PDA

View Full Version : Brits new "shoot to kill" policy


David
July 23rd 05, 10:19 PM
Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death was
a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have the whip
hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except gird
themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for the
'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We can't let
them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real possibility.
I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.

Spungo
July 23rd 05, 10:45 PM
"David" > wrote in message
...
> Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
> was
> a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have the whip
> hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except gird
> themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for the
> 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We can't let
> them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
> possibility.
> I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.

Don't worry. If they push the US far enough, the sands of the middle east
will turn to glass after a few dozen A-Bombs.

Donovan Rebbechi
July 23rd 05, 11:18 PM
On 2005-07-23, David > wrote:
> Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death was
> a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have the whip
> hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except gird
> themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for the
> 'big one'.

Great Britain could crack down on the extremist groups. Both the Saudis and
Musharref commented that Britain are overly generous to the fundies -- that
should be eye opening. Musharref stated that extremist groups banned in
Pakistan "operate with impunity" in Britain.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Nameless
July 24th 05, 02:36 AM
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death was
>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have the whip
>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except gird
>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for the
>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We can't let
>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real possibility.
>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.

The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
take it easy.

David Cohen
July 24th 05, 02:52 AM
"Nameless" > wrote
> "David" > wrote:
>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
>>was
>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have the whip
>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except gird
>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for the
>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We can't let
>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
>>possibility.
>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>
> The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> take it easy.

Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to them)
solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm the police.
From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in Great Britain.
Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.

Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is going?

David
the American one in Nevada with lots of guns

Dally
July 24th 05, 03:11 AM
David Cohen wrote:
> "Nameless" > wrote
>
>> "David" > wrote:
>>
>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
>>>was
>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have the whip
>>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except gird
>>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for the
>>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We can't let
>>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
>>>possibility.
>>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>>
>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>>take it easy.
>
>
> Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to them)
> solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm the police.
> From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in Great Britain.
> Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
>
> Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is going?
>
> David
> the American one in Nevada with lots of guns

I was listening to this being discussed yesterday and the reasoning
behind it is sound, i.e., suicide bombers need a headshot to save lives.

But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained in
reading body language..." and suddenly I realized that the guys were
given lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.

Shoot first, ask questions later isn't a sound basis for a judicial
system. Even an armed-and-dangerous guy like you knows that you've got
to have some pretty strong probable cause to shoot someone. "Body
language" in the absence of weapons doesn't meet the criteria.

Dally

David Cohen
July 24th 05, 03:59 AM
"Dally" > wrote
> David Cohen wrote:
>> "Nameless" > wrote
>>> "David" > wrote:
>>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
>>>>was
>>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have the
>>>>whip
>>>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except gird
>>>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for the
>>>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We can't
>>>>let
>>>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
>>>>possibility.
>>>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>>>
>>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>>>take it easy.
>>
>> Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to them)
>> solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm the
>> police. From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in Great
>> Britain. Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
>>
>> Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is going?
>>
>> David
>> the American one in Nevada with lots of guns
>
> I was listening to this being discussed yesterday and the reasoning behind
> it is sound, i.e., suicide bombers need a headshot to save lives.
>
> But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained in
> reading body language..." and suddenly I realized that the guys were given
> lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.

It is sad that the country that produced the SAS, one of the greatest
special operations forces in history, has been reduced to this.
>
> Shoot first, ask questions later isn't a sound basis for a judicial
> system. Even an armed-and-dangerous guy like you knows that you've got to
> have some pretty strong probable cause to shoot someone. "Body language"
> in the absence of weapons doesn't meet the criteria.

Wrong. "Body language in the absence of weapons" can most certainly
constitute legal justification for the use of lethal force. One example. I'm
walking down the Las Vegas Strip with my date, Shania Twain. A guy runs up,
grabs Shania's purse, and runs off. I yell, "Hey, douchebag, come back here
with Shania's purse!" The guy stops, turns, and reaches under his jacket,
behind his right hip with his right hand, in the classic
reach-for-your-holster-and-draw stance. I place two Federal 230 grain
Hydra-Shok jacketed hollowpoints , 1/2 inch apart, into the center of his
chest and one into his head at the bridge of his nose. Shania squeals, "Ohh,
David, nice shooting! You're getting extra special sex tonight." Turns out,
bad guy was unarmed, reaching for his cell phone camera to take Shania's
picture.

Justifiable homicide.

David

Hugh Beyer
July 24th 05, 04:10 AM
Nameless > wrote in
:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and
>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying
>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very
>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>
> The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> take it easy.

Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the subway
immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?

I say give this guy a Darwin award.

Hugh



--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi")

David
July 24th 05, 07:00 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Dally" > wrote
> > David Cohen wrote:
> >> "Nameless" > wrote
> >>> "David" > wrote:
> >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
death
> >>>>was
> >>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have the
> >>>>whip
> >>>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except gird
> >>>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for
the
> >>>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We can't
> >>>>let
> >>>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
> >>>>possibility.
> >>>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> >>>
> >>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> >>>take it easy.
> >>
> >> Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to
them)
> >> solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm the
> >> police. From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in
Great
> >> Britain. Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
> >>
> >> Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is going?
> >>
> >> David
> >> the American one in Nevada with lots of guns
> >
> > I was listening to this being discussed yesterday and the reasoning
behind
> > it is sound, i.e., suicide bombers need a headshot to save lives.
> >
> > But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained in
> > reading body language..." and suddenly I realized that the guys were
given
> > lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.
>
> It is sad that the country that produced the SAS, one of the greatest
> special operations forces in history, has been reduced to this.
> >
> > Shoot first, ask questions later isn't a sound basis for a judicial
> > system. Even an armed-and-dangerous guy like you knows that you've got
to
> > have some pretty strong probable cause to shoot someone. "Body
language"
> > in the absence of weapons doesn't meet the criteria.
>
> Wrong. "Body language in the absence of weapons" can most certainly
> constitute legal justification for the use of lethal force. One example.
I'm
> walking down the Las Vegas Strip with my date, Shania Twain. A guy runs
up,
> grabs Shania's purse, and runs off. I yell, "Hey, douchebag, come back
here
> with Shania's purse!" The guy stops, turns, and reaches under his jacket,
> behind his right hip with his right hand, in the classic
> reach-for-your-holster-and-draw stance. I place two Federal 230 grain
> Hydra-Shok jacketed hollowpoints , 1/2 inch apart, into the center of his
> chest and one into his head at the bridge of his nose. Shania squeals,
"Ohh,
> David, nice shooting! You're getting extra special sex tonight." Turns
out,
> bad guy was unarmed, reaching for his cell phone camera to take Shania's
> picture.
>
> Justifiable homicide.
>
> David
>
Sorry about the bad news David but the babe you thought was Shania was in
fact a transvestite hooker lookalike. I sincerely hope that you didn't have
sex with her/him.

David
July 24th 05, 07:10 AM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-07-23, David > wrote:
> > Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
was
> > a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have the
whip
> > hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except gird
> > themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for the
> > 'big one'.
>
> Great Britain could crack down on the extremist groups. Both the Saudis
and
> Musharref commented that Britain are overly generous to the fundies --
that
> should be eye opening. Musharref stated that extremist groups banned in
> Pakistan "operate with impunity" in Britain.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

These people are like termites with innumerable nests. Sure they can get a
few here and there but there is no end to them.

Lee Michaels
July 24th 05, 07:29 AM
"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
6...
> Nameless > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
>>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
>>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
>>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and
>>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying
>>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very
>>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>>
>> The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>> take it easy.
>
> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the subway
> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>
> I say give this guy a Darwin award.
>

Yep, that would be appropriate.

While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with the
police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give them no
choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide by cop.

I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This guy was
on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people earlier in the
day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at the police. He got
shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and brought to the hospital.

They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put their
asses on the line for us everyday.

Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce a bad
shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the whole town
is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be a no brainer to
become a well behaved church mouse.

This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.

David Cohen
July 24th 05, 07:58 AM
"David" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote >>
>> "Dally" > wrote
>> > David Cohen wrote:
>> >> "Nameless" > wrote
>> >>> "David" > wrote:
>> >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
> death
>> >>>>was
>> >>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have the
>> >>>>whip
>> >>>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except gird
>> >>>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for
> the
>> >>>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We can't
>> >>>>let
>> >>>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
>> >>>>possibility.
>> >>>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>> >>>
>> >>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>> >>>take it easy.
>> >>
>> >> Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to
> them)
>> >> solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm the
>> >> police. From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in
> Great
>> >> Britain. Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
>> >>
>> >> Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is going?
>> >>
>> >> David
>> >> the American one in Nevada with lots of guns
>> >
>> > I was listening to this being discussed yesterday and the reasoning
> behind
>> > it is sound, i.e., suicide bombers need a headshot to save lives.
>> >
>> > But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained in
>> > reading body language..." and suddenly I realized that the guys were
> given
>> > lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.
>>
>> It is sad that the country that produced the SAS, one of the greatest
>> special operations forces in history, has been reduced to this.
>> >
>> > Shoot first, ask questions later isn't a sound basis for a judicial
>> > system. Even an armed-and-dangerous guy like you knows that you've got
> to
>> > have some pretty strong probable cause to shoot someone. "Body
> language"
>> > in the absence of weapons doesn't meet the criteria.
>>
>> Wrong. "Body language in the absence of weapons" can most certainly
>> constitute legal justification for the use of lethal force. One example.
> I'm
>> walking down the Las Vegas Strip with my date, Shania Twain. A guy runs
> up,
>> grabs Shania's purse, and runs off. I yell, "Hey, douchebag, come back
> here
>> with Shania's purse!" The guy stops, turns, and reaches under his jacket,
>> behind his right hip with his right hand, in the classic
>> reach-for-your-holster-and-draw stance. I place two Federal 230 grain
>> Hydra-Shok jacketed hollowpoints , 1/2 inch apart, into the center of his
>> chest and one into his head at the bridge of his nose. Shania squeals,
> "Ohh,
>> David, nice shooting! You're getting extra special sex tonight." Turns
> out,
>> bad guy was unarmed, reaching for his cell phone camera to take Shania's
>> picture.
>>
>> Justifiable homicide.
>>
>> David
>>
> Sorry about the bad news David but the babe you thought was Shania was in
> fact a transvestite hooker lookalike. I sincerely hope that you didn't
> have
> sex with her/him.

That bitch! She told me the bulge was a little gun in a crotch holster :(

David

David
July 24th 05, 08:12 AM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "David" > wrote
> > "David Cohen" > wrote >>
> >> "Dally" > wrote
> >> > David Cohen wrote:
> >> >> "Nameless" > wrote
> >> >>> "David" > wrote:
> >> >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
> > death
> >> >>>>was
> >> >>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
the
> >> >>>>whip
> >> >>>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except
gird
> >> >>>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait
for
> > the
> >> >>>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We
can't
> >> >>>>let
> >> >>>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
> >> >>>>possibility.
> >> >>>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> >> >>>take it easy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to
> > them)
> >> >> solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm the
> >> >> police. From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in
> > Great
> >> >> Britain. Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is
going?
> >> >>
> >> >> David
> >> >> the American one in Nevada with lots of guns
> >> >
> >> > I was listening to this being discussed yesterday and the reasoning
> > behind
> >> > it is sound, i.e., suicide bombers need a headshot to save lives.
> >> >
> >> > But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained in
> >> > reading body language..." and suddenly I realized that the guys were
> > given
> >> > lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.
> >>
> >> It is sad that the country that produced the SAS, one of the greatest
> >> special operations forces in history, has been reduced to this.
> >> >
> >> > Shoot first, ask questions later isn't a sound basis for a judicial
> >> > system. Even an armed-and-dangerous guy like you knows that you've
got
> > to
> >> > have some pretty strong probable cause to shoot someone. "Body
> > language"
> >> > in the absence of weapons doesn't meet the criteria.
> >>
> >> Wrong. "Body language in the absence of weapons" can most certainly
> >> constitute legal justification for the use of lethal force. One
example.
> > I'm
> >> walking down the Las Vegas Strip with my date, Shania Twain. A guy runs
> > up,
> >> grabs Shania's purse, and runs off. I yell, "Hey, douchebag, come back
> > here
> >> with Shania's purse!" The guy stops, turns, and reaches under his
jacket,
> >> behind his right hip with his right hand, in the classic
> >> reach-for-your-holster-and-draw stance. I place two Federal 230 grain
> >> Hydra-Shok jacketed hollowpoints , 1/2 inch apart, into the center of
his
> >> chest and one into his head at the bridge of his nose. Shania squeals,
> > "Ohh,
> >> David, nice shooting! You're getting extra special sex tonight." Turns
> > out,
> >> bad guy was unarmed, reaching for his cell phone camera to take
Shania's
> >> picture.
> >>
> >> Justifiable homicide.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> > Sorry about the bad news David but the babe you thought was Shania was
in
> > fact a transvestite hooker lookalike. I sincerely hope that you didn't
> > have
> > sex with her/him.
>
> That bitch! She told me the bulge was a little gun in a crotch holster :(
>
> David
>
Sounds credible enough but how did Shania explain why the bulge got bigger?

Charles
July 24th 05, 08:20 AM
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
6...
>> Nameless > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
>>>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
>>>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
>>>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and
>>>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying
>>>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very
>>>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>>>
>>> The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>>> take it easy.
>>
>> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the subway
>> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>>
>> I say give this guy a Darwin award.
>>
>
>Yep, that would be appropriate.
>
>While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with the
>police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give them no
>choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide by cop.
>
>I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This guy was
>on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people earlier in the
>day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at the police. He got
>shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and brought to the hospital.
>
>They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
>confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put their
>asses on the line for us everyday.
>
>Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce a bad
>shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the whole town
>is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be a no brainer to
>become a well behaved church mouse.
>
>This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.

Good appraisal and fair summation.

We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!

However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!

Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)

David
July 24th 05, 08:25 AM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
> 6...
> >> Nameless > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
death
> >>>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
> >>>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
> >>>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals
and
> >>>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are
saying
> >>>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a
very
> >>>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> >>>
> >>> The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> >>> take it easy.
> >>
> >> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the
subway
> >> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
> >>
> >> I say give this guy a Darwin award.
> >>
> >
> >Yep, that would be appropriate.
> >
> >While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with the
> >police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give them no
> >choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide by cop.
> >
> >I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This guy
was
> >on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people earlier in
the
> >day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at the police. He
got
> >shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and brought to the hospital.
> >
> >They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
> >confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put their
> >asses on the line for us everyday.
> >
> >Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce a
bad
> >shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the whole
town
> >is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be a no brainer
to
> >become a well behaved church mouse.
> >
> >This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.
>
> Good appraisal and fair summation.
>
> We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
> occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
> of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
> otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
> don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!
>
> However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
> running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
> situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
> he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!
>
> Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)

He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm (how was
he to know they were police?)

Charles
July 24th 05, 08:32 AM
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:25:21 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
>> 6...
>> >> Nameless > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
>death
>> >>>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
>> >>>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
>> >>>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals
>and
>> >>>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are
>saying
>> >>>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a
>very
>> >>>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>> >>>
>> >>> The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>> >>> take it easy.
>> >>
>> >> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the
>subway
>> >> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>> >>
>> >> I say give this guy a Darwin award.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yep, that would be appropriate.
>> >
>> >While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with the
>> >police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give them no
>> >choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide by cop.
>> >
>> >I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This guy
>was
>> >on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people earlier in
>the
>> >day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at the police. He
>got
>> >shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and brought to the hospital.
>> >
>> >They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
>> >confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put their
>> >asses on the line for us everyday.
>> >
>> >Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce a
>bad
>> >shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the whole
>town
>> >is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be a no brainer
>to
>> >become a well behaved church mouse.
>> >
>> >This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.
>>
>> Good appraisal and fair summation.
>>
>> We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
>> occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
>> of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
>> otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
>> don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!
>>
>> However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
>> running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
>> situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
>> he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!
>>
>> Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)
>
>He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm (how was
>he to know they were police?)
>

I suggest I covered that with my parenthesised (why?).

However, the point is valid and had already occurred to me. It is a
quite terrifying scenario if he was running away from armed police
because he thought *they* were criminals!!

HAGS!

David
July 24th 05, 08:52 AM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:25:21 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Charles" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
> >> 6...
> >> >> Nameless > wrote in
> >> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
> >death
> >> >>>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims
have
> >> >>>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
> >> >>>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals
> >and
> >> >>>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are
> >saying
> >> >>>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a
> >very
> >> >>>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush.
Just
> >> >>> take it easy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the
> >subway
> >> >> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
> >> >>
> >> >> I say give this guy a Darwin award.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Yep, that would be appropriate.
> >> >
> >> >While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with
the
> >> >police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give them
no
> >> >choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide by
cop.
> >> >
> >> >I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This
guy
> >was
> >> >on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people earlier
in
> >the
> >> >day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at the police. He
> >got
> >> >shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and brought to the
hospital.
> >> >
> >> >They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
> >> >confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put
their
> >> >asses on the line for us everyday.
> >> >
> >> >Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce
a
> >bad
> >> >shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the
whole
> >town
> >> >is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be a no
brainer
> >to
> >> >become a well behaved church mouse.
> >> >
> >> >This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.
> >>
> >> Good appraisal and fair summation.
> >>
> >> We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
> >> occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
> >> of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
> >> otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
> >> don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!
> >>
> >> However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
> >> running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
> >> situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
> >> he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!
> >>
> >> Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)
> >
> >He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm (how
was
> >he to know they were police?)
> >
>
> I suggest I covered that with my parenthesised (why?).
>
> However, the point is valid and had already occurred to me. It is a
> quite terrifying scenario if he was running away from armed police
> because he thought *they* were criminals!!
>
> HAGS!

