Time to be worried...

"JacobH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Rory Manton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "JacobH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> One 'mistake' is one too many, the next one could be you. I have yet to hear a
>>> plausible explanation of why it was necessary to shoot an arrested suspect 9
>>> times in the head, I'm not sure we've yet been told 'sorry it was a mistake',
>>> mostly it has been 'it wasn't my fault.'
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> You shoot somebody 9 times in the head because it kills them, outright, no
>> messing about with a wounded suspect who may be about to detonate a large,
>> or small bomb and blow innocent bystanders to bits, One death , lots of
>> deaths you call it.
>
> I agree with your analysis, my main difficulty is that the gentleman had already
> been restrained ie arrested. He was therefore shot whilst in custody. I regret I
> am unable to reconcile that.
> I don't care, I do not allow the police force in my country to kill innocent
> people, for that is what they are, for whatever reason. Come to that Neither do
> I allow them to kill guilty people!!
> End of discussion!!

Sorry didn't mean I wouldn't continue to discuss the subject just end of
contribution. Sometimes wish we used the Merkin 'period' meaning at's it!

>
>> I think that the Police did what was necessary to protect innocent people.
>> Given the heightened state of alert, the fact that the person ran when
>> challenged( and don't give me that crap about being a foreigner who didn't
>> understand a police challenge, he had been here for some time) the Police on
>> the ground did the right thing . Questions raised by the shooting should be
>> directed at the government who let so many civil liberties of the majority
>> go to pot by pandering to minorities with in the country who wish to flout
>> the law.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

On or around Sun, 25 Dec 2005 20:19:19 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2005-12-25, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> yeah, but if I were planning a heist, I'd hunt say a white mondeo,
>> then put different plates on it to confuse the plot more, but which
>> bleong to a differetn white mondeo..
>
>Not quite sure what you mean, but I'd copy the plates off another car
>and then knacker it somehow to make sure it wouldn't be driven, then
>drive around in an identical car with non-stolen legitimate status
>registered to someone other than me. Then try not to do anything
>suspicious to attract attention, such as rob a bank or something like
>that!

if you start off by stealing a car (yer not exactly going to use a traceable
one for robbing a bank, after all), 's a fair bet that it's been reported
stolen and someone might be on the lookout for it. However, if you steal a
car and then fit numbers form another similar car which ain't stolen, it
only become suspicious if the 2 are side by side.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic
face by frightening people in the street.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.

Rory Manton said:

"JacobH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> One 'mistake' is one too many, the next one could be you. I have yet to
> hear a plausible explanation of why it was necessary to shoot an arrested
> suspect 9 times in the head, I'm not sure we've yet been told 'sorry it
> was a mistake', mostly it has been 'it wasn't my fault.'


>


Y

I think that the Police did what was necessary to protect innocent people.
Given the heightened state of alert, the fact that the person ran when
challenged)
>

Click to expand...

so is it now a capitalaffence to run from the cops? gawd help the apple scrumpers

"JacobH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:don8os$s39

>> End of discussion!!
>
> Sorry didn't mean I wouldn't continue to discuss the subject just end of
> contribution. Sometimes wish we used the Merkin 'period' meaning at's it!



Not a problem, I do enjoy the cut and thrust of a good discussion. If we all
thought the same what a dull world it would be.

On 2005-12-25, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

> No, A deadman's switch relies on some one NOT pressing it, can be set to
> go off on RELEASE

Hmm, somewhat contradictory there, releasing a not-pressed button.
Interesting concept.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On or around Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:35:59 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2005-12-25, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> No, A deadman's switch relies on some one NOT pressing it, can be set to
>> go off on RELEASE
>
>Hmm, somewhat contradictory there, releasing a not-pressed button.
>Interesting concept.

traditionally, you have a springloaded trigger which you hold closed, rather
like a grenade handle, which releases when you die.

but as pointed out elsewhere in the fred, these days it could be almost
anything.

