Dentist almost has hand severed in Tesco in 'revenge for Lee Rigby' machete attack

First topic message reminder :

Zack Davies shouts 'white supremacy', 'this is revenge' and 'this is for Lee Rigby' as he attacks Dr Sarandev Bhambra in Mold supermarket, court hears.

A trainee dentist suffered life-changing injuries in a​ ​brutal and unprovoked racially-motivated attack at a Tesco store, a court heard. Dr Sarandev Bhambra, of Leeds, was working at Mold in North Wales and was attacked with a machete and a hammer while shopping one lunchtime. Defendant Zack Davies was said to be laughing and shouting "white supremacy", "this is revenge" and "this is for Lee Rigby" as he did so. The victim's hand was almost severed from his arm and he thought he was going to die, jurors were told. Dr Bhambra desperately tried to get away from the defendant and threw items from the shelves to try and trip him as he chased him with the weapons, the court heard.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11691707/Dentist-almost-has-hand-severed-in-Tesco-in-revenge-for-Lee-Rigby-machete-attack.html

Raggamuffin wrote:

The only reason the defense would raise this as to try and give reason to his motivation for anger.
Its a copout by the defense and you cannot see that.
If you do not like the fact you can be in error at times, that is your issue not mine.

Prosecuting barrister Sion ap Mihangel said the 26-year-old had gone out looking for his mother's boyfriend to attack him, but he could not find him.

Oh dear. Didge was in error.

That is fine happy to be wrong, which brings me back to the point.
What relevance does it have to attacking the Asian?

Zero

I do not being wrong rags on who stated this. It is again a claim made by the defendent which is as I say a deflection from his intent.

The point is that because you thought the defence had raised the issue of the boyfriend, and I also raised it, you used that to accuse me of defending Davies.

You were wrong - just admit it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

And?

Well you said it was a "copout" by the defence. You sure have a short memory.

It is a copout defence by the defendent from who the claim is made.

Is this all you have to hinge on?

Wow, you keep that small victory on who stated this, it still stands the claim comes from the defendent.

It again has no relevance to his attack on the victim

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well you said it was a "copout" by the defence. You sure have a short memory.

It is a copout defence by the defendent from who the claim is made.

Is this all you have to hinge on?

Wow, you keep that small victory on who stated this, it still stands the claim comes from the defendent.

It again has no relevance to his attack on the victim

You changed your tune ...

Who says the claim came from the defendant?

Raggamuffin wrote:The point is that because you thought the defence had raised the issue of the boyfriend, and I also raised it, you used that to accuse me of defending Davies.

You were wrong - just admit it.

I already admitted I was wrong who said it, but again the claim comes from the defendant and again you are using something that is trying to steer away his intent. On that I am not wrong because it has no relevance to his hate he has.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

It is a copout defence by the defendent from who the claim is made.

Is this all you have to hinge on?

Wow, you keep that small victory on who stated this, it still stands the claim comes from the defendent.

It again has no relevance to his attack on the victim

You changed your tune ...

Who says the claim came from the defendant?

He claimed it:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/white-supremacist-screamed-this-lee-5929392

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The point is that because you thought the defence had raised the issue of the boyfriend, and I also raised it, you used that to accuse me of defending Davies.

You were wrong - just admit it.

I already admitted I was wrong who said it, but again the claim comes from the defendant and again you are using something that is trying to steer away his intent. On that I am not wrong because it has no relevance to his hate he has.

Where does it say the claim came from the defendant?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You changed your tune ...

Who says the claim came from the defendant?

He claimed it:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/white-supremacist-screamed-this-lee-5929392

Oh, a new link eh? I bet you scurried around looking for that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

I already admitted I was wrong who said it, but again the claim comes from the defendant and again you are using something that is trying to steer away his intent. On that I am not wrong because it has no relevance to his hate he has.

Where does it say the claim came from the defendant?

 

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

He claimed it:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/white-supremacist-screamed-this-lee-5929392

Oh, a new link eh? I bet you scurried around looking for that.

Deflection again.
The defendant is claiming he went out to attack his mothers boyfriend.
It has no relevance to attacking the other man.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh, a new link eh? I bet you scurried around looking for that.

Deflection again.
The defendant is claiming he went out to attack his mothers boyfriend.
It has no relevance to attacking the other man.

It might have.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Where does it say the claim came from the defendant?

 

So in your first link, it said it came from the prosecution, and you got it wrong because you said it came from the defence. Then you scrabbled around to find a link where it said the defendant claimed it. What next? Will you say that little green men claimed it?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Deflection again.
The defendant is claiming he went out to attack his mothers boyfriend.
It has no relevance to attacking the other man.

It might have.

It has none.
He targetted by his own admission the Asian man.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

 

So in your first link, it said it came from the prosecution, and you got it wrong because you said it came from the defence. Then you scrabbled around to find a link where it said the defendant claimed it. What next? Will you say that little green men claimed it?