Plus he was an electrician - perhaps he did a recent shoddy job and thought
the occupants were chasing him for a refund?

Charles
July 24th 05, 08:56 AM
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:52:48 GMT, "David" >
wrote:

>
>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 07:25:21 GMT, "David" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Charles" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
>> >> 6...
>> >> >> Nameless > wrote in
>> >> >> :
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
>> >> >>> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
>> >death
>> >> >>>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims
>have
>> >> >>>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
>> >> >>>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals
>> >and
>> >> >>>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are
>> >saying
>> >> >>>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a
>> >very
>> >> >>>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush.
>Just
>> >> >>> take it easy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the
>> >subway
>> >> >> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I say give this guy a Darwin award.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Yep, that would be appropriate.
>> >> >
>> >> >While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with
>the
>> >> >police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give them
>no
>> >> >choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide by
>cop.
>> >> >
>> >> >I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This
>guy
>> >was
>> >> >on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people earlier
>in
>> >the
>> >> >day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at the police. He
>> >got
>> >> >shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and brought to the
>hospital.
>> >> >
>> >> >They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
>> >> >confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put
>their
>> >> >asses on the line for us everyday.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce
>a
>> >bad
>> >> >shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the
>whole
>> >town
>> >> >is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be a no
>brainer
>> >to
>> >> >become a well behaved church mouse.
>> >> >
>> >> >This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.
>> >>
>> >> Good appraisal and fair summation.
>> >>
>> >> We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
>> >> occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
>> >> of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
>> >> otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
>> >> don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!
>> >>
>> >> However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
>> >> running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
>> >> situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
>> >> he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!
>> >>
>> >> Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)
>> >
>> >He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm (how
>was
>> >he to know they were police?)
>> >
>>
>> I suggest I covered that with my parenthesised (why?).
>>
>> However, the point is valid and had already occurred to me. It is a
>> quite terrifying scenario if he was running away from armed police
>> because he thought *they* were criminals!!
>>
>> HAGS!
>
>Plus he was an electrician - perhaps he did a recent shoddy job and thought
>the occupants were chasing him for a refund?
>

HEH!

OmManiPadmeOmelet
July 24th 05, 09:24 AM
In article >,
Nameless > wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
> wrote:
>
> >Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death was
> >a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have the whip
> >hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except gird
> >themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for the
> >'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We can't let
> >them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real possibility.
> >I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>
> The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> take it easy.

And don't run from the cops...... :-(
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

OmManiPadmeOmelet
July 24th 05, 09:26 AM
In article >,
Hugh Beyer > wrote:

> Nameless > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
> >>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
> >>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
> >>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and
> >>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying
> >>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very
> >>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> >
> > The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> > take it easy.
>
> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the subway
> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>
> I say give this guy a Darwin award.
>
> Hugh

;-)
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

OmManiPadmeOmelet
July 24th 05, 09:29 AM
In article >,
"David" > wrote:

> "Charles" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
> > 6...
> > >> Nameless > wrote in
> > >> :
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
> death
> > >>>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
> > >>>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
> > >>>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals
> and
> > >>>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are
> saying
> > >>>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a
> very
> > >>>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> > >>>
> > >>> The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> > >>> take it easy.
> > >>
> > >> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the
> subway
> > >> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
> > >>
> > >> I say give this guy a Darwin award.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Yep, that would be appropriate.
> > >
> > >While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with the
> > >police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give them no
> > >choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide by cop.
> > >
> > >I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This guy
> was
> > >on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people earlier in
> the
> > >day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at the police. He
> got
> > >shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and brought to the hospital.
> > >
> > >They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
> > >confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put their
> > >asses on the line for us everyday.
> > >
> > >Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce a
> bad
> > >shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the whole
> town
> > >is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be a no brainer
> to
> > >become a well behaved church mouse.
> > >
> > >This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.
> >
> > Good appraisal and fair summation.
> >
> > We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
> > occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
> > of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
> > otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
> > don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!
> >
> > However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
> > running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
> > situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
> > he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!
> >
> > Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)
>
> He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm (how was
> he to know they were police?)
>
>

Oh please!
The uniforms maybe???
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

David
July 24th 05, 09:36 AM
"OmManiPadmeOmelet" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "David" > wrote:
>
> > "Charles" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
> > > 6...
> > > >> Nameless > wrote in
> > > >> :
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
> > death
> > > >>>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims
have
> > > >>>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
> > > >>>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more
hospitals
> > and
> > > >>>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are
> > saying
> > > >>>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is
a
> > very
> > > >>>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush.
Just
> > > >>> take it easy.
> > > >>
> > > >> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the
> > subway
> > > >> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
> > > >>
> > > >> I say give this guy a Darwin award.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Yep, that would be appropriate.
> > > >
> > > >While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with
the
> > > >police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give them
no
> > > >choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide by
cop.
> > > >
> > > >I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This
guy
> > was
> > > >on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people earlier
in
> > the
> > > >day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at the police.
He
> > got
> > > >shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and brought to the
hospital.
> > > >
> > > >They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke
such
> > > >confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put
their
> > > >asses on the line for us everyday.
> > > >
> > > >Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce
a
> > bad
> > > >shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the
whole
> > town
> > > >is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be a no
brainer
> > to
> > > >become a well behaved church mouse.
> > > >
> > > >This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.
> > >
> > > Good appraisal and fair summation.
> > >
> > > We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
> > > occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
> > > of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
> > > otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
> > > don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!
> > >
> > > However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
> > > running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
> > > situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
> > > he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!
> > >
> > > Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)
> >
> > He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm (how
was
> > he to know they were police?)
> >
> >
>
> Oh please!
> The uniforms maybe???
> --
> Om.

Om, ommmmmmmm - under cover cops don;t wear uniforms - although they would
have shouted "stop! police!" that might be what aroused his suspicion i.e.
he may have thought if they were cops why are they wearing street clothes?

Ellis
July 24th 05, 09:49 AM
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 22:11:27 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained in
>reading body language..."

....and you then deduced that this report was the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? Based on what, exactly?


>and suddenly I realized that the guys were
>given lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.

....and suddenly you pull a fully-formed hypothesis out of your arse,
and wave it around proudly for all to see.

The British Police's rules of engagement are not published. Clearly
there has been a mistake here - **** happens. All is speculation.
Some of it is not helpful - guess what your particular brand is?

Ellis

Ellis
July 24th 05, 09:49 AM
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:10:37 GMT, Hugh Beyer >
wrote:

>Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the subway
>immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>
>I say give this guy a Darwin award.

Hear, hear.

Ellis

Charles
July 24th 05, 09:56 AM
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:29:49 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> wrote:

>In article >,
> "David" > wrote:
>
>> "Charles" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
>> > 6...
>> > >> Nameless > wrote in
>> > >> :
>> > >>
>> > >>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
>> > >>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
>> death
>> > >>>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
>> > >>>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
>> > >>>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals
>> and
>> > >>>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are
>> saying
>> > >>>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a
>> very
>> > >>>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>> > >>> take it easy.
>> > >>
>> > >> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the
>> subway
>> > >> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>> > >>
>> > >> I say give this guy a Darwin award.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >Yep, that would be appropriate.
>> > >
>> > >While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with the
>> > >police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give them no
>> > >choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide by cop.
>> > >
>> > >I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This guy
>> was
>> > >on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people earlier in
>> the
>> > >day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at the police. He
>> got
>> > >shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and brought to the hospital.
>> > >
>> > >They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
>> > >confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put their
>> > >asses on the line for us everyday.
>> > >
>> > >Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce a
>> bad
>> > >shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the whole
>> town
>> > >is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be a no brainer
>> to
>> > >become a well behaved church mouse.
>> > >
>> > >This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.
>> >
>> > Good appraisal and fair summation.
>> >
>> > We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
>> > occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
>> > of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
>> > otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
>> > don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!
>> >
>> > However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
>> > running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
>> > situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
>> > he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!
>> >
>> > Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)
>>
>> He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm (how was
>> he to know they were police?)
>>
>>
>
>Oh please!
>The uniforms maybe???

They were in plain clothes!

Have a great Sunday Om - you know I will!! :o)

OmManiPadmeOmelet
July 24th 05, 10:03 AM
In article >,
Charles > wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:29:49 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > "David" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Charles" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > >"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
> >> > 6...
> >> > >> Nameless > wrote in
> >> > >> :
> >> > >>
> >> > >>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
> >> > >>> wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
> >> death
> >> > >>>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims
> >> > >>>>have
> >> > >>>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
> >> > >>>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals
> >> and
> >> > >>>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are
> >> saying
> >> > >>>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a
> >> very
> >> > >>>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> >> > >>> take it easy.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the
> >> subway
> >> > >> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I say give this guy a Darwin award.
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >Yep, that would be appropriate.
> >> > >
> >> > >While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with
> >> > >the
> >> > >police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give them no
> >> > >choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide by cop.
> >> > >
> >> > >I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This
> >> > >guy
> >> was
> >> > >on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people earlier in
> >> the
> >> > >day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at the police. He
> >> got
> >> > >shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and brought to the hospital.
> >> > >
> >> > >They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
> >> > >confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put
> >> > >their
> >> > >asses on the line for us everyday.
> >> > >
> >> > >Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce a
> >> bad
> >> > >shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the whole
> >> town
> >> > >is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be a no
> >> > >brainer
> >> to
> >> > >become a well behaved church mouse.
> >> > >
> >> > >This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.
> >> >
> >> > Good appraisal and fair summation.
> >> >
> >> > We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
> >> > occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
> >> > of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
> >> > otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
> >> > don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!
> >> >
> >> > However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
> >> > running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
> >> > situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
> >> > he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!
> >> >
> >> > Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)
> >>
> >> He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm (how
> >> was
> >> he to know they were police?)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Oh please!
> >The uniforms maybe???
>
> They were in plain clothes!
>
> Have a great Sunday Om - you know I will!! :o)
>

Ah! I missed that fact, thanks!
I've only had the news spotty on the radio in the evenings...
I listen to BBC on NPR.

So, that makes it more complicated......
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

OmManiPadmeOmelet
July 24th 05, 10:05 AM
In article >,
"David" > wrote:

> "OmManiPadmeOmelet" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > Oh please!
> > The uniforms maybe???
> > --
> > Om.
>
> Om, ommmmmmmm - under cover cops don;t wear uniforms - although they would
> have shouted "stop! police!" that might be what aroused his suspicion i.e.
> he may have thought if they were cops why are they wearing street clothes?
>
>

Indeed... See my followup post to Charles.
I'd missed that particular fact!

My bad.

Cheers!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

ATP*
July 24th 05, 01:29 PM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:29:49 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "David" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Charles" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>>> > > wrote:

>>>
>>> He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm (how
>>> was
>>> he to know they were police?)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Oh please!
>>The uniforms maybe???
>
> They were in plain clothes!
>
No faggy hats?

Mr-Natural-Health
July 24th 05, 02:41 PM
David wrote:
> Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death was
> a Brazilian electrician on his way to work.

In Richmond, Virginia, USA the police have successfully been shooting
people dead for traffic violations for quite a long time. Where have
you been?

When the police point the barrel of gun at you. You stop dead in your
tracks. Any fool knows this.

People who run are both stupid and dead. Darwin wrote about this this,
a hundred years ago.

Just thought that you should know. :)

JMW
July 24th 05, 05:41 PM
OmManiPadmeOmelet > wrote:
>
> Charles > wrote:
>>
>> OmManiPadmeOmelet > wrote:
>> >
>> > "David" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm (how
>> >> was he to know they were police?)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Oh please!
>> >The uniforms maybe???
>>
>> They were in plain clothes!
>>
>> Have a great Sunday Om - you know I will!! :o)
>>
>
>Ah! I missed that fact, thanks!
>I've only had the news spotty on the radio in the evenings...
>I listen to BBC on NPR.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/

OmManiPadmeOmelet
July 24th 05, 05:47 PM
In article >,
JMW > wrote:

> OmManiPadmeOmelet > wrote:
> >
> > Charles > wrote:
> >>
> >> OmManiPadmeOmelet > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "David" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm
> >> >> (how
> >> >> was he to know they were police?)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Oh please!
> >> >The uniforms maybe???
> >>
> >> They were in plain clothes!
> >>
> >> Have a great Sunday Om - you know I will!! :o)
> >>
> >
> >Ah! I missed that fact, thanks!
> >I've only had the news spotty on the radio in the evenings...
> >I listen to BBC on NPR.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Muchas Gracias. ;-)
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

Charles
July 24th 05, 06:15 PM
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:29:41 -0400, "ATP*" > wrote:

>
>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:29:49 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> "David" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Charles" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>>>> > > wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm (how
>>>> was
>>>> he to know they were police?)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh please!
>>>The uniforms maybe???
>>
>> They were in plain clothes!
>>
>No faggy hats?

Why would armed plain clothes Special Branch officers be wearing any
sort of hat, let alone a "faggy hat" (whatever they are)?

Have a great Sunday - I am!! ;o)

W. Bacon
July 24th 05, 06:56 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

Hmm...shooting an unarmed man at point blank range 5 times....that's
NOT VERY NICE...

ATP*
July 24th 05, 07:02 PM
"Charles" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:29:41 -0400, "ATP*" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:29:49 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>> "David" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Charles" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>>>>> > > wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm
>>>>> (how
>>>>> was
>>>>> he to know they were police?)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh please!
>>>>The uniforms maybe???
>>>
>>> They were in plain clothes!
>>>
>>No faggy hats?
>
> Why would armed plain clothes Special Branch officers be wearing any
> sort of hat, let alone a "faggy hat" (whatever they are)?
>
> Have a great Sunday - I am!! ;o)

see the following:

http://www.mninternational.com/index.cfm/iProdID/5968/PageID/372/iStartPos/1

I meant no faggy hats, since they were not in uniform. They should have to
put those hats on before shooting to kill:-)

WillBrink
July 24th 05, 07:13 PM
In article om>,
"W. Bacon" > wrote:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm
>
> Hmm...shooting an unarmed man at point blank range 5 times....that's
> NOT VERY NICE...

Your point being?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink
July 24th 05, 07:16 PM
In article >,
Hugh Beyer > wrote:

> Nameless > wrote in
> :
>
> > On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
> >>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
> >>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
> >>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and
> >>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying
> >>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very
> >>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> >
> > The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> > take it easy.
>
> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the subway
> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>
> I say give this guy a Darwin award.

I second that. His incredible stupidity got him killed, the police were
simply the vehicle for his demise. Blames is squarely with him if the
details we are now getting are accurate.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink
July 24th 05, 07:21 PM
In article et>,
"David Cohen" > wrote:

> "Nameless" > wrote
> > "David" > wrote:
> >>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
> >>was
> >>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have the whip
> >>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except gird
> >>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for the
> >>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We can't let
> >>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
> >>possibility.
> >>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> >
> > The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> > take it easy.
>
> Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to them)
> solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm the police.
> From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in Great Britain.
> Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
>
> Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is going?

They are still worlking on getting rid of the evil kitchen knives.
Pointy sticks are later. As you can see, things are going so very well
since the additional gun control act. BTW, just returned for an IDPA
match were I was humbled....