Going back to the thing about the bloke - they challenged, and he ran, and
they chased him all through a tube station and down to the platform and onto
a train, and *then* shot him. If they were any good, they'd have shot him
to disable him long before he got to the tube train - if he HAD had a bomb
on a deadman trigger, it'd have done far more damage down there than in the
street. So even by the lights of what they were allegedly trying to do,
they didn't do much of a job.

Basically, if we're going to have armed police officers as a habit they need
MUCH better training.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)

You can make one more sophisticated than that, from what is easily
available, a hert monitor that will trigger the device if your hert stops
beating for a set period of time.

There is no end to human ingenuity.


--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes


"Ian Rawlings" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2005-12-25, Paul S. Brown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> The policy was taken on advise from Israeli police, who have a fair
> old record of dealing with such things, which is why they listen to
> them and not us. I suspect the idea is that you need to make sure
> they're really, totally, not messing about dead so that they can't
> trigger their bomb as they croak. The deadman's switch relies on the
> person pressing it before they're dead, and the best way to make sure
> of that is to pounce on them and kill them as fast as possible, hence
> the policy. Not foolproof but the Israeli police seem to have found
> that it's the best thing to do in a bad situation.
>
> Unfortunately it doesn't leave much room for error, as was seen.
>
..
>
> Seems to be the case!
>
> --
> Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

On 2005-12-26, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> traditionally, you have a springloaded trigger which you hold closed, rather
> like a grenade handle, which releases when you die.
>
> but as pointed out elsewhere in the fred, these days it could be almost
> anything.

Yes, I'm aware of the technical possibilities, having worked on marine
electronics, robotics, cars and being a general computer geek first
and foremost.

I couldn't be bothered to respond to his post properly being as he'd
taken the original "deadman's switch" meaning and stuffed it full of
anything that seemed to be laying around. He then went on to do the
usual fuzzy thinker's favourite of saying that anything at all from an
organisation, the Israeli army in this instance, can't be relied upon
because of specific mistakes.

Law of diminishing returns and all that. Can't have a reasonable
argument with an unreasonable man. Don't argue with an idiot as he
will drag you down to his level and beat you through experience etc etc.

> Going back to the thing about the bloke - they challenged, and he
> ran, and they chased him all through a tube station and down to the
> platform and onto a train, and *then* shot him.

Initial news reports stated that he was challenged and ran, but later
reports said that this had been shown to be false after CCTV evidence
had been shown to contradict almost everything eye-witnesses had said,
including the padded jacket that he wasn't actually wearing. He'd
apparently walked to the platform, run onto the train as it was about
to pull away, then been jumped on and shot by police officers who
quite probably had just been told to tackle that chap without knowing
that the intelligence was totally flawed.

Here's an exerpt from a BBC website page on the differences between
the initial reports and later evidence:

"CCTV footage is said to show the man walking at normal pace into the
station, picking up a copy of a free newspaper and apparently passing
through the barriers before descending the escalator to the platform
and running to a train.

He boarded a Tube train, paused, looking left and right, and sat in a
seat facing the platform.

The eyewitness has subsequently told a newspaper that the man he saw
vaulting the barrier must have been a police officer."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158832.stm

Some people tackle me from time to time for being a "wooly liberal"
(which I'm not) because I rarely like to make up my mind on a
subject of national discussion. The reason for this is because I
know full well that all you can be certain of when reading reports
about any event is that you're only getting a small part of the story,
and might be getting total fabrication, intended or not. The BBC page
above might be based on misinformation, it might not, and we're never
likely to know as we're not directly involved. This is why I usually
pepper what I say with "apparently", "a report said", "according to"
etc rather than "this happened", "that happened".

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

Ian Rawlings wrote:

> I couldn't be bothered to respond to his post properly being as he'd
> taken the original "deadman's switch" meaning and stuffed it full of
> anything that seemed to be laying around. He then went on to do the
> usual fuzzy thinker's favourite of saying that anything at all from an
> organisation, the Israeli army in this instance, can't be relied upon
> because of specific mistakes.

A deadman's switch is any action that is taken on the failure to provide
an input. Any "failsafe" system implements the function whatever you
term it. I illustrate why the reflex police apologist's reply "They had
to kill him properly to make sure he couldn't press the trigger" is just
bollocks, whoever told them it was a good idea.

So, how many "specific mistakes" does it take to become evidence of
something systematic ? When does something move from cock-up to conspiracy ?

Steve

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:35:59 +0000, Ian Rawlings
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
>>On 2005-12-25, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> No, A deadman's switch relies on some one NOT pressing it, can be set to
>>> go off on RELEASE
>>
>>Hmm, somewhat contradictory there, releasing a not-pressed button.
>>Interesting concept.
>
> traditionally, you have a springloaded trigger which you hold closed, rather
> like a grenade handle, which releases when you die.
>
> but as pointed out elsewhere in the fred, these days it could be almost
> anything.
>
> Going back to the thing about the bloke - they challenged, and he ran, and
> they chased him all through a tube station and down to the platform and onto
> a train, and *then* shot him.

All hearsay! Not given in edivence in a court of law!

In the hearsay I heard, the gentleman was tackled by one officer and restrained
whilst a second shot him 9 that's nine times!
Sorry, not acceptable!


If they were any good, they'd have shot him
> to disable him long before he got to the tube train - if he HAD had a bomb
> on a deadman trigger, it'd have done far more damage down there than in the
> street. So even by the lights of what they were allegedly trying to do,
> they didn't do much of a job.
>
> Basically, if we're going to have armed police officers as a habit they need
> MUCH better training.
> --
> Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
> Beyond the horizon of the place we lived when we were young / In a world
> of magnets and miracles / Our thoughts strayed constantly and without
> boundary / The ringing of the Division bell had begun. Pink Floyd (1994)



--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!

>if you start off by stealing a car (yer not exactly going to use a traceable
>one for robbing a bank, after all), 's a fair bet that it's been reported
>stolen and someone might be on the lookout for it. However, if you steal a
>car and then fit numbers form another similar car which ain't stolen, it
>only become suspicious if the 2 are side by side.

It would be extremely easy for someone to hire a very anonymous
Vauxhall or similar from the local hire shop in my name. They need a
clone of my credit card and driving licence, nothing else. Quite
commonplace crime I believe.

A week's hire would be very normal and arouse no suspicion at all. I'd
be aware it happened at the end of the month when the credit card
statement arrived - maybe...

--
Tim Hobbs

I don't think anyone elses landie looks quite like mine, should be easy to
prove from the pictures that it was not mine. Best thing to do if you are
worried is have a unique paint job, then again, it is the police burden to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were the driver, remember Gerald
Nabarro ?

Again I think the internet could prove that I was at home when I say I am at
home from email logs.

--
Larry
Series 3 rust and holes





"Dave Liquorice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 10:40:23 -0000, Nige wrote:
>
> > If you're doing nothing wrong, why worry.
>
> I agree to some extent but what if some scum bag put your plates on a
> similar car? After all that is the obvious thing to do.
>
> It'll be your problem to prove that you wern't where the ANPR system
> says you were. Those with a family or hectic social lives might be in
> with a chance but how about the many single people living alone, who
> can't afford to socialise 24/7...?
>
> --
> Cheers [email protected]
> Dave. pam is missing e-mail
>
>
>

Steve came up with the following;:
> Paul - xxx wrote:
>>> The scary thing is the bastards might have shot you before they realise
>>> they have made "a mistake", on the basis of the electronic intelligence
>>> they have received
>>
>> Yeah, 'cos that happens every day, doesn't it? Get real.
>>
>
> So, on how many days will you permit it, and what happens if its you or
> yours next time ? Carrying a bag of suspicious looking ----table legs ?

How many times has that happened? How many people in UK?

WTF has this to do with Landrovers?

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!

Paul - xxx wrote:
> Steve came up with the following;:
>> Paul - xxx wrote:
>>>> The scary thing is the bastards might have shot you before they
>>>> realise they have made "a mistake", on the basis of the electronic
>>>> intelligence they have received
>>>
>>> Yeah, 'cos that happens every day, doesn't it? Get real.
>>>
>>
>> So, on how many days will you permit it, and what happens if its
>> you or yours next time ? Carrying a bag of suspicious looking
>> ----table legs ?
>
> How many times has that happened? How many people in UK?