That shows poor reasoning on your part.
Where would the prosecution have got this information?
take your time.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So in your first link, it said it came from the prosecution, and you got it wrong because you said it came from the defence. Then you scrabbled around to find a link where it said the defendant claimed it. What next? Will you say that little green men claimed it?

That shows poor reasoning on your part.
Where would the prosecution have got this information?
take your time.

From anyone who knew - it's their job.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

That shows poor reasoning on your part.
Where would the prosecution have got this information?
take your time.

From anyone who knew - it's their job.

  

Priceless.
So not from the defendent who claimed this then?

Anyway, the defence haven't tried to use it as a defence as far as I can see.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

From anyone who knew - it's their job.

  

Priceless.
So not from the defendent who claimed this then?

The police maybe.

It's you who's making a big deal of it, after having said it was irrelevant.

Make up your mind.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, the defence haven't tried to use it as a defence as far as I can see.

The defendent has.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:



  

Priceless.
So not from the defendent who claimed this then?

The police maybe.

It's you who's making a big deal of it, after having said it was irrelevant.

Make up your mind.

  

In every report it states the defendent claims.
That means it can only come from the defendent.
Now who is being pedantic?
It has no relevance to him picking out the Asian and attacking him.

veya_victaous wrote:Dentist are useful members of society unlike a lot of people  Full kudos to Peter Fuller for preventing what would like have been fatal if he had not stood up to the mad man.

clearly deranged or indoctrinated with race hate.

I don't think the mother boyfriend thing is all that relevant.
It doesn't say in the the Op but wanna bet he is 'ethnic'

Wait, you trying to say that those of us who write about high schoolers playing sports aren't useful members of society?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The police maybe.

It's you who's making a big deal of it, after having said it was irrelevant.

Make up your mind.

  

In every report it states the defendent claims.
That means it can only come from the defendent.
Now who is being pedantic?
It has no relevance to him picking out the Asian and attacking him.

It didn't say that in the first link you posted.

It's disgusting that you're introducing red herrings in the wake of such an appalling attack.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

  

In every report it states the defendent claims.
That means it can only come from the defendent.
Now who is being pedantic?
It has no relevance to him picking out the Asian and attacking him.

It didn't say that in the first link you posted.

It's disgusting that you're introducing red herrings in the wake of such an appalling attack.

Oh behave with that poor tactic card.

It says it in every link.

Again he picked out the asian to attack and only through the prevention of an ex army chap, did the attack stop

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It didn't say that in the first link you posted.

It's disgusting that you're introducing red herrings in the wake of such an appalling attack.

Oh behave with that poor tactic card.

It says it in every link.

Again he picked out the asian to attack and only through the prevention of an ex army chap, did the attack stop

No it doesn't.

From your link:

Prosecuting barrister Sion ap Mihangel said the 26-year-old had gone out looking for his mother's boyfriend to attack him, but he could not find him.

Ugh. People who were witness to this likely have little motive to lie.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Oh behave with that poor tactic card.

It says it in every link.

Again he picked out the asian to attack and only through the prevention of an ex army chap, did the attack stop

No it doesn't.

From your link:

Prosecuting barrister Sion ap Mihangel said the 26-year-old had gone out looking for his mother's boyfriend to attack him, but he could not find him.

Yes every link.
As again where does the prosecution get their information from?
The defendent.
That is every link.
At no point has the prosecution invented this and at no point has others in any of the stories stated this news came from elsewhere.
Again you are being anal.

It doesn't say it in this link either:

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-06-22/supermarket-machete-attack-was-revenge-for-lee-rigby/

I guess between this and the South Carolina church shooting, we're at least seeing the racist nutters being honest about why they're committing violent crimes.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it doesn't.

From your link:

Yes every link.
As again where does the prosecution get their information from?
The defendent.
That is every link.
At no point has the prosecution invented this and at no point has others in any of the stories stated this news came from elsewhere.
Again you are being anal.

You're just trying to deflect from the mistake you made earlier, and now you're lying again.

You are a very stupid, ignorant man.

Raggamuffin wrote:It doesn't say it in this link either:

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-06-22/supermarket-machete-attack-was-revenge-for-lee-rigby/

Okay the majority of links, even that one has the prosecution say this which gets this from the defendent
Wow is this your only point.
Seriously you are so anally retentive.



Again all you are doing is deflecting the point at hand and trying to get out of your poor earlier point on this having relevance to the attack on the Asian.
It has none

Ben_Reilly wrote:I guess between this and the South Carolina church shooting, we're at least seeing the racist nutters being honest about why they're committing violent crimes.

Don't forget the attack on Lee Rigby.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It doesn't say it in this link either:

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-06-22/supermarket-machete-attack-was-revenge-for-lee-rigby/

Okay the majority of links.
Wow is this your only point.
Seriously you are so anally retentive.