>
> David
> the American one in Nevada with lots of guns
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

David
July 24th 05, 09:30 PM
"Mr-Natural-Health" > wrote in
message ups.com...
> David wrote:
> > Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
was
> > a Brazilian electrician on his way to work.
>
> In Richmond, Virginia, USA the police have successfully been shooting
> people dead for traffic violations for quite a long time. Where have
> you been?
>
> When the police point the barrel of gun at you. You stop dead in your
> tracks. Any fool knows this.
>
> People who run are both stupid and dead. Darwin wrote about this this,
> a hundred years ago.
>
> Just thought that you should know. :)

He may not have known they were police. If he wasn't a criminal he wouldn;t
expect to be chased by police

spodosaurus
July 24th 05, 09:37 PM
David wrote:
> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>"David" > wrote
>>
>>>"David Cohen" > wrote >>
>>>
>>>>"Dally" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>David Cohen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Nameless" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"David" > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
>>>
>>>death
>>>
>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
>
> the
>
>>>>>>>>whip
>>>>>>>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except
>
> gird
>
>>>>>>>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait
>
> for
>
>>>the
>>>
>>>>>>>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We
>
> can't
>
>>>>>>>>let
>>>>>>>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
>>>>>>>>possibility.
>>>>>>>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>>>>>>>take it easy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to
>>>
>>>them)
>>>
>>>>>>solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm the
>>>>>>police. From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in
>>>
>>>Great
>>>
>>>>>>Britain. Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is
>
> going?
>
>>>>>>David
>>>>>>the American one in Nevada with lots of guns
>>>>>
>>>>>I was listening to this being discussed yesterday and the reasoning
>>>
>>>behind
>>>
>>>>>it is sound, i.e., suicide bombers need a headshot to save lives.
>>>>>
>>>>>But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained in
>>>>>reading body language..." and suddenly I realized that the guys were
>>>
>>>given
>>>
>>>>>lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.
>>>>
>>>>It is sad that the country that produced the SAS, one of the greatest
>>>>special operations forces in history, has been reduced to this.
>>>>
>>>>>Shoot first, ask questions later isn't a sound basis for a judicial
>>>>>system. Even an armed-and-dangerous guy like you knows that you've
>
> got
>
>>>to
>>>
>>>>>have some pretty strong probable cause to shoot someone. "Body
>>>
>>>language"
>>>
>>>>>in the absence of weapons doesn't meet the criteria.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong. "Body language in the absence of weapons" can most certainly
>>>>constitute legal justification for the use of lethal force. One
>
> example.
>
>>>I'm
>>>
>>>>walking down the Las Vegas Strip with my date, Shania Twain. A guy runs
>>>
>>>up,
>>>
>>>>grabs Shania's purse, and runs off. I yell, "Hey, douchebag, come back
>>>
>>>here
>>>
>>>>with Shania's purse!" The guy stops, turns, and reaches under his
>
> jacket,
>
>>>>behind his right hip with his right hand, in the classic
>>>>reach-for-your-holster-and-draw stance. I place two Federal 230 grain
>>>>Hydra-Shok jacketed hollowpoints , 1/2 inch apart, into the center of
>
> his
>
>>>>chest and one into his head at the bridge of his nose. Shania squeals,
>>>
>>>"Ohh,
>>>
>>>>David, nice shooting! You're getting extra special sex tonight." Turns
>>>
>>>out,
>>>
>>>>bad guy was unarmed, reaching for his cell phone camera to take
>
> Shania's
>
>>>>picture.
>>>>
>>>>Justifiable homicide.
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry about the bad news David but the babe you thought was Shania was
>
> in
>
>>>fact a transvestite hooker lookalike. I sincerely hope that you didn't
>>>have
>>>sex with her/him.
>>
>>That bitch! She told me the bulge was a little gun in a crotch holster :(
>>
>>David
>>
>
> Sounds credible enough but how did Shania explain why the bulge got bigger?
>
>

Similar to the ping pong ball trick...but involving the attachment of a
silencer...

--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

spodosaurus
July 24th 05, 09:42 PM
Charles wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
6...
>>
>>>Nameless > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
>>>>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
>>>>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
>>>>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and
>>>>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying
>>>>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very
>>>>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>>>>
>>>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>>>>take it easy.
>>>
>>>Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the subway
>>>immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>>>
>>>I say give this guy a Darwin award.
>>>
>>
>>Yep, that would be appropriate.
>>
>>While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with the
>>police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give them no
>>choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide by cop.
>>
>>I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This guy was
>>on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people earlier in the
>>day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at the police. He got
>>shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and brought to the hospital.
>>
>>They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
>>confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put their
>>asses on the line for us everyday.
>>
>>Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce a bad
>>shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the whole town
>>is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be a no brainer to
>>become a well behaved church mouse.
>>
>>This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.
>
>
> Good appraisal and fair summation.
>
> We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
> occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
> of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
> otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
> don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!
>
> However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
> running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
> situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
> he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!
>
> Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)

From what I've read, the police were in plain clothes and decided to
pull out guns and go after this guy. Maybe they identified themselves as
police, maybe they didn't, but seeing as cops in the UK usually don't
carry guns and this poor sod on his way to work is suddenly confronted
by three armed men yelling and coming at him...well...wouldn't you run,
too? Even if they did identify themselves, with all three running at him
and yelling is a non-native english speaker who is **** scared and
thinks he's about to be killed really going to be able to pause and try
and figure out what these three armed men are yelling at him? No, he's
going to run before he gets killed. It seems reasonable that this
electrician could see that their intent was to kill him, and they did
just that.

--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

David
July 24th 05, 09:48 PM
"spodosaurus" > wrote in message
...
> Charles wrote:
> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
> 6...
> >>
> >>>Nameless > wrote in
> :
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
> >>>>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
death
> >>>>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
> >>>>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
> >>>>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals
and
> >>>>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are
saying
> >>>>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a
very
> >>>>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> >>>>
> >>>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> >>>>take it easy.
> >>>
> >>>Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the
subway
> >>>immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
> >>>
> >>>I say give this guy a Darwin award.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Yep, that would be appropriate.
> >>
> >>While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with the
> >>police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give them no
> >>choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide by cop.
> >>
> >>I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This guy
was
> >>on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people earlier in
the
> >>day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at the police. He
got
> >>shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and brought to the hospital.
> >>
> >>They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
> >>confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put
their
> >>asses on the line for us everyday.
> >>
> >>Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce a
bad
> >>shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the whole
town
> >>is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be a no
brainer to
> >>become a well behaved church mouse.
> >>
> >>This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.
> >
> >
> > Good appraisal and fair summation.
> >
> > We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
> > occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
> > of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
> > otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
> > don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!
> >
> > However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
> > running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
> > situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
> > he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!
> >
> > Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)
>
> From what I've read, the police were in plain clothes and decided to
> pull out guns and go after this guy. Maybe they identified themselves as
> police, maybe they didn't, but seeing as cops in the UK usually don't
> carry guns and this poor sod on his way to work is suddenly confronted
> by three armed men yelling and coming at him...well...wouldn't you run,
> too? Even if they did identify themselves, with all three running at him
> and yelling is a non-native english speaker who is **** scared and
> thinks he's about to be killed really going to be able to pause and try
> and figure out what these three armed men are yelling at him? No, he's
> going to run before he gets killed. It seems reasonable that this
> electrician could see that their intent was to kill him, and they did
> just that.
>

Exactly - let's face it the cops were trigger happy and afraid this guy was
about to detonate what looked like a bomb in his bulky clothing. I think
basically his only 'crime' was wearing inappropriate clothes


> --
> spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo
>
> I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
> neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
> hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
> marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
> transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
> http://www.abmdr.org.au/
> http://www.marrow.org/

David
July 24th 05, 09:53 PM
"spodosaurus" > wrote in message
...
> David wrote:
> > "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>"David" > wrote
> >>
> >>>"David Cohen" > wrote >>
> >>>
> >>>>"Dally" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>>David Cohen wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Nameless" > wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"David" > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
> >>>
> >>>death
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>was
> >>>>>>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>>>>>>whip
> >>>>>>>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except
> >
> > gird
> >
> >>>>>>>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait
> >
> > for
> >
> >>>the
> >>>
> >>>>>>>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We
> >
> > can't
> >
> >>>>>>>>let
> >>>>>>>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
> >>>>>>>>possibility.
> >>>>>>>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush.
Just
> >>>>>>>take it easy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to
> >>>
> >>>them)
> >>>
> >>>>>>solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm the
> >>>>>>police. From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in
> >>>
> >>>Great
> >>>
> >>>>>>Britain. Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is
> >
> > going?
> >
> >>>>>>David
> >>>>>>the American one in Nevada with lots of guns
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I was listening to this being discussed yesterday and the reasoning
> >>>
> >>>behind
> >>>
> >>>>>it is sound, i.e., suicide bombers need a headshot to save lives.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained in
> >>>>>reading body language..." and suddenly I realized that the guys were
> >>>
> >>>given
> >>>
> >>>>>lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.
> >>>>
> >>>>It is sad that the country that produced the SAS, one of the greatest
> >>>>special operations forces in history, has been reduced to this.
> >>>>
> >>>>>Shoot first, ask questions later isn't a sound basis for a judicial
> >>>>>system. Even an armed-and-dangerous guy like you knows that you've
> >
> > got
> >
> >>>to
> >>>
> >>>>>have some pretty strong probable cause to shoot someone. "Body
> >>>
> >>>language"
> >>>
> >>>>>in the absence of weapons doesn't meet the criteria.
> >>>>
> >>>>Wrong. "Body language in the absence of weapons" can most certainly
> >>>>constitute legal justification for the use of lethal force. One
> >
> > example.
> >
> >>>I'm
> >>>
> >>>>walking down the Las Vegas Strip with my date, Shania Twain. A guy
runs
> >>>
> >>>up,
> >>>
> >>>>grabs Shania's purse, and runs off. I yell, "Hey, douchebag, come back
> >>>
> >>>here
> >>>
> >>>>with Shania's purse!" The guy stops, turns, and reaches under his
> >
> > jacket,
> >
> >>>>behind his right hip with his right hand, in the classic
> >>>>reach-for-your-holster-and-draw stance. I place two Federal 230 grain
> >>>>Hydra-Shok jacketed hollowpoints , 1/2 inch apart, into the center of
> >
> > his
> >
> >>>>chest and one into his head at the bridge of his nose. Shania squeals,
> >>>
> >>>"Ohh,
> >>>
> >>>>David, nice shooting! You're getting extra special sex tonight." Turns
> >>>
> >>>out,
> >>>
> >>>>bad guy was unarmed, reaching for his cell phone camera to take
> >
> > Shania's
> >
> >>>>picture.
> >>>>
> >>>>Justifiable homicide.
> >>>>
> >>>>David
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Sorry about the bad news David but the babe you thought was Shania was
> >
> > in
> >
> >>>fact a transvestite hooker lookalike. I sincerely hope that you didn't
> >>>have
> >>>sex with her/him.
> >>
> >>That bitch! She told me the bulge was a little gun in a crotch holster
:(
> >>
> >>David
> >>
> >
> > Sounds credible enough but how did Shania explain why the bulge got
bigger?
> >
> >
>
> Similar to the ping pong ball trick...but involving the attachment of a
> silencer...
>
You might need to explain this, Spod

Charles
July 24th 05, 10:15 PM
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:02:25 -0400, "ATP*" > wrote:

>
>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 08:29:41 -0400, "ATP*" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Charles" > wrote in message
...
>>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 03:29:49 -0500, OmManiPadmeOmelet
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>> "David" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Charles" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> > On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>>>>>> > > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He may have been running away from assailants trying to do him harm
>>>>>> (how
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> he to know they were police?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh please!
>>>>>The uniforms maybe???
>>>>
>>>> They were in plain clothes!
>>>>
>>>No faggy hats?
>>
>> Why would armed plain clothes Special Branch officers be wearing any
>> sort of hat, let alone a "faggy hat" (whatever they are)?
>>
>> Have a great Sunday - I am!! ;o)
>
>see the following:
>
>http://www.mninternational.com/index.cfm/iProdID/5968/PageID/372/iStartPos/1
>
>I meant no faggy hats, since they were not in uniform. They should have to
>put those hats on before shooting to kill:-)

I see what you mean, we also think they are pretty silly but hardly
"faggy". They are called 'tit heads' over here and are largely used
for beat policeman and in training.

They date back to the early days of the police force and are largely
traditional now.

Charles
July 24th 05, 10:16 PM
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:13:17 -0400, WillBrink
> wrote:

>In article om>,
> "W. Bacon" > wrote:
>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm
>>
>> Hmm...shooting an unarmed man at point blank range 5 times....that's
>> NOT VERY NICE...
>
>Your point being?

That it wasn't very nice? ;o)

Charles
July 24th 05, 10:18 PM
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:16:06 -0400, WillBrink
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Hugh Beyer > wrote:
>
>> Nameless > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
>> >>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
>> >>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
>> >>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and
>> >>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying
>> >>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very
>> >>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>> >
>> > The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>> > take it easy.
>>
>> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the subway
>> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>>
>> I say give this guy a Darwin award.
>
>I second that. His incredible stupidity got him killed, the police were
>simply the vehicle for his demise. Blames is squarely with him if the
>details we are now getting are accurate.

There is the scenario that he didn't know they were police, there are
armed gangs in both London and in Brazil perhaps?

David Cohen
July 24th 05, 10:21 PM
"WillBrink" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>> "Nameless" > wrote
>> > "David" > wrote:
>> >>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
>> >>was
>> >>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have the
>> >>whip
>> >>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except gird
>> >>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for
>> >>the
>> >>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We can't
>> >>let
>> >>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
>> >>possibility.
>> >>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>> >
>> > The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>> > take it easy.
>>
>> Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to them)
>> solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm the
>> police.
>> From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in Great
>> Britain.
>> Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
>>
>> Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is going?
>
> They are still worlking on getting rid of the evil kitchen knives.
> Pointy sticks are later. As you can see, things are going so very well
> since the additional gun control act. BTW, just returned for an IDPA
> match were I was humbled....

It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game.

<whisper> Actually, it IS all about winning, but I didn't want you to feel
bad :)</>

David

Charles
July 24th 05, 10:27 PM
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 04:42:22 +0800, spodosaurus
> wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
6...
>>>
>>>>Nameless > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
>>>>>>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
>>>>>>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
>>>>>>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and
>>>>>>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying
>>>>>>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very
>>>>>>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>>>>>
>>>>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>>>>>take it easy.
>>>>
>>>>Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the subway
>>>>immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>>>>
>>>>I say give this guy a Darwin award.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yep, that would be appropriate.
>>>
>>>While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with the
>>>police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give them no
>>>choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide by cop.
>>>
>>>I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This guy was
>>>on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people earlier in the
>>>day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at the police. He got
>>>shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and brought to the hospital.
>>>
>>>They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
>>>confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put their
>>>asses on the line for us everyday.
>>>
>>>Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce a bad
>>>shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the whole town
>>>is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be a no brainer to
>>>become a well behaved church mouse.
>>>
>>>This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.
>>
>>
>> Good appraisal and fair summation.
>>
>> We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
>> occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
>> of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
>> otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
>> don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!
>>
>> However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
>> running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
>> situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
>> he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!
>>
>> Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)
>
> From what I've read, the police were in plain clothes and decided to
>pull out guns and go after this guy. Maybe they identified themselves as
>police, maybe they didn't, but seeing as cops in the UK usually don't
>carry guns and this poor sod on his way to work is suddenly confronted
>by three armed men yelling and coming at him...well...wouldn't you run,
>too? Even if they did identify themselves, with all three running at him
>and yelling is a non-native english speaker who is **** scared and
>thinks he's about to be killed really going to be able to pause and try
>and figure out what these three armed men are yelling at him? No, he's
>going to run before he gets killed. It seems reasonable that this
>electrician could see that their intent was to kill him, and they did
>just that.

I think that may be what I said but not in so many words. He was
certainly most unfortunate and in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Many people die for the same reason but not necessarily by armed
police.

As out American cousins are wont to say: "**** happens"!!

