Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The shootings in France [Merged]
- Thread starter junior
- Start date
Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ
Hove / Παρος
But they are linking it to the FAILED carjacking of a FORD FIESTA, and the successful carjacking of a PEUGOT 205.
I think it is bizarre for the police to make that link, as surely if you're capable of shooting an entire family to death, you would not be interested in targeting such low value cars.
34064 Fighter Command
New member
You've misread the scentence, perhaps I've not made it clear. Assume they were after the car, then they would have been told to get out at gunpoint and left at the side of the road. If they'd refused then the assailant would have two options.
a) Kill them and abandon the robbery - look for another target. The cars no use as stolen goods once it's covered in blood.
b) Scarper hoping that they would not be caught - close enough to the German and Swiss border to do this possibly.
So what he's done is the former, but my point is that he was NOT after the car, because he could have identified another time (the middle of the night when it's parked up and empty) to take it. That's how a criminals mind works, make sure you get away with it and cannot be caught - don't leave any evidence. Shoot them, and you've left a whole trail of evidence. He'd be covered in blood for a start, and ballistics will be able to identify the weapon, the first job is to find the weapon, and trace back the route that it was obtained by the criminal. then you have a chance of identifying who posessed that weapon. He'd have to have a vehicle to get away, and an accomplice to take the stolen vehicle too. So then your looking for reports of unusual vehicle movements, being driven at high speed, vehicles being abandoned or switched. If the Police are linking this to other car jackings, that's the assailant in this case switching vehicles to make his escape route hard to track, not because they're other vehicles being stolen.
Why SPECIFICALLY rob them, rather than someone else staying on the campsite. Normal people on holiday don't have anything valuable to take. Especially if they're staying in a tent FFS !!! There's nowhere secure to keep it. If you're on holiday you don't empty your house of expensive items and take them with you - no need to. It's advertising yourself to criminals that your an easy target, how many times are we told not to keep valuable items in hotel rooms, or left in cars unattended? And if they have been robbed, then why shoot them afterwards - it just doesn't add up like that. And it certainly doesn't explain why a passer by has been shot.
If he planned to rob them, again, he could have done this at the campsite, during the night, with little or no chance of detection - doing it out on the open road with the possibility of witnesses is too risky for robbery to be solely the motive. It's not as if cars are that uncommon, or that difficult to steal is it? There's no logic to this crime being pure and simply a robbery, they've ( the persons ) been specifically identified as a target, and not specifically the vehicle.
Last edited:
Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ
Hove / Παρος
That's a fair point, may have been an old BMW model
But the Peugot 205 ceased production in 1998 - in England they're worth £300-£400
I really can't believe that the same armed gang would go through the trouble of stealing that kind of car...
StillHateBellotti
Active member
= Something very fishy about why this has taken place. It's definitely not a robbery because they were after the car - there's another aspect to this that's as yet unknown.[/QUOTE]
If they were after the car and used force in order to steal it, it would be a Robbery. All be it an armed robbery that ended in Murder. Anyhow the leading offence now will be Murder............... That is presuming the french law is in some way slightly similar to ours...........
If they were after the car and used force in order to steal it, it would be a Robbery. All be it an armed robbery that ended in Murder. Anyhow the leading offence now will be Murder............... That is presuming the french law is in some way slightly similar to ours...........
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
Surely your first thought is to go to the aid of the shooting victims, not hunting 15 spent cartridges which lets face it may have taken a while to find! and would have been found anyhow in the subsequent forensic evaluation of the scene!
I think the point he was making is that given that at least 15 shots were fired, it is likely that the victims were visibly deceased, without the need for significant examination.
Surely your first thought is to go to the aid of the shooting victims, not hunting 15 spent cartridges which lets face it may have taken a while to find! and would have been found anyhow in the subsequent forensic evaluation of the scene!
That wasn't my point. My (grim) thought was that if 15 rounds had been fired at close range, at three victims, then those poor victims would not need very close inspection to establish that they were beyond help.
Gullys Cats
Sausage by the sea!!!
Bonjour!
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
There is so much wrong with this post. Starting with the fact that you have decided the assailant was one individual male.
Have you not considered that this could have just been opportunism, rather than assuming there must be a reason for that location, and those victims? why must there be?
If whoever did this was a professional, as you say, would they not have retrieved the cartridges which can later be used to identify the weapon?
You suggested earlier that maybe the passer by was killed because they were a witness, but would they kill a witness, and then leave other evidence at the scene? Sounds to me like the person responsible was either mental or stupid, or both. Not the characteristics of a competent career killer.
StillHateBellotti
Active member
Don't disagree at all, just thought that if they were shot in the vehicle then someone would have to check the bodies, irrelevent of whether it was obvious they were dead. you can't just say someone is dead without having checked for vital signs. If you did that here you would get ripped to shreds in coroners court.....
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
Once it is clear they are dead, even without close examination, the next concern is to preserve the crime scene and the evidence. They will not go in a take pulses when they know, they can see, that all the victims are dead. They would have to disturb the crime scene.
Although I understand where you are coming from, I don't want to be crass, but there are conditions that you could find someone in, in which you would know there is no point trying for a pulse.
brighton_girl87
New member
- Jul 18, 2006
- 2,319
I really think if it was a car-jacking, the second the assailant flashed their gun the family surely would have just let them have the car? There is no way you would put you family at risk for the sake of a car.
LE19
New member
Might be a mistake to assume there is any "logic" to this at all?
34064 Fighter Command
New member
100% this. If you have kids, they're potential hostages, and the last thing you want is their lives being threatened. The first thought is what's more valuable to me , a car, or my kids. You'd give up the car, 100 times out of 100.
So the question has to be asked again, why specifically this family, in this location, at this time. And why kill an innocent bystander. Put yourself in the assailants position, and ask yourself, why do I do this and expose myself to such a huge level of 'Heat' for a crappy car, when there are better times and places to nick one. The stakes in this crime are higher than just car theft.
Why are you refusing to see the possibility that it is simply the actions of a deranged shooter?
Hillian1
( . ) ( . )
Or a bungled car-jacking.
34064 Fighter Command
New member
A competent killer has means to destroy a weapon, not just by cutting it up, but by melting it down so that it no longer exists - or losing it somewhere where it will never be found ( like the bottom of a very deep lake for example ). And what is Annency right next to?
If that's their plan, that's pretty smart, certainly not stupid. And if they go over the Swiss border then owning a gun is NOT suspicious, most Swiss have a gun AT HOME as part of their National Service requirements and civil defence duties ( but they're not allowed to keep ammunition at home ). It would be quite easy to dispose of it amongst the general level of gun ownership, assuming it is the right make and model used by the Swiss . There are probably any number of people who can reduce it to it's component parts, once that's been done, it can be put it in a machine tool, and reduced to swarf in minutes. So the expertise to obtain a gun, use a gun as a lethal weapon, and then 'lose' it is easier in Switzerland than it would be over here, say. Recreational shooting in Switzerland is not only comon, but encouraged, so a lot of people know what handling a gun is like. Estimates put the number of firearms in Swiss homes at between 1.2 and 3 million. It's a very different culture.
That's why when you go to Switzerland, they get extremely jumpy at immigration - they are acutely aware that anyone wanting to obtain a firearm is likely to be making a beeline in their direction, and take especial care to search and frisk you on entering and leaving the Country. They'll want to look in your car, they'll ask you questions about where your going and where your staying, they want to keep tabs on you.
Last edited: