to present false narratives, in order to paint and portray a certain picture. Its a perfectly reasonable point to discuss. Noone has presented any proof of a machete but have tried to claim it as "fact". Its interesting though that when I question the narratives that there is a pileon onto me with all sorts of name calling.

Yeah and his 30 odd previous convictions are being used to paint and portray him in a bad light too, it's disgusting!

nullzero

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course it was used to push a narrative. There were numerous posts in this thread at the beginning hopping up and down about a machete showing us images and distinguishing between a knife and a machete.

Again Joey, if it was a large knife and not a machete, was he within his rights to use it in the way he did?

Lumen

enricoh wrote: »

Yeah and his 30 odd previous convictions are being used to paint and portray him in a bad light too, it's disgusting!

I'm fairly sure that the (unevidenced) references were to 30 court appearances, not convictions.

Again, do you have any evidence of either?

Acosta

enricoh wrote: »

Yeah and his 30 odd previous convictions are being used to paint and portray him in a bad light too, it's disgusting!

Where did the ''30 previous convictions'' thing come from? I'm not saying it's not true, but I would like to know the source.

Kraftwerk

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Of course it was used to push a narrative. There were numerous posts in this thread at the beginning hopping up and down about a machete showing us images and distinguishing between a knife and a machete.

So why did you reduce your argument to "it matters because if its a machete it's serious if its a butter knife it's not"?

We've established its not a butter knife and it was a large knife. Are you now claiming that attacking people with a large knife is not serious? Or are you admitting to lying about why you wanted to know if it was verified that it was a machete?

nullzero

Lumen wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that the (unevidenced) references were to 30 court appearances, not convictions.

Again, do you have any evidence of either?

Because you know how easy it is to have 30 odd court appearances whilst having never committed a single crime, it could happen to a bishop.

walshb

Acosta wrote: »

Where did the ''30 previous convictions'' thing come from? I'm not saying it's not true, but I would like to know the source.

I have seen no official reports, but did hear 32 convictions.

TheChizler

Machete implies he had the compos mentis to go out and source one and plan an attack, or at least feeds into the narrative that he was a violent individual in general by virtue of possessing one at home. Maybe he was but let the evidence from reputable sources prove that rather than insuinate it by inventing detail.
Whereas if it was a kitchen knife or something common it has less of these connotations, it's more opportunistic, not necessarily planned, something every one of us has access to. He might well have planned it but the type of weapon doesn't insinuate anything.
We know for a fact he had a knife, can we just call it a knife (or even a large knife) and not try to paint a narrative by adding detail there is no evidence for?

tayto lover

nullzero wrote: »

Again Joey, if it was a large knife and not a machete, was he within his rights to use it in the way he did?

It doesn’t make any difference what kind of dangerous weapon it was.
He refused to drop it and swung at the Garda with it.
He gave them no alternative.
That stupid decision cost him his life.

nullzero

punisher5112 wrote: »

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/lockdown-shopping-ireland-garda-gangs-19551977


Is this the start of their war on Ireland and the white people?
Sort of fitting as the gang's love this clothing even though imo it looks absolutely cringe worthy.

There's plenty of indigenous scumbags who wear those jackets.

That shop was always going to get hit. Court scum and that's what happens.

nullzero

TheChizler wrote: »

Machete implies he had the compos mentis to go out and source one and plan an attack, or at least feeds into the narrative that he was a violent individual in general by virtue of possessing one at home. Maybe he was but let the evidence from reputable sources prove that rather than insuinate it by inventing detail.
Whereas if it was a kitchen knife or something common it has less of these connotations, it's more opportunistic, not necessarily planned, something every one of us has access to. He might well have planned it but the type of weapon doesn't insinuate anything.
We know for a fact he had a knife, can we just call it a knife (or even a large knife) and not try to paint a narrative by adding detail there is no evidence for?

Waffle.

A large knife can kill as efficiently as any other implement.

The fact that we took the knife from his home and walked to the shop and back shows premeditation and intent.

punisher5112

nullzero wrote: »

Waffle.

A large knife can kill as efficiently as any other implement.

The fact that we took the knife from his home and walked to the shop and back shows premeditation and intent.

A sharpened tooth brush can kill also as could a rock or a person's fist....