JMW
July 24th 05, 10:48 PM
"David" > wrote:
>
>"spodosaurus" > wrote:
>>
>> David wrote:
>>
>> > "David Cohen" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>"David" > wrote
>> >>
>> >>>"David Cohen" > wrote >>
>> >>>
>> >>>>"Dally" > wrote
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>David Cohen wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>"Nameless" > wrote
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>"David" > wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
>> >>>
>> >>>death
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>>>was
>> >>>>>>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
>> >
>> > the
>> >
>> >>>>>>>>whip
>> >>>>>>>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except
>> >
>> > gird
>> >
>> >>>>>>>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait
>> >
>> > for
>> >
>> >>>the
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We
>> >
>> > can't
>> >
>> >>>>>>>>let
>> >>>>>>>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
>> >>>>>>>>possibility.
>> >>>>>>>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush.
>Just
>> >>>>>>>take it easy.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to
>> >>>
>> >>>them)
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm the
>> >>>>>>police. From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in
>> >>>
>> >>>Great
>> >>>
>> >>>>>>Britain. Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is
>> >
>> > going?
>> >
>> >>>>>>David
>> >>>>>>the American one in Nevada with lots of guns
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>I was listening to this being discussed yesterday and the reasoning
>> >>>
>> >>>behind
>> >>>
>> >>>>>it is sound, i.e., suicide bombers need a headshot to save lives.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained in
>> >>>>>reading body language..." and suddenly I realized that the guys were
>> >>>
>> >>>given
>> >>>
>> >>>>>lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>It is sad that the country that produced the SAS, one of the greatest
>> >>>>special operations forces in history, has been reduced to this.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>Shoot first, ask questions later isn't a sound basis for a judicial
>> >>>>>system. Even an armed-and-dangerous guy like you knows that you've
>> >
>> > got
>> >
>> >>>to
>> >>>
>> >>>>>have some pretty strong probable cause to shoot someone. "Body
>> >>>
>> >>>language"
>> >>>
>> >>>>>in the absence of weapons doesn't meet the criteria.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Wrong. "Body language in the absence of weapons" can most certainly
>> >>>>constitute legal justification for the use of lethal force. One
>> >
>> > example.
>> >
>> >>>I'm
>> >>>
>> >>>>walking down the Las Vegas Strip with my date, Shania Twain. A guy
>runs
>> >>>
>> >>>up,
>> >>>
>> >>>>grabs Shania's purse, and runs off. I yell, "Hey, douchebag, come back
>> >>>
>> >>>here
>> >>>
>> >>>>with Shania's purse!" The guy stops, turns, and reaches under his
>> >
>> > jacket,
>> >
>> >>>>behind his right hip with his right hand, in the classic
>> >>>>reach-for-your-holster-and-draw stance. I place two Federal 230 grain
>> >>>>Hydra-Shok jacketed hollowpoints , 1/2 inch apart, into the center of
>> >
>> > his
>> >
>> >>>>chest and one into his head at the bridge of his nose. Shania squeals,
>> >>>
>> >>>"Ohh,
>> >>>
>> >>>>David, nice shooting! You're getting extra special sex tonight." Turns
>> >>>
>> >>>out,
>> >>>
>> >>>>bad guy was unarmed, reaching for his cell phone camera to take
>> >
>> > Shania's
>> >
>> >>>>picture.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Justifiable homicide.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>David
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Sorry about the bad news David but the babe you thought was Shania was
>> >>>in
>> >>>fact a transvestite hooker lookalike. I sincerely hope that you didn't
>> >>>have sex with her/him.
>> >>
>> >>That bitch! She told me the bulge was a little gun in a crotch holster
>> >>:(
>> >
>> > Sounds credible enough but how did Shania explain why the bulge got
>> > bigger?
>>
>> Similar to the ping pong ball trick...but involving the attachment of a
>> silencer...
>>
>You might need to explain this, Spod

Not to anyone who has been around MFW for a long time. Plug this
string into a Google Groups search:

josh mom ping pong group:misc.fitness.weights

Whatever happened to Josh Brown?

mike
July 24th 05, 11:07 PM
"David" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Dally" > wrote
> > > David Cohen wrote:
> > >> "Nameless" > wrote
> > >>> "David" > wrote:
> > >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
> death
> > >>>>was
> > >>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
the
> > >>>>whip
> > >>>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except
gird
> > >>>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait for
> the
> > >>>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We
can't
> > >>>>let
> > >>>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
> > >>>>possibility.
> > >>>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> > >>>
> > >>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> > >>>take it easy.
> > >>
> > >> Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to
> them)
> > >> solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm the
> > >> police. From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in
> Great
> > >> Britain. Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
> > >>
> > >> Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is going?
> > >>
> > >> David
> > >> the American one in Nevada with lots of guns
> > >
> > > I was listening to this being discussed yesterday and the reasoning
> behind
> > > it is sound, i.e., suicide bombers need a headshot to save lives.
> > >
> > > But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained in
> > > reading body language..." and suddenly I realized that the guys were
> given
> > > lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.
> >
> > It is sad that the country that produced the SAS, one of the greatest
> > special operations forces in history, has been reduced to this.
> > >
> > > Shoot first, ask questions later isn't a sound basis for a judicial
> > > system. Even an armed-and-dangerous guy like you knows that you've
got
> to
> > > have some pretty strong probable cause to shoot someone. "Body
> language"
> > > in the absence of weapons doesn't meet the criteria.
> >
> > Wrong. "Body language in the absence of weapons" can most certainly
> > constitute legal justification for the use of lethal force. One example.
> I'm
> > walking down the Las Vegas Strip with my date, Shania Twain. A guy runs
> up,
> > grabs Shania's purse, and runs off. I yell, "Hey, douchebag, come back
> here
> > with Shania's purse!" The guy stops, turns, and reaches under his
jacket,
> > behind his right hip with his right hand, in the classic
> > reach-for-your-holster-and-draw stance. I place two Federal 230 grain
> > Hydra-Shok jacketed hollowpoints , 1/2 inch apart, into the center of
his
> > chest and one into his head at the bridge of his nose. Shania squeals,
> "Ohh,
> > David, nice shooting! You're getting extra special sex tonight." Turns
> out,
> > bad guy was unarmed, reaching for his cell phone camera to take Shania's
> > picture.
> >
> > Justifiable homicide.
> >
> > David
> >
> Sorry about the bad news David but the babe you thought was Shania was in
> fact a transvestite hooker lookalike. I sincerely hope that you didn't
have
> sex with her/him.
>
>
pmsl.......made my day....thanks

mike
July 24th 05, 11:08 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "David" > wrote
> > "David Cohen" > wrote >>
> >> "Dally" > wrote
> >> > David Cohen wrote:
> >> >> "Nameless" > wrote
> >> >>> "David" > wrote:
> >> >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
> > death
> >> >>>>was
> >> >>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
the
> >> >>>>whip
> >> >>>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except
gird
> >> >>>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait
for
> > the
> >> >>>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We
can't
> >> >>>>let
> >> >>>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
> >> >>>>possibility.
> >> >>>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
> >> >>>take it easy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to
> > them)
> >> >> solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm the
> >> >> police. From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in
> > Great
> >> >> Britain. Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is
going?
> >> >>
> >> >> David
> >> >> the American one in Nevada with lots of guns
> >> >
> >> > I was listening to this being discussed yesterday and the reasoning
> > behind
> >> > it is sound, i.e., suicide bombers need a headshot to save lives.
> >> >
> >> > But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained in
> >> > reading body language..." and suddenly I realized that the guys were
> > given
> >> > lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.
> >>
> >> It is sad that the country that produced the SAS, one of the greatest
> >> special operations forces in history, has been reduced to this.
> >> >
> >> > Shoot first, ask questions later isn't a sound basis for a judicial
> >> > system. Even an armed-and-dangerous guy like you knows that you've
got
> > to
> >> > have some pretty strong probable cause to shoot someone. "Body
> > language"
> >> > in the absence of weapons doesn't meet the criteria.
> >>
> >> Wrong. "Body language in the absence of weapons" can most certainly
> >> constitute legal justification for the use of lethal force. One
example.
> > I'm
> >> walking down the Las Vegas Strip with my date, Shania Twain. A guy runs
> > up,
> >> grabs Shania's purse, and runs off. I yell, "Hey, douchebag, come back
> > here
> >> with Shania's purse!" The guy stops, turns, and reaches under his
jacket,
> >> behind his right hip with his right hand, in the classic
> >> reach-for-your-holster-and-draw stance. I place two Federal 230 grain
> >> Hydra-Shok jacketed hollowpoints , 1/2 inch apart, into the center of
his
> >> chest and one into his head at the bridge of his nose. Shania squeals,
> > "Ohh,
> >> David, nice shooting! You're getting extra special sex tonight." Turns
> > out,
> >> bad guy was unarmed, reaching for his cell phone camera to take
Shania's
> >> picture.
> >>
> >> Justifiable homicide.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> > Sorry about the bad news David but the babe you thought was Shania was
in
> > fact a transvestite hooker lookalike. I sincerely hope that you didn't
> > have
> > sex with her/him.
>
> That bitch! She told me the bulge was a little gun in a crotch holster :(
>
> David
>
>
Sure it was a "little gun" ? and positioned at the crotch?..LOL

David
July 24th 05, 11:13 PM
"JMW" > wrote in message
...
> "David" > wrote:
> >
> >"spodosaurus" > wrote:
> >>
> >> David wrote:
> >>
> >> > "David Cohen" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>"David" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >>>"David Cohen" > wrote >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>"Dally" > wrote
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>David Cohen wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>"Nameless" > wrote
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>"David" > wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot
to
> >> >>>
> >> >>>death
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>>>>was
> >> >>>>>>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims
have
> >> >
> >> > the
> >> >
> >> >>>>>>>>whip
> >> >>>>>>>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
except
> >> >
> >> > gird
> >> >
> >> >>>>>>>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and
wait
> >> >
> >> > for
> >> >
> >> >>>the
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>>>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We
> >> >
> >> > can't
> >> >
> >> >>>>>>>>let
> >> >>>>>>>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
> >> >>>>>>>>possibility.
> >> >>>>>>>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush.
> >Just
> >> >>>>>>>take it easy.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical
(to
> >> >>>
> >> >>>them)
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>>solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm
the
> >> >>>>>>police. From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns
in
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Great
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>>Britain. Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is
> >> >
> >> > going?
> >> >
> >> >>>>>>David
> >> >>>>>>the American one in Nevada with lots of guns
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>I was listening to this being discussed yesterday and the
reasoning
> >> >>>
> >> >>>behind
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>it is sound, i.e., suicide bombers need a headshot to save lives.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained
in
> >> >>>>>reading body language..." and suddenly I realized that the guys
were
> >> >>>
> >> >>>given
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>It is sad that the country that produced the SAS, one of the
greatest
> >> >>>>special operations forces in history, has been reduced to this.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>Shoot first, ask questions later isn't a sound basis for a
judicial
> >> >>>>>system. Even an armed-and-dangerous guy like you knows that
you've
> >> >
> >> > got
> >> >
> >> >>>to
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>have some pretty strong probable cause to shoot someone. "Body
> >> >>>
> >> >>>language"
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>in the absence of weapons doesn't meet the criteria.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Wrong. "Body language in the absence of weapons" can most certainly
> >> >>>>constitute legal justification for the use of lethal force. One
> >> >
> >> > example.
> >> >
> >> >>>I'm
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>walking down the Las Vegas Strip with my date, Shania Twain. A guy
> >runs
> >> >>>
> >> >>>up,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>grabs Shania's purse, and runs off. I yell, "Hey, douchebag, come
back
> >> >>>
> >> >>>here
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>with Shania's purse!" The guy stops, turns, and reaches under his
> >> >
> >> > jacket,
> >> >
> >> >>>>behind his right hip with his right hand, in the classic
> >> >>>>reach-for-your-holster-and-draw stance. I place two Federal 230
grain
> >> >>>>Hydra-Shok jacketed hollowpoints , 1/2 inch apart, into the center
of
> >> >
> >> > his
> >> >
> >> >>>>chest and one into his head at the bridge of his nose. Shania
squeals,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>"Ohh,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>David, nice shooting! You're getting extra special sex tonight."
Turns
> >> >>>
> >> >>>out,
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>bad guy was unarmed, reaching for his cell phone camera to take
> >> >
> >> > Shania's
> >> >
> >> >>>>picture.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>Justifiable homicide.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>David
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Sorry about the bad news David but the babe you thought was Shania
was
> >> >>>in
> >> >>>fact a transvestite hooker lookalike. I sincerely hope that you
didn't
> >> >>>have sex with her/him.
> >> >>
> >> >>That bitch! She told me the bulge was a little gun in a crotch
holster
> >> >>:(
> >> >
> >> > Sounds credible enough but how did Shania explain why the bulge got
> >> > bigger?
> >>
> >> Similar to the ping pong ball trick...but involving the attachment of a
> >> silencer...
> >>
> >You might need to explain this, Spod
>
> Not to anyone who has been around MFW for a long time. Plug this
> string into a Google Groups search:
>
> josh mom ping pong group:misc.fitness.weights

Thanks I got it now

> Whatever happened to Josh Brown?

David
July 24th 05, 11:26 PM
"mike" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "David" > wrote
> > > "David Cohen" > wrote >>
> > >> "Dally" > wrote
> > >> > David Cohen wrote:
> > >> >> "Nameless" > wrote
> > >> >>> "David" > wrote:
> > >> >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
> > > death
> > >> >>>>was
> > >> >>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
> the
> > >> >>>>whip
> > >> >>>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except
> gird
> > >> >>>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait
> for
> > > the
> > >> >>>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We
> can't
> > >> >>>>let
> > >> >>>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
> > >> >>>>possibility.
> > >> >>>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush.
Just
> > >> >>>take it easy.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical
(to
> > > them)
> > >> >> solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm
the
> > >> >> police. From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns
in
> > > Great
> > >> >> Britain. Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is
> going?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> David
> > >> >> the American one in Nevada with lots of guns
> > >> >
> > >> > I was listening to this being discussed yesterday and the reasoning
> > > behind
> > >> > it is sound, i.e., suicide bombers need a headshot to save lives.
> > >> >
> > >> > But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained
in
> > >> > reading body language..." and suddenly I realized that the guys
were
> > > given
> > >> > lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.
> > >>
> > >> It is sad that the country that produced the SAS, one of the greatest
> > >> special operations forces in history, has been reduced to this.
> > >> >
> > >> > Shoot first, ask questions later isn't a sound basis for a judicial
> > >> > system. Even an armed-and-dangerous guy like you knows that you've
> got
> > > to
> > >> > have some pretty strong probable cause to shoot someone. "Body
> > > language"
> > >> > in the absence of weapons doesn't meet the criteria.
> > >>
> > >> Wrong. "Body language in the absence of weapons" can most certainly
> > >> constitute legal justification for the use of lethal force. One
> example.
> > > I'm
> > >> walking down the Las Vegas Strip with my date, Shania Twain. A guy
runs
> > > up,
> > >> grabs Shania's purse, and runs off. I yell, "Hey, douchebag, come
back
> > > here
> > >> with Shania's purse!" The guy stops, turns, and reaches under his
> jacket,
> > >> behind his right hip with his right hand, in the classic
> > >> reach-for-your-holster-and-draw stance. I place two Federal 230 grain
> > >> Hydra-Shok jacketed hollowpoints , 1/2 inch apart, into the center of
> his
> > >> chest and one into his head at the bridge of his nose. Shania
squeals,
> > > "Ohh,
> > >> David, nice shooting! You're getting extra special sex tonight."
Turns
> > > out,
> > >> bad guy was unarmed, reaching for his cell phone camera to take
> Shania's
> > >> picture.
> > >>
> > >> Justifiable homicide.
> > >>
> > >> David
> > >>
> > > Sorry about the bad news David but the babe you thought was Shania was
> in
> > > fact a transvestite hooker lookalike. I sincerely hope that you didn't
> > > have
> > > sex with her/him.
> >
> > That bitch! She told me the bulge was a little gun in a crotch holster
:(
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> Sure it was a "little gun" ? and positioned at the crotch?..LOL
>
I think Cohen might have a little 'explaining' to do here

David
July 24th 05, 11:27 PM
"mike" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "David Cohen" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Dally" > wrote
> > > > David Cohen wrote:
> > > >> "Nameless" > wrote
> > > >>> "David" > wrote:
> > > >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
> > death
> > > >>>>was
> > > >>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
> the
> > > >>>>whip
> > > >>>>hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do except
> gird
> > > >>>>themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and wait
for
> > the
> > > >>>>'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying "We
> can't
> > > >>>>let
> > > >>>>them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very real
> > > >>>>possibility.
> > > >>>>I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush.
Just
> > > >>>take it easy.
> > > >>
> > > >> Needless to say, our British friends will take the only logical (to
> > them)
> > > >> solution to prevent a reoccurance of this horrible event: disarm
the
> > > >> police. From now on, only criminals will be allowed to have guns in
> > Great
> > > >> Britain. Should minimize accidental shootings substantially.
> > > >>
> > > >> Wonder how the National Pointy Stick Registration Programme is
going?
> > > >>
> > > >> David
> > > >> the American one in Nevada with lots of guns
> > > >
> > > > I was listening to this being discussed yesterday and the reasoning
> > behind
> > > > it is sound, i.e., suicide bombers need a headshot to save lives.
> > > >
> > > > But then I heard the report say, "British police have been trained
in
> > > > reading body language..." and suddenly I realized that the guys were
> > given
> > > > lethal force based on their mind-reading abilities.
> > >
> > > It is sad that the country that produced the SAS, one of the greatest
> > > special operations forces in history, has been reduced to this.
> > > >
> > > > Shoot first, ask questions later isn't a sound basis for a judicial
> > > > system. Even an armed-and-dangerous guy like you knows that you've
> got
> > to
> > > > have some pretty strong probable cause to shoot someone. "Body
> > language"
> > > > in the absence of weapons doesn't meet the criteria.
> > >
> > > Wrong. "Body language in the absence of weapons" can most certainly
> > > constitute legal justification for the use of lethal force. One
example.
> > I'm
> > > walking down the Las Vegas Strip with my date, Shania Twain. A guy
runs
> > up,
> > > grabs Shania's purse, and runs off. I yell, "Hey, douchebag, come back
> > here
> > > with Shania's purse!" The guy stops, turns, and reaches under his
> jacket,
> > > behind his right hip with his right hand, in the classic
> > > reach-for-your-holster-and-draw stance. I place two Federal 230 grain
> > > Hydra-Shok jacketed hollowpoints , 1/2 inch apart, into the center of
> his
> > > chest and one into his head at the bridge of his nose. Shania squeals,
> > "Ohh,
> > > David, nice shooting! You're getting extra special sex tonight." Turns
> > out,
> > > bad guy was unarmed, reaching for his cell phone camera to take
Shania's
> > > picture.
> > >
> > > Justifiable homicide.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > Sorry about the bad news David but the babe you thought was Shania was
in
> > fact a transvestite hooker lookalike. I sincerely hope that you didn't
> have
> > sex with her/him.
> >
> >
> pmsl.......made my day....thanks
>
:-)

WillBrink
July 24th 05, 11:42 PM
In article >,
"David Cohen" > wrote:


> <whisper> Actually, it IS all about winning, but I didn't want you to feel
> bad :)</>

Oh yeah big mouth?!!