Too many!

>
> WTF has this to do with Landrovers?


Nowt to do with landrovers.
The sad thing is it has happened and there is little or no evidence that the
perpetrators have undertaken not to do it again!

--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!

Larry wrote:

> .......it is the police burden to
> prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were the driver

Given their track record and provided that their are no independent
witnesses they can basically do/say what they like and our gutless
magistrates will believe them.

You've no protection in law at all these days!

Rory Manton wrote:

>
> Those "bastards" are the same "Bastards" that are protecting you and your
> liberties even though you don't know it or seam to care.

ACAB Oi,Oi,Oi......No matter what country you live in.

Brian NZ

Brian wrote:
> Rory Manton wrote:
>
>>
>> Those "bastards" are the same "Bastards" that are protecting you and
>> your liberties even though you don't know it or seam to care.
>
> ACAB Oi,Oi,Oi......No matter what country you live in.
>
> Brian NZ

And the corollory ACACB.
Steve

"Steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Nige wrote:
>
>> If you're doing nothing wrong, why worry.
>
> Tell you what, I'll come round, and stand behind you all the time, just
> watching, when you go to bed. when you have a ****, when you eat, while you
> watch telly, when you drive, I'll be in the back seat, watching, and recording
> your every action.
>
> But you're doing nothing, so don't worry. And I'll do it all your life, when you
> are at the ballot box, when you fill in your tax return. I'll be there just
> watching.
>
> Steve

You'll just lay yourself open to a charge of aiding and abetting.


--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!

"Rory Manton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> The scary thing is the bastards might have shot you before they realise they
>> have made "a mistake", on the basis of the electronic intelligence they have
>> received - and the Police complaints authority launches its usual white-wash.
>>
>> Steve
>
> That is the dumbest thing I have see written in a long time.
>
> Those "bastards" are the same "Bastards" that are protecting you and your
> liberties even though you don't know it or seam to care.


Agreed, but unfortunately they have demonstrated they are incapable of doing so in
an acceptable manner.
One 'mistake' is one too many, the next one could be you. I have yet to hear a
plausible explanation of why it was necessary to shoot an arrested suspect 9 times
in the head, I'm not sure we've yet been told 'sorry it was a mistake', mostly it
has been 'it wasn't my fault.'
When we hear such an explanation I will consider wether they should continue to be
entrusted with the powers they currently enjoy let alone any extras such as
imprisonment without trial for suspects. eg those detected by ANPR.



--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!

--
"He who says it cannot be done should not interrupt her doing it."

If at first you don't succeed,
maybe skydiving's not for you!

"Rory Manton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "JacobH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> One 'mistake' is one too many, the next one could be you. I have yet to hear a
>> plausible explanation of why it was necessary to shoot an arrested suspect 9
>> times in the head, I'm not sure we've yet been told 'sorry it was a mistake',
>> mostly it has been 'it wasn't my fault.'
>
>
>>
>
>
> You shoot somebody 9 times in the head because it kills them, outright, no
> messing about with a wounded suspect who may be about to detonate a large,
> or small bomb and blow innocent bystanders to bits, One death , lots of
> deaths you call it.

I agree with your analysis, my main difficulty is that the gentleman had already
been restrained ie arrested. He was therefore shot whilst in custody. I regret I
am unable to reconcile that.
I don't care, I do not allow the police force in my country to kill innocent
people, for that is what they are, for whatever reason. Come to that Neither do I
allow them to kill guilty people!!
End of discussion!!



> I think that the Police did what was necessary to protect innocent people.
> Given the heightened state of alert, the fact that the person ran when
> challenged( and don't give me that crap about being a foreigner who didn't
> understand a police challenge, he had been here for some time) the Police on
> the ground did the right thing . Questions raised by the shooting should be
> directed at the government who let so many civil liberties of the majority
> go to pot by pandering to minorities with in the country who wish to flout
> the law.
>>
>
>