This 27 year old man made his choice and won a special prize.

Lumen

Kraftwerk wrote: »

So why did you reduce your argument to "it matters because if its a machete it's serious if its a butter knife it's not"?

We've established its not a butter knife and it was a large knife. Are you now claiming that attacking people with a large knife is not serious? Or are you admitting to lying about why you wanted to know if it was verified that it was a machete?

The reason that a machete is explicitly defined in law as an offensive weapon (see the link I posted a couple of pages back) is that it is not considered that a person could have a reasonable excuse for carrying one in a public place.

It makes little practical difference if I'm running towards armed gardai carrying either, but if I'm simply in possession of one in public then there is absolutely a difference in law, because there is no defence for the machete, whereas there are defences for carrying a kitchen knife.

At least that's my understanding of the law, but I'm happy to have that improved.

JeffKenna

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The goal of my argument was to question the "fact" being presented he had a machete. We saw earlier on in the thread how the narrative of having a machete was used to paint and portray him as more violent and of course as others have pointed out it also has racist connotations and overtones. It seems to me that the machete story was manufactured in order to present false narratives, in order to paint and portray a certain picture. Its a perfectly reasonable point to discuss. Noone has presented any proof of a machete but have tried to claim it as "fact". Its interesting though that when I question the narratives that there is a pileon onto me with all sorts of name calling.

How are you coming out with this nonsense when you were spinning (in the guise of a question) that it was a butter knife. I mean like talk about a manufactured story. Then when people called you out on this you suddenly claim people are piling onto you with all sort of name calling.

Samsonsmasher

TheChizler wrote: »

Machete implies he had the compos mentis to go out and source one and plan an attack, or at least feeds into the narrative that he was a violent individual in general by virtue of possessing one at home. Maybe he was but let the evidence from reputable sources prove that rather than insuinate it by inventing detail.
Whereas if it was a kitchen knife or something common it has less of these connotations, it's more opportunistic, not necessarily planned, something every one of us has access to. He might well have planned it but the type of weapon doesn't insinuate anything.
We know for a fact he had a knife, can we just call it a knife (or even a large knife) and not try to paint a narrative by adding detail there is no evidence for?

He was armed with a knife and video of the shooting shows him swinging it at Gardaí who had their guns pointed at him forcing them to open fire.
It was justified 100%

Kraftwerk

TheChizler wrote: »

Machete implies he had the compos mentis to go out and source one and plan an attack, or at least feeds into the narrative that he was a violent individual in general by virtue of possessing one at home. Maybe he was but let the evidence from reputable sources prove that rather than insuinate it by inventing detail.
Whereas if it was a kitchen knife or something common it has less of these connotations, it's more opportunistic, not necessarily planned, something every one of us has access to. He might well have planned it but the type of weapon doesn't insinuate anything.
We know for a fact he had a knife, can we just call it a knife (or even a large knife) and not try to paint a narrative by adding detail there is no evidence for?

I don't think there's any difference. You don't stick a machete or large kitchen knife in your pocket to go to the shop unless you are expecting to use it to threaten, intimidate or injure someone. And he used it, both to threaten staff after assaulting them and to attempt to injure/kill a Guard.

Machete/meat cleaver/large kitchen knife makes no difference whatsoever the intent and result are the same.

doublejobbing 2

Deleted User wrote: »

I can only presume you say that to immigrants who don't like it here.

To be fair I'd apply that one to Irish people who love moaning about what aspects of our culture or society are apparently inferior to France/ Germany/ Spain et al.

TheChizler

nullzero wrote: »

Waffle.

A large knife can kill as efficiently as any other implement.

The fact that we took the knife from his home and walked to the shop and back shows premeditation and intent.

Sure it implies he had intent in that moment, but it says nothing about any other moment before that which is my point.

punisher5112

nullzero wrote: »

There's plenty of indigenous scumbags who wear those jackets.

That shop was always going to get hit. Court scum and that's what happens.

North Face will most likely get hit also so, or do they have a store?

punisher5112

punisher5112 wrote: »

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/dublin-news/lockdown-shopping-ireland-garda-gangs-19551977


Is this the start of their war on Ireland and the white people?
Sort of fitting as the gang's love this clothing even though imo it looks absolutely cringe worthy.

What does this have to do with a war on ireland?
Seriously, you're just trying to cause a race war yourself with this rubbish

not yet

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Is there people seriously suggesting the deceased had nothing more dangerous than a butter knife on his person? There is several videos circulating and no I won’t be linking them. If what I have seen is a butter knife it bears a striking resemblance to a machete. Cop on.

Yes, they are. Unfortunately this is the narrative continually pushed by Ebun and others. The thinking is actually quite clever. Ignore the facts, constantly push untruths and a large portion of the population may believe you.

Samsonsmasher

TheChizler wrote: »

Sure it implies he had intent in that moment, but it says nothing about any other moment before that which is my point.

The only moment that counts is the moment of the shooting. The knife was in his hand and he was trying to attacked armed Gardaí with it.
He was justifiably killed.
It's that simple.

JeffKenna

not yet wrote: »

Yes, they are. Unfortunately this is the narrative continually pushed by Ebun and others. The thinking is actually quite clever. Ignore the facts, constantly push untruths and a large portion of the population may believe you.

Amazing, who would have guessed they'd be so similar to Trump.

Infini

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Is there people seriously suggesting the deceased had nothing more dangerous than a butter knife on his person? There is several videos circulating and no I won’t be linking them. If what I have seen is a butter knife it bears a striking resemblance to a machete. Cop on.

Honestly it's just bullshít and excuses by the race baiters and cancer media asshats atm, if he had a lousy butter knife they wouldn't have needed a gun, smashing his face with their fist would've done the job. He had a knife, weather it was a dagger or machete it makes little difference as it was a deadly weapon, he refused to drop it, refused to comply and in fact tried to attack them. That's the decision that got him killed, his decision to attack with intent to harm.

By forcing the guards hand he forfeited his own life. His death was his own making and all those out there looking to make any sort of excuses otherwise are just wasting oxygen and time to soothe their own egos. Stupid decisions have consequences and trying to turn this into a race war will just turn people against them as noone has time for ideological bullshít in this country.

Lumen

Kraftwerk wrote: »

I don't think there's any difference. You don't stick a machete or large kitchen knife in your pocket to go to the shop unless you are expecting to use it to threaten, intimidate or injure someone. And he used it, both to threaten staff after assaulting them and to attempt to injure/kill a Guard.

Machete/meat cleaver/large kitchen knife makes no difference whatsoever the intent and result are the same.

How many times does this need to be spelled out?

Here, I'll highlight it for you in an FAQ.

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/FAQ#:~:text=Offensive%20weapons%20include%20flick-knives,%2C%20sap%20gloves%2C%20and%20machetes.

What are Offensive Weapons?
Offensive weapons include flick-knives, knuckledusters, swordsticks, sword umbrellas, hand and foot claws, belt buckle knives, pushdaggers, hollow kubotans, shurikens, butterfly knives, telescopic truncheons, blowpipes, kusari gama, kyoketsu shoge, manrikigusari, sap gloves, and machetes.

Kraftwerk

Lumen wrote: »

The reason that a machete is explicitly defined in law as an offensive weapon (see the link I posted a coyote of pages back) is that it is not considered that a person could have a reasonable excuse for carrying one in a public place.

It makes little practical difference if I'm running towards armed gardai carrying either, but if I'm simply in possession of one in public then there is absolutely a difference in law, because there is no defence for the machete, whereas there are defences for carrying a kitchen knife.

At least that's my understanding of the law, but I'm happy to have that improved.

You're talking about being stopped and found in possession of a machete/kitchen knife though. That's not what happened here.

His reason for having the knife are clear from his actions. He used it to threaten staff in a shop where he assaulted staff and used it to attack the Gardai when they arrived. He used it as a weapon to commit crimes. Large knife/machete in this instance is irrelevant as far as the law is concerned.

nullzero

TheChizler wrote: »

Sure it implies he had intent in that moment, but it says nothing about any other moment before that which is my point.

What are you talking about?

This is not a moment. This was a man taking a weapon from his house to the local shop and back and not putting it down once.

His intent was to take the weapon and use it.
He was repeatedly told to put it down and attempted to attack the Gardai telling him to put it down.

What more evidence of intent is required?