"In the Las Vegas metro area, many members & non-members (who are also
welcome) come out the 1st Saturday morning of every month to particpate
in the IDPA match at Desert Sportsmen Rifle & Pistol Club, located just
West of Las Vegas on Charleston."

Let me know how it turns out Teddy Tactical!

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink
July 24th 05, 11:45 PM
In article >,
"David Cohen" > wrote:


> <whisper> Actually, it IS all about winning, but I didn't want you to feel
> bad :)</>

BTW:

DESERT SPORTSMAN'S RIFLE & PISTOL CLUB
Section: IPSC Area: 1 Club Number: IPSC05
THOMAS O'CONNOR
LAS VEGAS, NV 89115
Home: (702) 643-3384
Email:


MOHAVE SPORTSMAN CLUB
Section: IPSC Area: 1 Club Number: IPSC50
LARRY ALEXANDER
LAUGHLIN, NV 89029
Home: (702) 298-3591
Fax: (702) 298-3591
Email:


NEVADA SECTION
Section: NV Area: 1 Club Number: NV01
MONTE C. LEVEAUX
SPARKS, NV 89434
Home: (775) 425-0959
Email:


NORTHEASTERN NEVADA RIFLE & PISTOL
Section: NV Area: 1 Club Number: NV06
DANIELLE M. KOHLER
SPRING CREEK, NV 89815-0002
Home: (775) 753-8825
Fax: (775) 777-3574
Email:


SILVER SAGE PISTOL CLUB
Section: NV Area: 1 Club Number: NV03
KENNETH D. JOHNSON
RENO, NV 89515
Home: (775) 828-6922
Email:


TIRADORES DE PISTOLE AL ROJO CALIENTE
Section: IPSC Area: 1 Club Number: IPSC43
CHARLES H. PYLE
CALIENTE, NV 89008
Home: (775) 726-3417
Work: (775) 726-8200
Email:


WESTERN NEVADA PISTOL LEAGUE
Section: NV Area: 1 Club Number: NV02
DAVID C. BUELL
RENO, NV 89515
Home: (775) 425-0959
Work: (775) 784-0726
Fax: (775) 329-8693
Email:
-----------------------------------------------------
-------------------
>
> David
>
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink
July 24th 05, 11:47 PM
In article >,
"David Cohen" > wrote:

>
> <whisper> Actually, it IS all about winning, but I didn't want you to feel
> bad :)</>

And finally!

http://members.cox.net/homeruns/IDPA_Las_Vegas.htm

I double dare you...

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Hugh Beyer
July 25th 05, 12:30 AM
spodosaurus > wrote in
:

> Charles wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:29:25 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Hugh Beyer" > wrote in message
6...
>>>
>>>>Nameless > wrote in
:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
>>>>>>death was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore
>>>>>>Muslims have the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the
>>>>>>West can do except gird themselves for the next strike and build
>>>>>>more hospitals and wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when
>>>>>>our leaders are saying "We can't let them beat us" - which suggests
>>>>>>that 'beating us' is a very real possibility. I think this is a lost
>>>>>>cause for the good guys.
>>>>>
>>>>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>>>>>take it easy.
>>>>
>>>>Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the
>>>>subway immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>>>>
>>>>I say give this guy a Darwin award.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yep, that would be appropriate.
>>>
>>>While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with
>>>the police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give
>>>them no choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide
>>>by cop.
>>>
>>>I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This
>>>guy was on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people
>>>earlier in the day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at
>>>the police. He got shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and
>>>brought to the hospital.
>>>
>>>They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
>>>confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put
>>>their asses on the line for us everyday.
>>>
>>>Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce a
>>>bad shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the
>>>whole town is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be
>>>a no brainer to become a well behaved church mouse.
>>>
>>>This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.
>>
>>
>> Good appraisal and fair summation.
>>
>> We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
>> occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
>> of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
>> otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
>> don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!
>>
>> However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
>> running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
>> situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
>> he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!
>>
>> Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)
>
> From what I've read, the police were in plain clothes and decided to
> pull out guns and go after this guy. Maybe they identified themselves as
> police, maybe they didn't, but seeing as cops in the UK usually don't
> carry guns and this poor sod on his way to work is suddenly confronted
> by three armed men yelling and coming at him...well...wouldn't you run,
> too? Even if they did identify themselves, with all three running at him
> and yelling is a non-native english speaker who is **** scared and
> thinks he's about to be killed really going to be able to pause and try
> and figure out what these three armed men are yelling at him? No, he's
> going to run before he gets killed. It seems reasonable that this
> electrician could see that their intent was to kill him, and they did
> just that.
>

Right. In broad daylight, in a populated tube station. He may have thought
that but it's still a case of DWS. (Dying While Stupid)

The real question is: what kind of a trigger do you want your police on?
Do you want them, two days after suicide attacks, to follow a suspect to
the tube, holler at him to stop, watch him run away, and say to each
other, "What ho! That chappie's got wheels, what?", and then step outside
to wait for the smoke?

Hugh


--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi")

Hugh Beyer
July 25th 05, 12:43 AM
"W. Bacon" > wrote in news:1122227804.943060.97430
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm
>
> Hmm...shooting an unarmed man at point blank range 5 times....that's
> NOT VERY NICE...
>

You just chased him through the tube, over a turnstile, and onto a train.
You're breathing hard and haven't had a good look at him. And the main thing
in your mind is that odds are it's a race between your finger on your
trigger and his finger on his little red button and that if you lose, you,
he, and everybody around you dies.

Flip a coin. If you take the time to pat him down, maybe everybody dies.
Maybe not. Choose.

Hugh


--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi")

David Cohen
July 25th 05, 01:31 AM
"WillBrink" > wrote
> "David Cohen" > wrote:

>> <whisper> Actually, it IS all about winning, but I didn't want you to
>> feel
>> bad :)</>
>
> Oh yeah big mouth?!!

Me? Big mouth? Oh, you must have me confused with someone else. I'm a
retiring wallflower.

> "In the Las Vegas metro area, many members & non-members (who are also
> welcome) come out the 1st Saturday morning of every month to particpate
> in the IDPA match at Desert Sportsmen Rifle & Pistol Club, located just
> West of Las Vegas on Charleston."
>
> Let me know how it turns out Teddy Tactical!

But, what purpose would be served by having TWO humbled shooters in one
newsgroup?

Looks like fun, though. Might have to check it out.

David

OmManiPadmeOmelet
July 25th 05, 01:34 AM
In article
>,
WillBrink > wrote:

> In article >,
> "David Cohen" > wrote:
>
> >
> > <whisper> Actually, it IS all about winning, but I didn't want you to feel
> > bad :)</>
>
> And finally!
>
> http://members.cox.net/homeruns/IDPA_Las_Vegas.htm
>
> I double dare you...

Damn.

I need to move to Las Vegas. ;-)
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

Charles
July 25th 05, 07:12 AM
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:30:58 GMT, Hugh Beyer >
wrote:
>spodosaurus > wrote in
:

>>>>>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
>>>>>>>death was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore
>>>>>>>Muslims have the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the
>>>>>>>West can do except gird themselves for the next strike and build
>>>>>>>more hospitals and wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when
>>>>>>>our leaders are saying "We can't let them beat us" - which suggests
>>>>>>>that 'beating us' is a very real possibility. I think this is a lost
>>>>>>>cause for the good guys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>>>>>>take it easy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the
>>>>>subway immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>>>>>
>>>>>I say give this guy a Darwin award.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yep, that would be appropriate.
>>>>
>>>>While it is fashionable to yell about every fatality associated with
>>>>the police, there are a tremendous number of total retards who give
>>>>them no choice. Not to count the wusses who use the police for suicide
>>>>by cop.
>>>>
>>>>I saw a guy once who was arrested by a large number of police. This
>>>>guy was on a shooting spree and had shot at least three other people
>>>>earlier in the day. He decided to haul his peice out and point it at
>>>>the police. He got shot several times. Then he was handcuffed and
>>>>brought to the hospital.
>>>>
>>>>They were not nice. It was a deadly confrontation. Idiots provoke such
>>>>confrontations everyday. We are fortunate that folks like that put
>>>>their asses on the line for us everyday.
>>>>
>>>>Not to say that they don't go overboard from time to time and produce a
>>>>bad shoot. But when someone disobeys orders from the police when the
>>>>whole town is extremely tense from two terrorists attacks. It would be
>>>>a no brainer to become a well behaved church mouse.
>>>>
>>>>This guy apparentlywasn't that intelligent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Good appraisal and fair summation.
>>>
>>> We are not used to armed police per se, so it is a very rare
>>> occurrence in England to have someone legally executed on the streets
>>> of the capital. However, it was clearly an execution carried out on an
>>> otherwise innocent person, which is one of the main reasons why we
>>> don't like our police armed, as they do tend to get far too gung ho!
>>>
>>> However, you made the point well that the person appeared to be
>>> running away (why?) and failed to stop in a very highly charged
>>> situation. He may have been unlucky, but by that rather stupid error
>>> he made a fairly large contribution to his death!!
>>>
>>> Have a great Sunday Lee - you know I will!! ;o)
>>
>> From what I've read, the police were in plain clothes and decided to
>> pull out guns and go after this guy. Maybe they identified themselves as
>> police, maybe they didn't, but seeing as cops in the UK usually don't
>> carry guns and this poor sod on his way to work is suddenly confronted
>> by three armed men yelling and coming at him...well...wouldn't you run,
>> too? Even if they did identify themselves, with all three running at him
>> and yelling is a non-native english speaker who is **** scared and
>> thinks he's about to be killed really going to be able to pause and try
>> and figure out what these three armed men are yelling at him? No, he's
>> going to run before he gets killed. It seems reasonable that this
>> electrician could see that their intent was to kill him, and they did
>> just that.
>>
>
>Right. In broad daylight, in a populated tube station. He may have thought
>that but it's still a case of DWS. (Dying While Stupid)
>
>The real question is: what kind of a trigger do you want your police on?
>Do you want them, two days after suicide attacks, to follow a suspect to
>the tube, holler at him to stop, watch him run away, and say to each
>other, "What ho! That chappie's got wheels, what?", and then step outside
>to wait for the smoke?
>

Stap me vitals Hugh, dashed if you haven't got the flavour of the
situation old chap. These foreign Johnnies have got to understand that
if they bugger the British 'bobby' about, they're very likely to get
one severely up them!!

Ugh! It's Monday!! ;o(

Runs With Knives
July 25th 05, 12:57 PM
In article >,
WillBrink > writes:
[snip]
> BTW, just returned for an IDPA
> match were I was humbled....

International Dart Players Association?

<gd&r>

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
| - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

WillBrink
July 25th 05, 02:21 PM
In article >,
(Runs With Knives) wrote:

> In article >,
> WillBrink > writes:
> [snip]
> > BTW, just returned for an IDPA
> > match were I was humbled....
>
> International Dart Players Association?

Exactly.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink
July 25th 05, 02:24 PM
In article et>,
"David Cohen" > wrote:

>
> Looks like fun, though. Might have to check it out.

It is a lot of fun, cheap, and great for testing your defensive shooting
skills. I did OK yesterday, but not great:

http://www.rodgun-nb.org/ap/results/20050724.htm


I highly recommend it.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John Hanson
July 25th 05, 04:04 PM
On 24 Jul 2005 10:56:45 -0700, "W. Bacon" > wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm
>
>Hmm...shooting an unarmed man at point blank range 5 times....that's
>NOT VERY NICE...

No it isn't and it sounds like these cops were nothing but incompetent
idiots.

Ellis
July 25th 05, 04:18 PM
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:04:23 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:

>No it isn't and it sounds like these cops were nothing but incompetent
>idiots.

What should they have done differently?

Ellis

Lee Michaels
July 25th 05, 04:32 PM
<Ellis> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:04:23 -0500, John Hanson
> > wrote:
>
>>No it isn't and it sounds like these cops were nothing but incompetent
>>idiots.
>
> What should they have done differently?
>
Paticularly when they think it is a suicide bomber. The tactics they used
were specifically designed to stop a suicide bomber. Any bullet to the body
can set off a very powerful explosive killing many people. The only way to
stop them is multiple headshots. Delivered fast enough that they can't push
a button on the detonator.

Situations was is that the retard acted like a suicide bomber and refused to
cooperate with the police. It was ultimate stupidity. It is like those
morons who don't wear much clothing while driving in hot weather and get
stopped by the police. A certain percentage of them dive under the seat to
get their license.

They end up looking down the barrel of a gum. Usually protesting that the
armed response was some how inappropriate. Simple rules for dealing with
cops. Smile. Be courteous. Don't fight or argue. And don't do anything that
looks like you are going to hurt anybody. Don't run. Etc., etc.

Simple stuff. It ain't a conspiracy. It is just common sense and courtesy.
Something a lot of folks have trouble understanding and/or doing.

Darwinism is alive and well.

Ellis
July 25th 05, 08:26 PM
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:32:10 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
><Ellis> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:04:23 -0500, John Hanson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>No it isn't and it sounds like these cops were nothing but incompetent
>>>idiots.
>>
>> What should they have done differently?
>>
>Paticularly when they think it is a suicide bomber. The tactics they used
>were specifically designed to stop a suicide bomber. Any bullet to the body
>can set off a very powerful explosive killing many people. The only way to
>stop them is multiple headshots. Delivered fast enough that they can't push
>a button on the detonator.
>
>Situations was is that the retard acted like a suicide bomber and refused to
>cooperate with the police. It was ultimate stupidity. It is like those
>morons who don't wear much clothing while driving in hot weather and get
>stopped by the police. A certain percentage of them dive under the seat to
>get their license.
>
>They end up looking down the barrel of a gum. Usually protesting that the
>armed response was some how inappropriate. Simple rules for dealing with
>cops. Smile. Be courteous. Don't fight or argue. And don't do anything that
>looks like you are going to hurt anybody. Don't run. Etc., etc.
>
>Simple stuff. It ain't a conspiracy. It is just common sense and courtesy.
>Something a lot of folks have trouble understanding and/or doing.
>
>Darwinism is alive and well.

Wot Lee said.

The only thing I don't understand about the police response is that
they APPARENTLY allowed the guy to board a bus as part of his journey
from the apartment to the subway station. This seems odd if they
already thought he was maybe a suicide bomber (and buses have already
been shown to be as much a target of the bombers as trains).

Also APPARENTLY the guy's visa had expired (and it seems was never the
sort of visa that would have allowed full-time employment anyway).
This MAY explain why the guy bolted when the police told him to stop.

Ellis

Lee Michaels
July 25th 05, 08:44 PM
<Ellis> wrote

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:32:10 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>><Ellis> wrote in message
...
>>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:04:23 -0500, John Hanson
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>No it isn't and it sounds like these cops were nothing but incompetent
>>>>idiots.
>>>
>>> What should they have done differently?
>>>
>>Paticularly when they think it is a suicide bomber. The tactics they used
>>were specifically designed to stop a suicide bomber. Any bullet to the
>>body
>>can set off a very powerful explosive killing many people. The only way to
>>stop them is multiple headshots. Delivered fast enough that they can't
>>push
>>a button on the detonator.
>>
>>Situations was is that the retard acted like a suicide bomber and refused
>>to
>>cooperate with the police. It was ultimate stupidity. It is like those
>>morons who don't wear much clothing while driving in hot weather and get
>>stopped by the police. A certain percentage of them dive under the seat
>>to
>>get their license.
>>
>>They end up looking down the barrel of a gum. Usually protesting that the
>>armed response was some how inappropriate. Simple rules for dealing with
>>cops. Smile. Be courteous. Don't fight or argue. And don't do anything
>>that
>>looks like you are going to hurt anybody. Don't run. Etc., etc.
>>
>>Simple stuff. It ain't a conspiracy. It is just common sense and courtesy.
>>Something a lot of folks have trouble understanding and/or doing.
>>
>>Darwinism is alive and well.
>
> Wot Lee said.
>
> The only thing I don't understand about the police response is that
> they APPARENTLY allowed the guy to board a bus as part of his journey
> from the apartment to the subway station. This seems odd if they
> already thought he was maybe a suicide bomber (and buses have already
> been shown to be as much a target of the bombers as trains).
>
> Also APPARENTLY the guy's visa had expired (and it seems was never the
> sort of visa that would have allowed full-time employment anyway).
> This MAY explain why the guy bolted when the police told him to stop.
>
I had no idea about the immigration thing.

But it doesn't change anything. On Cops, there are often cases where a
dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on the
order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn it
into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind bars. Or
a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.

And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing. For those folks,
I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a suspect
that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing attached to
their body? The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
important than the national security of a sovereign nation.

He was an idiot. He got exactly what he deserved.

Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I bet
they are devastated. None of the whiners are saying anything positive or
supportive about these brave officers. Talk about a thankless job.

I will say it right now. I extend my deepest sympathies and respect to the
selfless, brave acts that these London LEO's did. And for having to deal
with all its aftermath. Folks like you are what separates us from the
savages. Thank you sirs. Job well done.

