Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

This is a blogpost of mine from May, so several months ago. But, it's worth re-posting. The fact that the ONLY other case from the entire history of police work that the criminal bpunk can cite is another political assassination tells you that police handcuff violent people as quickly and as promptly as they possibly can. They don't take them anywhere until they are cuffed. 

And, I am also motivated by having found this picture of Arthur Bremer in a police car.

That is one weird picture of Arthur Bremer. His look. His expression. I presume he is in some kind of restraint there. 

The truth is that when police are dealing with a violent person, to accomplish subduing him, neutralizing him, and rendering him impotent to do more harm, it comes down to one thing: getting him handcuffed. It is the first objective, and it is an overriding objective. They don't move him until they cuff him. Taking him somewhere is not the priority. Rendering him harmless is the priority. And they do that by putting him in handcuffs. 

There is NO excuse for what happened in the Dallas Police garage. There is no rational for it. There isn't even a theoretical basis by which, without any planning, policemen all synced on the idea of taking this violent offender into the jail office where they immediately handcuffed him, but which they easily could have done it in the garage. It's not as though getting his arms behind his back and the cuffs applied in the garage posed any problem whatsoever. There wasn't the slightest obstacle to doing it. And if their minds were going to non-verbally sync on anything, it would have been that: getting him handcuffed in the garage. That's the thing that they would have and should have done automatically without having to talk about it- not what they actually did. 

It is a bloodied smoking gun what they did. It proves complicity. You hear me, Punk? It proves complicity.

*      *      *        *       *       *        *       *       *      *       *       *      *

The stupid bpunkster. Of all the arrests that police have made, he finds it necessary to refer to another political assassination in order to come up with one in which the suspect was not handcuffed, that of Arthur Bremer, the alleged shooter of George Wallace. 

First, note that there is widespread discussion about Bremer being another Manchurian candidate, MK-ULTRA assassin, like Sirhan Sirhan and Mark David Chapman. So again, we're not talking about something that falls within the normal course of police work, are we. Here's a page from American USSR which discusses Bremer from that perspective.

http://www.americanussr.com/american-ussr-george-wallace.htm

You know, people get subdued by police every day. On a yearly basis, who knows how many tens of thousands it is. So, why does the Punk need to resort to another political assassination? What does that prove? It's the opposite of what this jerk thinks it does. 

But, let's go ahead and make a comparison between the arrest of Arthur Bremer and that of "Jack Ruby". I'm all for it. We'll start with this image.

  First, note that the quality of the footage is EXTREMELY bad, even by 1972 standards. But look above and you'll see something you never see in the Dallas Police Garage: a frontal view of the shooter's face. In Dallas, they were very careful not to show that. The Garage Shooter very conveniently wore a hat, and he wore it low. Then we got back views and side views but absolutely no front views and not even any partially front views. Even though there were cameras shooting from every possible angle, nobody caught his face. So, that's the first thing. Then, notice how low Bremer is. He's on the ground there. He is not on his feet. He is either sitting or kneeling on the ground. He is off his feet. And that's a position that the Garage Shooter was NEVER put in. He remained on his feet all the time in that garage. He was scurried away on his feet. He was never put down on the ground like Arthur Bremer. 

Alright, so he's down on the ground, and the cops are really restraining him. From here, they put him in a police car. But, do you really think that they stood him and did that without cuffing him first? As I said, the film is of such poor quality that you can't visualize it, and there's little that you can visualize. But, it would be very strange if they stood him up from here without cuffing him.

Here's a cop with a choke-hold around Bremer. Do you really think that after that they released him to put him in a police car without cuffing him?

Hey, Punk! I know you're stupid, but try to get it into your head that it does you no good to refer to another orchestrated State shooting. If you get pulled over for smoking too much peyote, and you don't pass the sobriety test, even if you're perfectly docile and cooperative, if they arrest you, they are going to put you in cuffs. And if you pull a gun, getting handcuffed will be the least of your worries. I'm talking about the real world, not the world of political assassinations. Which is not to say that the assassinations aren't real, but the stories they tell of them are not. And frankly, I don't know of any exceptions to that: JFK, MLK, RFK, George Wallace (though he survived, permanently impaired) John Lennon, Ronald Reagan (though he survived and recovered fully). I should add Vince Foster to the list. I think I will. I just did. Consider it done. 

At least we got to see Arthur Bremer's face, which is more than we can say of Jack Ruby during his so-called commission of murder. And it's more than we can say of James Bookhout for the entire JFK assassination and for the rest of his long life. The only images we have of him are from school yearbooks- and they were all altered, every single one.