Again all you are doing is deflecting the point at hand and trying to get out of your poor earlier point on this having relevance to the attack on the Asian.
It has none

It might have.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No it doesn't.

From your link:

Yes every link.
As again where does the prosecution get their information from?
The defendent.
That is every link.
At no point has the prosecution invented this and at no point has others in any of the stories stated this news came from elsewhere.
Again you are being anal.

You're just trying to deflect from the mistake you made earlier, and now you're lying again.

You are a very stupid, ignorant man.

Why would all the witnesses say this was the case if it wasn't so? Did they just make up what they heard the assailant saying?

Or is it part of some "evil witness conspiracy"?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Yes every link.
As again where does the prosecution get their information from?
The defendent.
That is every link.
At no point has the prosecution invented this and at no point has others in any of the stories stated this news came from elsewhere.
Again you are being anal.

You're just trying to deflect from the mistake you made earlier, and now you're lying again.

You are a very stupid, ignorant man.

Out comes the infantile insults because you want to deflect.
It was no real error when you think about it.
The prosecution got this from the defendent.
Now stop being pathetic and make your case for how you think its important here.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Okay the majority of links.
Wow is this your only point.
Seriously you are so anally retentive.



Again all you are doing is deflecting the point at hand and trying to get out of your poor earlier point on this having relevance to the attack on the Asian.
It has none

It might have.

Then make your case.
At no point have you made a case for any relevance here.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're just trying to deflect from the mistake you made earlier, and now you're lying again.

You are a very stupid, ignorant man.

Why would all the witnesses say this was the case if it wasn't so? Did they just make up what they heard the assailant saying?

Or is it part of some "evil witness conspiracy"?

What? This isn't about what witnesses saw, it's about Didge being a twat again.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It might have.

Then make your case.
At no point have you made a case for any relevance here.

We'll have to wait and see if he gives the reason he went out to attack his mother's boyfriend.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Why would all the witnesses say this was the case if it wasn't so? Did they just make up what they heard the assailant saying?

Or is it part of some "evil witness conspiracy"?

What? This isn't about what witnesses saw, it's about Didge being a twat again.

So again you avoid the questions with infantile insults and a very poor potty mouth.
What relevance does it have?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're just trying to deflect from the mistake you made earlier, and now you're lying again.

You are a very stupid, ignorant man.

Out comes the infantile insults because you want to deflect.
It was no real error when you think about it.
The prosecution got this from the defendent.
Now stop being pathetic and make your case for how you think its important here.

Yes there was. How do you know where the prosecution got it from?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I guess between this and the South Carolina church shooting, we're at least seeing the racist nutters being honest about why they're committing violent crimes.

Don't forget the attack on Lee Rigby.

Oh, so this is another of those tit-for-tat crimes? Oh, well I guess it's all fine, then ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Then make your case.
At no point have you made a case for any relevance here.

We'll have to wait and see if he gives the reason he went out to attack his mother's boyfriend.

Again that will have no relevance to him attacking the Asian man.
None

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What? This isn't about what witnesses saw, it's about Didge being a twat again.

So again you avoid the questions with infantile insults and a very poor potty mouth.
What relevance does it have?

Well now Ben's got it wrong too.

Are you two joined at the hip?

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

We'll have to wait and see if he gives the reason he went out to attack his mother's boyfriend.

Again that will have no relevance to him attacking the Asian man.
None

It might have.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Out comes the infantile insults because you want to deflect.
It was no real error when you think about it.
The prosecution got this from the defendent.
Now stop being pathetic and make your case for how you think its important here.

Yes there was. How do you know where the prosecution got it from?

Now who is being silly.
Do you understand what Police statements are?

Also, what did the defendent himself say why he attacked the Asian?

Then ask yourself what has that got to do with his mothers boyfriend?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Don't forget the attack on Lee Rigby.

Oh, so this is another of those tit-for-tat crimes? Oh, well I guess it's all fine, then ...

You're the one mentioning racist nutters, but you forgot to mention the racist nutters who killed Lee Rigby. Do you think they would have killed a black soldier?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Again that will have no relevance to him attacking the Asian man.
None

It might have.

Make your case as to why, I am not convinced by might

I guess since I believe George Zimmerman straight-up murdered Trayvon Martin, I should just go take that man's life. I expect Raggs would defend me.

Cuchulain wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It might have.

Make your case as to why, I am not convinced by might

I told you - we'll have to wait and see if he gives the reason he went out to attack his brother's boyfriend.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Oh, so this is another of those tit-for-tat crimes? Oh, well I guess it's all fine, then ...

You're the one mentioning racist nutters, but you forgot to mention the racist nutters who killed Lee Rigby. Do you think they would have killed a black soldier?

The man was a Nazi and a white supremacist, how much more racist can you get?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

Make your case as to why, I am not convinced by might

I told you - we'll have to wait and see if he gives the reason he went out to attack his brother's boyfriend.

Sorry that will not cut it.
You can surely give hypothetical reasons can you not?