Lee

David
July 25th 05, 09:00 PM
"Lee Michaels" > wrote in message
...
>
> <Ellis> wrote
>
> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:32:10 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >><Ellis> wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:04:23 -0500, John Hanson
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>No it isn't and it sounds like these cops were nothing but incompetent
> >>>>idiots.
> >>>
> >>> What should they have done differently?
> >>>
> >>Paticularly when they think it is a suicide bomber. The tactics they
used
> >>were specifically designed to stop a suicide bomber. Any bullet to the
> >>body
> >>can set off a very powerful explosive killing many people. The only way
to
> >>stop them is multiple headshots. Delivered fast enough that they can't
> >>push
> >>a button on the detonator.
> >>
> >>Situations was is that the retard acted like a suicide bomber and
refused
> >>to
> >>cooperate with the police. It was ultimate stupidity. It is like those
> >>morons who don't wear much clothing while driving in hot weather and get
> >>stopped by the police. A certain percentage of them dive under the seat
> >>to
> >>get their license.
> >>
> >>They end up looking down the barrel of a gum. Usually protesting that
the
> >>armed response was some how inappropriate. Simple rules for dealing
with
> >>cops. Smile. Be courteous. Don't fight or argue. And don't do anything
> >>that
> >>looks like you are going to hurt anybody. Don't run. Etc., etc.
> >>
> >>Simple stuff. It ain't a conspiracy. It is just common sense and
courtesy.
> >>Something a lot of folks have trouble understanding and/or doing.
> >>
> >>Darwinism is alive and well.
> >
> > Wot Lee said.
> >
> > The only thing I don't understand about the police response is that
> > they APPARENTLY allowed the guy to board a bus as part of his journey
> > from the apartment to the subway station. This seems odd if they
> > already thought he was maybe a suicide bomber (and buses have already
> > been shown to be as much a target of the bombers as trains).
> >
> > Also APPARENTLY the guy's visa had expired (and it seems was never the
> > sort of visa that would have allowed full-time employment anyway).
> > This MAY explain why the guy bolted when the police told him to stop.
> >
> I had no idea about the immigration thing.
>
> But it doesn't change anything. On Cops, there are often cases where a
> dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on
the
> order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn it
> into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind bars.
Or
> a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
>
> And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing. For those
folks,
> I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a suspect
> that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing attached
to
> their body? The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
> important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
>
> He was an idiot. He got exactly what he deserved.
>
> Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
> simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I
bet
> they are devastated. None of the whiners are saying anything positive or
> supportive about these brave officers. Talk about a thankless job.
>
> I will say it right now. I extend my deepest sympathies and respect to
the
> selfless, brave acts that these London LEO's did. And for having to deal
> with all its aftermath. Folks like you are what separates us from the
> savages. Thank you sirs. Job well done.
>
> Lee
>
Lee, I have always suspected that you are intellectually challenged. You
have just supplied irrefutable proof.

OmManiPadmeOmelet
July 25th 05, 09:02 PM
In article >,
"Lee Michaels" > wrote:

> <Ellis> wrote
>
> > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:32:10 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >><Ellis> wrote in message
> ...
> >>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:04:23 -0500, John Hanson
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>No it isn't and it sounds like these cops were nothing but incompetent
> >>>>idiots.
> >>>
> >>> What should they have done differently?
> >>>
> >>Paticularly when they think it is a suicide bomber. The tactics they used
> >>were specifically designed to stop a suicide bomber. Any bullet to the
> >>body
> >>can set off a very powerful explosive killing many people. The only way to
> >>stop them is multiple headshots. Delivered fast enough that they can't
> >>push
> >>a button on the detonator.
> >>
> >>Situations was is that the retard acted like a suicide bomber and refused
> >>to
> >>cooperate with the police. It was ultimate stupidity. It is like those
> >>morons who don't wear much clothing while driving in hot weather and get
> >>stopped by the police. A certain percentage of them dive under the seat
> >>to
> >>get their license.
> >>
> >>They end up looking down the barrel of a gum. Usually protesting that the
> >>armed response was some how inappropriate. Simple rules for dealing with
> >>cops. Smile. Be courteous. Don't fight or argue. And don't do anything
> >>that
> >>looks like you are going to hurt anybody. Don't run. Etc., etc.
> >>
> >>Simple stuff. It ain't a conspiracy. It is just common sense and courtesy.
> >>Something a lot of folks have trouble understanding and/or doing.
> >>
> >>Darwinism is alive and well.
> >
> > Wot Lee said.
> >
> > The only thing I don't understand about the police response is that
> > they APPARENTLY allowed the guy to board a bus as part of his journey
> > from the apartment to the subway station. This seems odd if they
> > already thought he was maybe a suicide bomber (and buses have already
> > been shown to be as much a target of the bombers as trains).
> >
> > Also APPARENTLY the guy's visa had expired (and it seems was never the
> > sort of visa that would have allowed full-time employment anyway).
> > This MAY explain why the guy bolted when the police told him to stop.
> >
> I had no idea about the immigration thing.
>
> But it doesn't change anything. On Cops, there are often cases where a
> dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on the
> order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn it
> into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind bars. Or
> a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
>
> And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing. For those folks,
> I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a suspect
> that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing attached to
> their body? The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
> important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
>
> He was an idiot. He got exactly what he deserved.
>
> Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
> simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I bet
> they are devastated. None of the whiners are saying anything positive or
> supportive about these brave officers. Talk about a thankless job.
>
> I will say it right now. I extend my deepest sympathies and respect to the
> selfless, brave acts that these London LEO's did. And for having to deal
> with all its aftermath. Folks like you are what separates us from the
> savages. Thank you sirs. Job well done.
>
> Lee


<applause>!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

David
July 25th 05, 09:15 PM
"OmManiPadmeOmelet" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>
> > <Ellis> wrote
> >
> > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:32:10 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >><Ellis> wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:04:23 -0500, John Hanson
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>No it isn't and it sounds like these cops were nothing but
incompetent
> > >>>>idiots.
> > >>>
> > >>> What should they have done differently?
> > >>>
> > >>Paticularly when they think it is a suicide bomber. The tactics they
used
> > >>were specifically designed to stop a suicide bomber. Any bullet to
the
> > >>body
> > >>can set off a very powerful explosive killing many people. The only
way to
> > >>stop them is multiple headshots. Delivered fast enough that they can't
> > >>push
> > >>a button on the detonator.
> > >>
> > >>Situations was is that the retard acted like a suicide bomber and
refused
> > >>to
> > >>cooperate with the police. It was ultimate stupidity. It is like
those
> > >>morons who don't wear much clothing while driving in hot weather and
get
> > >>stopped by the police. A certain percentage of them dive under the
seat
> > >>to
> > >>get their license.
> > >>
> > >>They end up looking down the barrel of a gum. Usually protesting that
the
> > >>armed response was some how inappropriate. Simple rules for dealing
with
> > >>cops. Smile. Be courteous. Don't fight or argue. And don't do anything
> > >>that
> > >>looks like you are going to hurt anybody. Don't run. Etc., etc.
> > >>
> > >>Simple stuff. It ain't a conspiracy. It is just common sense and
courtesy.
> > >>Something a lot of folks have trouble understanding and/or doing.
> > >>
> > >>Darwinism is alive and well.
> > >
> > > Wot Lee said.
> > >
> > > The only thing I don't understand about the police response is that
> > > they APPARENTLY allowed the guy to board a bus as part of his journey
> > > from the apartment to the subway station. This seems odd if they
> > > already thought he was maybe a suicide bomber (and buses have already
> > > been shown to be as much a target of the bombers as trains).
> > >
> > > Also APPARENTLY the guy's visa had expired (and it seems was never the
> > > sort of visa that would have allowed full-time employment anyway).
> > > This MAY explain why the guy bolted when the police told him to stop.
> > >
> > I had no idea about the immigration thing.
> >
> > But it doesn't change anything. On Cops, there are often cases where a
> > dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on
the
> > order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn it
> > into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind
bars. Or
> > a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
> >
> > And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing. For those
folks,
> > I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a
suspect
> > that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing
attached to
> > their body? The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
> > important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
> >
> > He was an idiot. He got exactly what he deserved.
> >
> > Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
> > simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I
bet
> > they are devastated. None of the whiners are saying anything positive
or
> > supportive about these brave officers. Talk about a thankless job.
> >
> > I will say it right now. I extend my deepest sympathies and respect to
the
> > selfless, brave acts that these London LEO's did. And for having to deal
> > with all its aftermath. Folks like you are what separates us from the
> > savages. Thank you sirs. Job well done.
> >
> > Lee
>
>
> <applause>!
> --
> Om.

Please don;t encourage him, Om

David
July 25th 05, 09:15 PM
"OmManiPadmeOmelet" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
>
> > <Ellis> wrote
> >
> > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:32:10 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >><Ellis> wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:04:23 -0500, John Hanson
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>No it isn't and it sounds like these cops were nothing but
incompetent
> > >>>>idiots.
> > >>>
> > >>> What should they have done differently?
> > >>>
> > >>Paticularly when they think it is a suicide bomber. The tactics they
used
> > >>were specifically designed to stop a suicide bomber. Any bullet to
the
> > >>body
> > >>can set off a very powerful explosive killing many people. The only
way to
> > >>stop them is multiple headshots. Delivered fast enough that they can't
> > >>push
> > >>a button on the detonator.
> > >>
> > >>Situations was is that the retard acted like a suicide bomber and
refused
> > >>to
> > >>cooperate with the police. It was ultimate stupidity. It is like
those
> > >>morons who don't wear much clothing while driving in hot weather and
get
> > >>stopped by the police. A certain percentage of them dive under the
seat
> > >>to
> > >>get their license.
> > >>
> > >>They end up looking down the barrel of a gum. Usually protesting that
the
> > >>armed response was some how inappropriate. Simple rules for dealing
with
> > >>cops. Smile. Be courteous. Don't fight or argue. And don't do anything
> > >>that
> > >>looks like you are going to hurt anybody. Don't run. Etc., etc.
> > >>
> > >>Simple stuff. It ain't a conspiracy. It is just common sense and
courtesy.
> > >>Something a lot of folks have trouble understanding and/or doing.
> > >>
> > >>Darwinism is alive and well.
> > >
> > > Wot Lee said.
> > >
> > > The only thing I don't understand about the police response is that
> > > they APPARENTLY allowed the guy to board a bus as part of his journey
> > > from the apartment to the subway station. This seems odd if they
> > > already thought he was maybe a suicide bomber (and buses have already
> > > been shown to be as much a target of the bombers as trains).
> > >
> > > Also APPARENTLY the guy's visa had expired (and it seems was never the
> > > sort of visa that would have allowed full-time employment anyway).
> > > This MAY explain why the guy bolted when the police told him to stop.
> > >
> > I had no idea about the immigration thing.
> >
> > But it doesn't change anything. On Cops, there are often cases where a
> > dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on
the
> > order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn it
> > into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind
bars. Or
> > a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
> >
> > And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing. For those
folks,
> > I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a
suspect
> > that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing
attached to
> > their body? The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
> > important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
> >
> > He was an idiot. He got exactly what he deserved.
> >
> > Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
> > simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I
bet
> > they are devastated. None of the whiners are saying anything positive
or
> > supportive about these brave officers. Talk about a thankless job.
> >
> > I will say it right now. I extend my deepest sympathies and respect to
the
> > selfless, brave acts that these London LEO's did. And for having to deal
> > with all its aftermath. Folks like you are what separates us from the
> > savages. Thank you sirs. Job well done.
> >
> > Lee
>
>
> <applause>!
> --
> Om.

Please don;t encourage him, Om

Runs With Knives
July 25th 05, 09:16 PM
In article >,
"Lee Michaels" > writes:
[snip]
>
> I will say it right now. I extend my deepest sympathies and respect to the
> selfless, brave acts that these London LEO's did. And for having to deal
> with all its aftermath. Folks like you are what separates us from the
> savages. Thank you sirs. Job well done.

Hear, hear!

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
| - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

OmManiPadmeOmelet
July 25th 05, 09:35 PM
In article >,
"David" > wrote:

> "OmManiPadmeOmelet" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
> >
> > > <Ellis> wrote
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:32:10 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >><Ellis> wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:04:23 -0500, John Hanson
> > > >>> > wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>No it isn't and it sounds like these cops were nothing but
> incompetent
> > > >>>>idiots.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> What should they have done differently?
> > > >>>
> > > >>Paticularly when they think it is a suicide bomber. The tactics they
> used
> > > >>were specifically designed to stop a suicide bomber. Any bullet to
> the
> > > >>body
> > > >>can set off a very powerful explosive killing many people. The only
> way to
> > > >>stop them is multiple headshots. Delivered fast enough that they can't
> > > >>push
> > > >>a button on the detonator.
> > > >>
> > > >>Situations was is that the retard acted like a suicide bomber and
> refused
> > > >>to
> > > >>cooperate with the police. It was ultimate stupidity. It is like
> those
> > > >>morons who don't wear much clothing while driving in hot weather and
> get
> > > >>stopped by the police. A certain percentage of them dive under the
> seat
> > > >>to
> > > >>get their license.
> > > >>
> > > >>They end up looking down the barrel of a gum. Usually protesting that
> the
> > > >>armed response was some how inappropriate. Simple rules for dealing
> with
> > > >>cops. Smile. Be courteous. Don't fight or argue. And don't do anything
> > > >>that
> > > >>looks like you are going to hurt anybody. Don't run. Etc., etc.
> > > >>
> > > >>Simple stuff. It ain't a conspiracy. It is just common sense and
> courtesy.
> > > >>Something a lot of folks have trouble understanding and/or doing.
> > > >>
> > > >>Darwinism is alive and well.
> > > >
> > > > Wot Lee said.
> > > >
> > > > The only thing I don't understand about the police response is that
> > > > they APPARENTLY allowed the guy to board a bus as part of his journey
> > > > from the apartment to the subway station. This seems odd if they
> > > > already thought he was maybe a suicide bomber (and buses have already
> > > > been shown to be as much a target of the bombers as trains).
> > > >
> > > > Also APPARENTLY the guy's visa had expired (and it seems was never the
> > > > sort of visa that would have allowed full-time employment anyway).
> > > > This MAY explain why the guy bolted when the police told him to stop.
> > > >
> > > I had no idea about the immigration thing.
> > >
> > > But it doesn't change anything. On Cops, there are often cases where a
> > > dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on
> the
> > > order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn it
> > > into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind
> bars. Or
> > > a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
> > >
> > > And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing. For those
> folks,
> > > I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a
> suspect
> > > that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing
> attached to
> > > their body? The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
> > > important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
> > >
> > > He was an idiot. He got exactly what he deserved.
> > >
> > > Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
> > > simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I
> bet
> > > they are devastated. None of the whiners are saying anything positive
> or
> > > supportive about these brave officers. Talk about a thankless job.
> > >
> > > I will say it right now. I extend my deepest sympathies and respect to
> the
> > > selfless, brave acts that these London LEO's did. And for having to deal
> > > with all its aftermath. Folks like you are what separates us from the
> > > savages. Thank you sirs. Job well done.
> > >
> > > Lee
> >
> >
> > <applause>!
> > --
> > Om.
>
> Please don;t encourage him, Om
>
>

I'm sorry David, I know y'all are having a difficult time with this, but
I do feel for the officer that did the killing! After all, I'm sure he
thought he was dealing with a suicide bomber with his finger on a button.

Put yourself in his place?
What would YOU have done?

Honestly?

Hindsight is always 20-20!
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

David
July 25th 05, 09:50 PM
"OmManiPadmeOmelet" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "David" > wrote:
>
> > "OmManiPadmeOmelet" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Lee Michaels" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > <Ellis> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:32:10 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >><Ellis> wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 10:04:23 -0500, John Hanson
> > > > >>> > wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>No it isn't and it sounds like these cops were nothing but
> > incompetent
> > > > >>>>idiots.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> What should they have done differently?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>Paticularly when they think it is a suicide bomber. The tactics
they
> > used
> > > > >>were specifically designed to stop a suicide bomber. Any bullet
to
> > the
> > > > >>body
> > > > >>can set off a very powerful explosive killing many people. The
only
> > way to
> > > > >>stop them is multiple headshots. Delivered fast enough that they
can't
> > > > >>push
> > > > >>a button on the detonator.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Situations was is that the retard acted like a suicide bomber and
> > refused
> > > > >>to
> > > > >>cooperate with the police. It was ultimate stupidity. It is like
> > those
> > > > >>morons who don't wear much clothing while driving in hot weather
and
> > get
> > > > >>stopped by the police. A certain percentage of them dive under
the
> > seat
> > > > >>to
> > > > >>get their license.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>They end up looking down the barrel of a gum. Usually protesting
that
> > the
> > > > >>armed response was some how inappropriate. Simple rules for
dealing
> > with
> > > > >>cops. Smile. Be courteous. Don't fight or argue. And don't do
anything
> > > > >>that
> > > > >>looks like you are going to hurt anybody. Don't run. Etc., etc.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Simple stuff. It ain't a conspiracy. It is just common sense and
> > courtesy.
> > > > >>Something a lot of folks have trouble understanding and/or doing.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Darwinism is alive and well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wot Lee said.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing I don't understand about the police response is
that
> > > > > they APPARENTLY allowed the guy to board a bus as part of his
journey
> > > > > from the apartment to the subway station. This seems odd if they
> > > > > already thought he was maybe a suicide bomber (and buses have
already
> > > > > been shown to be as much a target of the bombers as trains).
> > > > >
> > > > > Also APPARENTLY the guy's visa had expired (and it seems was never
the
> > > > > sort of visa that would have allowed full-time employment anyway).
> > > > > This MAY explain why the guy bolted when the police told him to
stop.
> > > > >
> > > > I had no idea about the immigration thing.
> > > >
> > > > But it doesn't change anything. On Cops, there are often cases where
a
> > > > dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually
something on
> > the
> > > > order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to
turn it
> > > > into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind
> > bars. Or
> > > > a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
> > > >
> > > > And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing. For those
> > folks,
> > > > I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a
> > suspect
> > > > that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing
> > attached to
> > > > their body? The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were
more
> > > > important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
> > > >
> > > > He was an idiot. He got exactly what he deserved.
> > > >
> > > > Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of
a
> > > > simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about
this? I
> > bet
> > > > they are devastated. None of the whiners are saying anything
positive
> > or
> > > > supportive about these brave officers. Talk about a thankless job.
> > > >
> > > > I will say it right now. I extend my deepest sympathies and respect
to
> > the
> > > > selfless, brave acts that these London LEO's did. And for having to
deal
> > > > with all its aftermath. Folks like you are what separates us from
the
> > > > savages. Thank you sirs. Job well done.
> > > >
> > > > Lee
> > >
> > >
> > > <applause>!
> > > --
> > > Om.
> >
> > Please don;t encourage him, Om
> >
> >
>
> I'm sorry David, I know y'all are having a difficult time with this, but
> I do feel for the officer that did the killing! After all, I'm sure he
> thought he was dealing with a suicide bomber with his finger on a button.
>
> Put yourself in his place?
> What would YOU have done?
>
> Honestly?
>
> Hindsight is always 20-20!
> --
> Om.
>
Well, if he was under surveillance why did they wait for him to get to a
high traffic area? Plus it needs to be explained why he was a suspect at
all.
Also the point is that he may not have been aware that they were police in
the first place. It;s obvious the cops botched it.

John Hanson
July 26th 05, 04:08 PM
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:18:10 +0100, Charles > wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 14:16:06 -0400, WillBrink
> wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Hugh Beyer > wrote:
>>
>>> Nameless > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>> > On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:19:58 GMT, "David" >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to death
>>> >>was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. Hardcore Muslims have
>>> >>the whip hand and there is obviously not much that the West can do
>>> >>except gird themselves for the next strike and build more hospitals and
>>> >>wait for the 'big one'. Gives no confidence when our leaders are saying
>>> >>"We can't let them beat us" - which suggests that 'beating us' is a very
>>> >>real possibility. I think this is a lost cause for the good guys.
>>> >
>>> > The lesson learnt is that if you are late for work, don't rush. Just
>>> > take it easy.
>>>
>>> Howabout: don't jump a turnstile to run away from armed cops in the subway
>>> immedately after suicide bombers have lit the place up?
>>>
>>> I say give this guy a Darwin award.
>>
>>I second that. His incredible stupidity got him killed, the police were
>>simply the vehicle for his demise. Blames is squarely with him if the
>>details we are now getting are accurate.
>
>There is the scenario that he didn't know they were police, there are
>armed gangs in both London and in Brazil perhaps?

Has anyone stated that the police clearly identified themselves?

Donovan Rebbechi
July 26th 05, 04:18 PM
On 2005-07-25, Lee Michaels > wrote:
>
> I had no idea about the immigration thing.
>
> But it doesn't change anything.

The fact that they were plain-clothes cops does change a thing or two though.

> On Cops, there are often cases where a
> dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on the
> order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn it
> into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind bars. Or
> a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
>
> And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing.

I'm not. I'd suspend judgment until I actually know the facts. Until the
investigation is complete, I don't think we will know exactly what the facts
are. I think many people will make up their minds in absence of the facts,
either to preserve a "just world" view, or to advance some anti-authoritarian
political agenda.

> For those folks,
> I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a suspect
> that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing attached to
> their body?

Well yes, I think everyone understands that life is difficult for cops.

What I don't understand is, why you feel you have to throw insults at someone
who has already paid dearly for his error in judgment. I suppose if being a
smug, self-righteous prick makes you feel better, go ahead. I hope for your
sake that if you or anyone close to you makes such an error in judgment, that
they have better luck than this guy.

> The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
> important than the national security of a sovereign nation.

I don't think he thought that at all. I think he was probably scared ****less.

> He was an idiot. He got exactly what he deserved.
> Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
> simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I bet
> they are devastated.

I don't know. how the cops feel about it -- but I agree that they are probably
better men than you.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

John Hanson
July 26th 05, 04:55 PM
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:18:33 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On 2005-07-25, Lee Michaels > wrote:
>>
>> I had no idea about the immigration thing.
>>
>> But it doesn't change anything.
>
>The fact that they were plain-clothes cops does change a thing or two though.
>
>> On Cops, there are often cases where a
>> dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on the
>> order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn it
>> into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind bars. Or
>> a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
>>
>> And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing.
>
>I'm not. I'd suspend judgment until I actually know the facts. Until the
>investigation is complete, I don't think we will know exactly what the facts
>are. I think many people will make up their minds in absence of the facts,
>either to preserve a "just world" view, or to advance some anti-authoritarian
>political agenda.
>
>> For those folks,
>> I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a suspect
>> that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing attached to
>> their body?
>
>Well yes, I think everyone understands that life is difficult for cops.
>
>What I don't understand is, why you feel you have to throw insults at someone
>who has already paid dearly for his error in judgment. I suppose if being a
>smug, self-righteous prick makes you feel better, go ahead. I hope for your
>sake that if you or anyone close to you makes such an error in judgment, that
>they have better luck than this guy.
>
>> The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
>> important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
>
>I don't think he thought that at all. I think he was probably scared ****less.
>
>> He was an idiot. He got exactly what he deserved.
>> Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
>> simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I bet
>> they are devastated.
>
>I don't know. how the cops feel about it -- but I agree that they are probably
>better men than you.
>
>Cheers,

Wot Donovan said.

WillBrink
July 26th 05, 05:01 PM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:

> >
> >There is the scenario that he didn't know they were police, there are
> >armed gangs in both London and in Brazil perhaps?
>
> Has anyone stated that the police clearly identified themselves?

The police claim they did, some who saw the event say they didn't. I
tend to side with the police that they did.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Lee Michaels
July 26th 05, 05:03 PM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-07-25, Lee Michaels > wrote:
>>
>> I had no idea about the immigration thing.
>>
>> But it doesn't change anything.
>
> The fact that they were plain-clothes cops does change a thing or two
> though.
>
>> On Cops, there are often cases where a
>> dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on
>> the
>> order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn it
>> into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind bars.
>> Or
>> a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
>>
>> And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing.
>
> I'm not. I'd suspend judgment until I actually know the facts. Until the
> investigation is complete, I don't think we will know exactly what the
> facts
> are. I think many people will make up their minds in absence of the facts,
> either to preserve a "just world" view, or to advance some
> anti-authoritarian
> political agenda.
>
>> For those folks,
>> I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a
>> suspect
>> that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing attached
>> to
>> their body?
>
> Well yes, I think everyone understands that life is difficult for cops.
>
> What I don't understand is, why you feel you have to throw insults at
> someone
> who has already paid dearly for his error in judgment. I suppose if being
> a
> smug, self-righteous prick makes you feel better, go ahead. I hope for
> your
> sake that if you or anyone close to you makes such an error in judgment,
> that
> they have better luck than this guy.
>
>> The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
>> important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
>
> I don't think he thought that at all. I think he was probably scared
> ****less.
>
>> He was an idiot. He got exactly what he deserved.
>> Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
>> simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I
>> bet
>> they are devastated.
>
> I don't know. how the cops feel about it -- but I agree that they are
> probably
> better men than you.
>
Poor Donovan, being the advocate of morons and dumbasses must be hard work.
But it suits you.

As for the thoughts of our gate crasher, who cares?? The police had to act
to the perceived threat. They did.

As for my actions, I always am courteous and respectful to the police. I
don't have problems like the dead guy.

John Hanson
July 26th 05, 05:29 PM
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:01:06 -0400, WillBrink
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>In article >,
> John Hanson > wrote:
>
>> >
>> >There is the scenario that he didn't know they were police, there are
>> >armed gangs in both London and in Brazil perhaps?
>>
>> Has anyone stated that the police clearly identified themselves?
>
>The police claim they did, some who saw the event say they didn't. I
>tend to side with the police that they did.

Did they have their badges out and did they shout, "stop, police (or
bobbies whatever the case may be:-)"?

Dally
July 26th 05, 05:30 PM
Lee Michaels wrote:


> I had no idea about the immigration thing.
>
> But it doesn't change anything. On Cops, there are often cases where a
> dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on the
> order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn it
> into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind bars. Or
> a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
>
> And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing. For those folks,
> I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a suspect
> that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing attached to
> their body? The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
> important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
>
> He was an idiot.

I don't think there's any major disagreement with any of this.

> He got exactly what he deserved.

Oops, now you just crossed the line into psychosis. The man spoke a
different language, had immigration status issues, realized he was being
followed by plain clothes officers... running from the situation makes
perfect sense. He definitely did NOT deserve to be killed for it. It
maybe understandable why he was killed, a regrettable accident, a
breakdown in policy, a judgment flaw, whatever. It was not, however,
something he deserved.

> Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
> simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I bet
> they are devastated. None of the whiners are saying anything positive or
> supportive about these brave officers. Talk about a thankless job.

I believe the "whiners" are mostly questioning the "shoot to kill"
policy. It's not the guy on the job that's being chastised, it's the
ones giving him the orders to shoot a guy to death when it's a known
phenomenon that suspects run when confronted by police, and being
followed by plains clothes officers who speak a different language is
even MORE likely to cause the suspect to run.

> I will say it right now. I extend my deepest sympathies and respect to the
> selfless, brave acts that these London LEO's did. And for having to deal
> with all its aftermath. Folks like you are what separates us from the
> savages. Thank you sirs. Job well done.

It's a sucky job. They didn't do it well this time. An innocent guy
died. That's not a good day at work.

Dally

John Hanson
July 26th 05, 05:30 PM
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:03:55 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2005-07-25, Lee Michaels > wrote:
>>>
>>> I had no idea about the immigration thing.
>>>
>>> But it doesn't change anything.
>>
>> The fact that they were plain-clothes cops does change a thing or two
>> though.
>>
>>> On Cops, there are often cases where a
>>> dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on
>>> the
>>> order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn it
>>> into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind bars.
>>> Or
>>> a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
>>>
>>> And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing.
>>
>> I'm not. I'd suspend judgment until I actually know the facts. Until the
>> investigation is complete, I don't think we will know exactly what the
>> facts
>> are. I think many people will make up their minds in absence of the facts,
>> either to preserve a "just world" view, or to advance some
>> anti-authoritarian
>> political agenda.
>>
>>> For those folks,
>>> I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a
>>> suspect
>>> that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing attached
>>> to
>>> their body?
>>
>> Well yes, I think everyone understands that life is difficult for cops.
>>
>> What I don't understand is, why you feel you have to throw insults at
>> someone
>> who has already paid dearly for his error in judgment. I suppose if being
>> a
>> smug, self-righteous prick makes you feel better, go ahead. I hope for
>> your
>> sake that if you or anyone close to you makes such an error in judgment,
>> that
>> they have better luck than this guy.
>>
>>> The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
>>> important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
>>
>> I don't think he thought that at all. I think he was probably scared
>> ****less.
>>
>>> He was an idiot. He got exactly what he deserved.
>>> Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
>>> simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I
>>> bet
>>> they are devastated.
>>
>> I don't know. how the cops feel about it -- but I agree that they are
>> probably
>> better men than you.
>>
>Poor Donovan, being the advocate of morons and dumbasses must be hard work.
>But it suits you.
>
>As for the thoughts of our gate crasher, who cares?? The police had to act
>to the perceived threat. They did.

Then why didn't they shoot him before he got in the tube?

>
>As for my actions, I always am courteous and respectful to the police. I
>don't have problems like the dead guy.
>
>
>
>

Lee Michaels
July 26th 05, 05:46 PM
"Dally" wrote
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
>> I had no idea about the immigration thing.
>>
>> But it doesn't change anything. On Cops, there are often cases where a
>> dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on
>> the order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn
>> it into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind
>> bars. Or a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
>>
>> And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing. For those
>> folks, I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a
>> suspect that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing
>> attached to their body? The guy was a moron who thought his own problems
>> were more important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
>>
>> He was an idiot.
>
> I don't think there's any major disagreement with any of this.
>
>> He got exactly what he deserved.
>
> Oops, now you just crossed the line into psychosis. The man spoke a
> different language, had immigration status issues, realized he was being
> followed by plain clothes officers... running from the situation makes
> perfect sense. He definitely did NOT deserve to be killed for it. It
> maybe understandable why he was killed, a regrettable accident, a
> breakdown in policy, a judgment flaw, whatever. It was not, however,
> something he deserved.
>

So if he ****s up big time, when everybody is afraid of mass fatalities from
another bombing, it is "understandable"?? And it makes sense that he was
running from the police??

Let's put Dally in charge. She can create safe working conditions for
terrorists, criminals and general screw-up everywhere!

All he had to do was cooperate with the police. That is it. He didn't. The
results were tragic. But if he wasn't a dumbass, theywouldn't have happened.
It is as simple as that.


>> Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
>> simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I
>> bet they are devastated. None of the whiners are saying anything
>> positive or supportive about these brave officers. Talk about a thankless
>> job.
>
> I believe the "whiners" are mostly questioning the "shoot to kill" policy.
> It's not the guy on the job that's being chastised, it's the ones giving
> him the orders to shoot a guy to death when it's a known phenomenon that
> suspects run when confronted by police, and being followed by plains
> clothes officers who speak a different language is even MORE likely to
> cause the suspect to run.
>

Questioning the shoot to kill policy when two terrorists bombing occurred
recently?? That is rich. We will just serve up milk and cookies for all
the suicide bombers now. Don't want to offend anybody's sensibilities.

And you wonder why these religious fanatics think they can destroy us??
With attitudes like this, it just encourages them.

I am a big advocate of personal freedoms. But getting bombed and having our
civilization subject to some kind of savage, misguided holy war is crossing
the line. Special measures needed to be taken. And if some retard can't
figure that out, it is too bad.

Again, this crap of running from the police is NOT the smart move. Maybe
you can start a compaign with your own money to educate them of this fact.


>> I will say it right now. I extend my deepest sympathies and respect to
>> the selfless, brave acts that these London LEO's did. And for having to
>> deal with all its aftermath. Folks like you are what separates us from
>> the savages. Thank you sirs. Job well done.
>
> It's a sucky job. They didn't do it well this time. An innocent guy
> died. That's not a good day at work.
>
Maybe yes. Maybe no. But they DID do their job. And all this second
guessing of a serious matter of national security places greater demands on
them. And reduces their options in the future.

Terrorists love publicity. All this whining and bitching is just going to
encourage more bombings. But that is not the comcern of the whiners.

WillBrink
July 26th 05, 05:46 PM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:01:06 -0400, WillBrink
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >In article >,
> > John Hanson > wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> >There is the scenario that he didn't know they were police, there are
> >> >armed gangs in both London and in Brazil perhaps?
> >>
> >> Has anyone stated that the police clearly identified themselves?
> >
> >The police claim they did, some who saw the event say they didn't. I
> >tend to side with the police that they did.
>
> Did they have their badges out and did they shout, "stop, police (or
> bobbies whatever the case may be:-)"?

Couldn't tell you. The police claim they made all appropriate attempts
to identify themselves repeatedly and the guy bolted. Some witnesses
claim they didn't.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Dally
July 26th 05, 06:10 PM
Lee Michaels wrote:

> All he had to do was cooperate with the police. That is it. He didn't. The
> results were tragic. But if he wasn't a dumbass, theywouldn't have happened.
> It is as simple as that.

Lee, you've got kids? Kids do dumbass things. Ever been drunk? Drunks
do dumbass things. Ever been in a country where the native language
isn't your native language? Visitors do dumbass things. Ever been
busted for something trivial and lied and made it worse? People under
stress do dumbass things.

This is common, normal, everyday ****. People do dumbass things. Cops
know that. They work with the shallow end of the gene pool every single
day.

You don't get to kill people for doing dumbass things.

Cohen gave me a scenario where body language was appropriate cause for
unleashing lethal force: I believe he was defending Shania from a
hip-holstered camera phone. Okay, but that was one where the guy turned
and went to draw. This guy was fleeing.

It's an everyday police scenario: what do you do with a fleeing suspect?
Do you engage in a high speed pursuit, endangering the environment?
Do you shoot to disable? Shoot to kill? It's a combination of judgment
call and policy given from on-high.

> Questioning the shoot to kill policy when two terrorists bombing
> occurred recently?? That is rich. We will just serve up milk and
> cookies for all the suicide bombers now. Don't want to offend
> anybody's sensibilities.

The "shoot to kill" scenario makes sense in some situations and I don't
want to call for an emasculating of police forces everywhere, but I
think we've got to examine it when its first use turns out to be a
Brazilian illegal worker fleeing from the scene. I'd sure like to hear
some backup evidence other than "body language" or "came out of a house
under suspicion." Did bomb-sniffing dogs mark him? Did they have
phone-tap evidence that he'd murmered "allah akbar" while making
strapping-on noises in the front hall?

> And you wonder why these religious fanatics think they can destroy us??
> With attitudes like this, it just encourages them.

Attitudes like "respect for life"? If you drop that attitude then you
already ARE destroyed. Want to give up restraints on the government and
go straight to martial law? Democracy is destroyed. Want to round up
Muslims and incarcerate them? Freedom of religion is destroyed.

The reason we hog-tie our defenders with things like "probable cause" is
that sometimes they defend us to death. Anyone anywhere could have
been weird enough or dumb enough or used poor enough judgment to get
shot to death if we use the standards that you're using.

> I am a big advocate of personal freedoms. But getting bombed and having our
> civilization subject to some kind of savage, misguided holy war is crossing
> the line. Special measures needed to be taken. And if some retard can't
> figure that out, it is too bad.
>
> Again, this crap of running from the police is NOT the smart move. Maybe
> you can start a compaign with your own money to educate them of this fact.

I'm being boggled: you're an advoate of personal freedoms but the
freedom to run from a plain-clothes officer accosting you when you're
innocently making your way to work doesn't occur to you as worth respecting?

> Terrorists love publicity. All this whining and bitching is just going to
> encourage more bombings. But that is not the comcern of the whiners.

Terrorists do love publicity. I noted that the entire news media has
been devoted to 55 people dying in London, while the G8 summit was going
on (handy that it deflected attention from Bush, 'cuz he didn't show
well) and the African Nation summit was going on (guess what, over 55
people died in Africa the same day) and oil just hit an all-time high
and I paid $3,060 for fuel oil for my house for the winter. Meanwhile,
my husband needs a minor operation and we're having a hell of a time
getting access to medical care even though we pay $13,000 a year for
health insurance.

Terrorism always existed. It tends to be home-grown (remember Terry
Nichols?) and it tends to be done by CRIMINALS. We're against criminals
doing criminal things, but we will never WIPE IT OUT. Having that as a
goal that we're willing to sacrifice all else for is beyond stupid.

Dally
>
>
>

John Hanson
July 26th 05, 06:15 PM
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:30:05 -0400, Dally > wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>
>> I had no idea about the immigration thing.
>>
>> But it doesn't change anything. On Cops, there are often cases where a
>> dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on the
>> order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn it
>> into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind bars. Or
>> a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
>>
>> And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing. For those folks,
>> I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a suspect
>> that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing attached to
>> their body? The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
>> important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
>>
>> He was an idiot.
>
>I don't think there's any major disagreement with any of this.
>
>> He got exactly what he deserved.
>
>Oops, now you just crossed the line into psychosis. The man spoke a
>different language, had immigration status issues, realized he was being
>followed by plain clothes officers... running from the situation makes
>perfect sense. He definitely did NOT deserve to be killed for it. It
>maybe understandable why he was killed, a regrettable accident, a
>breakdown in policy, a judgment flaw, whatever. It was not, however,
>something he deserved.
>
>> Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
>> simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I bet
>> they are devastated. None of the whiners are saying anything positive or
>> supportive about these brave officers. Talk about a thankless job.
>
>I believe the "whiners" are mostly questioning the "shoot to kill"
>policy. It's not the guy on the job that's being chastised, it's the
>ones giving him the orders to shoot a guy to death when it's a known
>phenomenon that suspects run when confronted by police, and being
>followed by plains clothes officers who speak a different language is
>even MORE likely to cause the suspect to run.
>
>> I will say it right now. I extend my deepest sympathies and respect to the
>> selfless, brave acts that these London LEO's did. And for having to deal
>> with all its aftermath. Folks like you are what separates us from the
>> savages. Thank you sirs. Job well done.
>
>It's a sucky job. They didn't do it well this time. An innocent guy
>died. That's not a good day at work.
>
It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan. Having said
that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop. Same
thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:

1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.

2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
the tube?

3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
was shot. That is just not right if it's true.

Lee Michaels
July 26th 05, 06:18 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote
>
> It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan.

I noticed that too. Wimping out on us John? :)

> Having said
> that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
> going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop. Same
> thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:
>
> 1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.
>

Doubtful. I am sure they did.

> 2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
> the tube?
>

Maybe they wanted to follow him to see where he went.


> 3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
> was shot. That is just not right if it's true.
>
>
If he had a bomb, it would make sense. And he never got to prove otherwise.
Because like a dumbass, he was running.

dwacon
July 26th 05, 06:19 PM
"David Cohen" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "David" > wrote
>> "David Cohen" > wrote >>
>>> "Dally" > wrote
>>> > David Cohen wrote:
>>> >> "Nameless" > wrote
>>> >>> "David" > wrote:
>>> >>>>Seems the 'bomb carrying terrorist' who was just recently shot to
>> death
>>> >>>>was
>>> >>>>a Brazilian electrician on his way to work.


Worse than the "41 shots" in NYC before 9/11.

Remind me, on my next trip to the UK, to walk around in a t-shirt and
shorts... regardless of the weather...



---
Over 20,000 Adult Movies OnLine
http://tinyurl.com/4vo8x

Hobbes
July 26th 05, 06:26 PM
In article >, Dally >
wrote:

> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> > All he had to do was cooperate with the police. That is it. He didn't. The
> > results were tragic. But if he wasn't a dumbass, theywouldn't have
> > happened.
> > It is as simple as that.
>
> Lee, you've got kids? Kids do dumbass things. Ever been drunk? Drunks
> do dumbass things. Ever been in a country where the native language
> isn't your native language? Visitors do dumbass things. Ever been
> busted for something trivial and lied and made it worse? People under
> stress do dumbass things.

And pay the price all the time.

You do dumbass things and sometimes you get away with it. Sometimes you
pay. That is life.

--
Keith

Hobbes
July 26th 05, 06:28 PM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:03:55 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 2005-07-25, Lee Michaels > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I had no idea about the immigration thing.
> >>>
> >>> But it doesn't change anything.
> >>
> >> The fact that they were plain-clothes cops does change a thing or two
> >> though.
> >>
> >>> On Cops, there are often cases where a
> >>> dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something on
> >>> the
> >>> order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn it
> >>> into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind bars.
> >>> Or
> >>> a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
> >>>
> >>> And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing.
> >>
> >> I'm not. I'd suspend judgment until I actually know the facts. Until the
> >> investigation is complete, I don't think we will know exactly what the
> >> facts
> >> are. I think many people will make up their minds in absence of the facts,
> >> either to preserve a "just world" view, or to advance some
> >> anti-authoritarian
> >> political agenda.
> >>
> >>> For those folks,
> >>> I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a
> >>> suspect
> >>> that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing attached
> >>> to
> >>> their body?
> >>
> >> Well yes, I think everyone understands that life is difficult for cops.
> >>
> >> What I don't understand is, why you feel you have to throw insults at
> >> someone
> >> who has already paid dearly for his error in judgment. I suppose if being
> >> a
> >> smug, self-righteous prick makes you feel better, go ahead. I hope for
> >> your
> >> sake that if you or anyone close to you makes such an error in judgment,
> >> that
> >> they have better luck than this guy.
> >>
> >>> The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
> >>> important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
> >>
> >> I don't think he thought that at all. I think he was probably scared
> >> ****less.
> >>
> >>> He was an idiot. He got exactly what he deserved.
> >>> Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
> >>> simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this? I
> >>> bet
> >>> they are devastated.
> >>
> >> I don't know. how the cops feel about it -- but I agree that they are
> >> probably
> >> better men than you.
> >>
> >Poor Donovan, being the advocate of morons and dumbasses must be hard work.
> >But it suits you.
> >
> >As for the thoughts of our gate crasher, who cares?? The police had to act
> >to the perceived threat. They did.
>
> Then why didn't they shoot him before he got in the tube?

I'd guess they didn't have a clear shot.

--
Keith

Lee Michaels
July 26th 05, 06:34 PM
"Dally" > wrote in message
...
> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>> All he had to do was cooperate with the police. That is it. He didn't.
>> The results were tragic. But if he wasn't a dumbass, theywouldn't have
>> happened. It is as simple as that.
>
> Lee, you've got kids? Kids do dumbass things. Ever been drunk? Drunks
> do dumbass things. Ever been in a country where the native language isn't
> your native language? Visitors do dumbass things. Ever been busted for
> something trivial and lied and made it worse? People under stress do
> dumbass things.
>
> This is common, normal, everyday ****. People do dumbass things. Cops
> know that. They work with the shallow end of the gene pool every single
> day.
>
> You don't get to kill people for doing dumbass things.
>

Again, there are bombs going of over there. Things that get excused under
normal circumstance don't if therre is any indicators of terrorist activity.



> Cohen gave me a scenario where body language was appropriate cause for
> unleashing lethal force: I believe he was defending Shania from a
> hip-holstered camera phone. Okay, but that was one where the guy turned
> and went to draw. This guy was fleeing.
>
> It's an everyday police scenario: what do you do with a fleeing suspect?
> Do you engage in a high speed pursuit, endangering the environment? Do you
> shoot to disable? Shoot to kill? It's a combination of judgment call and
> policy given from on-high.
>
> > Questioning the shoot to kill policy when two terrorists bombing
> > occurred recently?? That is rich. We will just serve up milk and
> > cookies for all the suicide bombers now. Don't want to offend
> > anybody's sensibilities.
>
> The "shoot to kill" scenario makes sense in some situations and I don't
> want to call for an emasculating of police forces everywhere, but I think
> we've got to examine it when its first use turns out to be a Brazilian
> illegal worker fleeing from the scene. I'd sure like to hear some backup
> evidence other than "body language" or "came out of a house under
> suspicion." Did bomb-sniffing dogs mark him? Did they have phone-tap
> evidence that he'd murmered "allah akbar" while making strapping-on noises
> in the front hall?
>

We can always just wit until they blow something up. Will that qualify?


>> And you wonder why these religious fanatics think they can destroy us??
>> With attitudes like this, it just encourages them.
>
> Attitudes like "respect for life"? If you drop that attitude then you
> already ARE destroyed. Want to give up restraints on the government and
> go straight to martial law? Democracy is destroyed. Want to round up
> Muslims and incarcerate them? Freedom of religion is destroyed.
>

There ya go Dally, lets throw out the constitution and go straight to
martial law. It may shock you, but I do not represent a threat to our
current civilization. The simple fact is that while you are moaning and
bitching about becoming uncivilized, there are savages who are trying to
destroy our current level of civilization. These so called rights mean
nothing to them.

I realize that it is a balancing act. But if these savages can unleash a few
more major attack against our country, all of our lives will be impacted in
a big way. That is the issue I am discussing.

And if people want to run from the police, they will suffer the
consequences. It does not affect my life in any way. Is your life better
because dumbasses run from the police?


> The reason we hog-tie our defenders with things like "probable cause" is
> that sometimes they defend us to death. Anyone anywhere could have been
> weird enough or dumb enough or used poor enough judgment to get shot to
> death if we use the standards that you're using.
>

I am a big advocate of Darwinism. Particularly when the security of
sovereign nations are involved.

>> I am a big advocate of personal freedoms. But getting bombed and having
>> our civilization subject to some kind of savage, misguided holy war is
>> crossing the line. Special measures needed to be taken. And if some
>> retard can't figure that out, it is too bad.
>>
>> Again, this crap of running from the police is NOT the smart move. Maybe
>> you can start a compaign with your own money to educate them of this
>> fact.
>
> I'm being boggled: you're an advoate of personal freedoms but the freedom
> to run from a plain-clothes officer accosting you when you're innocently
> making your way to work doesn't occur to you as worth respecting?
>

Wait a minute here. You are saying that we have some kind of constitutional
right ro flee the police?? Wow, that is good. I should alert the ACLU
immediately.


>> Terrorists love publicity. All this whining and bitching is just going
>> to encourage more bombings. But that is not the comcern of the whiners.
>
> Terrorists do love publicity. I noted that the entire news media has been
> devoted to 55 people dying in London, while the G8 summit was going on
> (handy that it deflected attention from Bush, 'cuz he didn't show well)
> and the African Nation summit was going on (guess what, over 55 people
> died in Africa the same day) and oil just hit an all-time high and I paid
> $3,060 for fuel oil for my house for the winter. Meanwhile, my husband
> needs a minor operation and we're having a hell of a time getting access
> to medical care even though we pay $13,000 a year for health insurance.
>
> Terrorism always existed. It tends to be home-grown (remember Terry
> Nichols?) and it tends to be done by CRIMINALS. We're against criminals
> doing criminal things, but we will never WIPE IT OUT. Having that as a
> goal that we're willing to sacrifice all else for is beyond stupid.
>
That last remark shows your profound ignorance on the topic. It is true
that many terrorists do commit criminal acts. But to say that terrorism
grows from criminal activity is not true. Historically terrorism has alway
been with us. And historically it takes a whole generation for the cycle to
fade out. Primarily because they get killed of. Which is the only way to
combat it effectively.

And it won''t go away because we play nice.

WillBrink
July 26th 05, 06:38 PM
In article >, Dally >
wrote:

> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
> > All he had to do was cooperate with the police. That is it. He didn't. The
> > results were tragic. But if he wasn't a dumbass, theywouldn't have
> > happened.
> > It is as simple as that.
>
> Lee, you've got kids? Kids do dumbass things. Ever been drunk? Drunks
> do dumbass things.

He was a sober adult man. Next example.

> Ever been in a country where the native language
> isn't your native language? Visitors do dumbass things. Ever been
> busted for something trivial and lied and made it worse? People under
> stress do dumbass things.
>
> This is common, normal, everyday ****. People do dumbass things. Cops
> know that. They work with the shallow end of the gene pool every single
> day.
>
> You don't get to kill people for doing dumbass things.

Of course not, but people are killed by the police often for doing
dumbass things. There's a big difference there.


> Cohen gave me a scenario where body language was appropriate cause for
> unleashing lethal force: I believe he was defending Shania from a
> hip-holstered camera phone. Okay, but that was one where the guy turned
> and went to draw. This guy was fleeing.
>
> It's an everyday police scenario: what do you do with a fleeing suspect?

(a) they generally give chase and (b) this was NOT an everyday police
scenario.

It was a chain of unfortunate events that have happened before and will
happen again. Depts will usually review their policy in such a case to
see if it needs changing, after they clear the officers of any wrong
doing. It's really not worth debating until all the facts come out is it?

> Do you engage in a high speed pursuit, endangering the environment?

Depends on the situation.

> Do you shoot to disable? Shoot to kill?

Police are trained to shoot to kill always as it's assumed that by
drawing and fire the weapon their life or that of others is in danger.
There is no disable shooting.

> It's a combination of judgment
> call and policy given from on-high.

and some times it's chain of unfortunate events that has no blame. We
want life to be fair, and make out the bad guys from the good guys. Does
not always work out that way however.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Hobbes
July 26th 05, 06:45 PM
In article >,
"Lee Michaels" > wrote:

> "Dally" > wrote in message
> ...

> >
> > I'm being boggled: you're an advoate of personal freedoms but the freedom
> > to run from a plain-clothes officer accosting you when you're innocently
> > making your way to work doesn't occur to you as worth respecting?
> >
>
> Wait a minute here. You are saying that we have some kind of constitutional
> right ro flee the police?? Wow, that is good. I should alert the ACLU
> immediately.

Plus he was working in the country illegally. Hardly 'innocent'.

--
Keith

David
July 26th 05, 07:11 PM
"WillBrink" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> John Hanson > wrote:
>
> > >
> > >There is the scenario that he didn't know they were police, there are
> > >armed gangs in both London and in Brazil perhaps?
> >
> > Has anyone stated that the police clearly identified themselves?
>
> The police claim they did, some who saw the event say they didn't. I
> tend to side with the police that they did.
>
> --
> Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/
>
What's the matter with you people? The fact that someone tells you that he
is 'police' - and that is automatically supposed to be believed??

David
July 26th 05, 07:12 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:03:55 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On 2005-07-25, Lee Michaels > wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I had no idea about the immigration thing.
> >>>
> >>> But it doesn't change anything.
> >>
> >> The fact that they were plain-clothes cops does change a thing or two
> >> though.
> >>
> >>> On Cops, there are often cases where a
> >>> dumbass decides to flee because of a minor warrent. Usually something
on
> >>> the
> >>> order of a few days jail time or a fine. Instead they choose to turn
it
> >>> into several major felonies and a big portion of their lives behind
bars.
> >>> Or
> >>> a major injury. Or even, such as this case, their own death.
> >>>
> >>> And everybody is acting like the cops did the wrong thing.
> >>
> >> I'm not. I'd suspend judgment until I actually know the facts. Until
the
> >> investigation is complete, I don't think we will know exactly what the
> >> facts
> >> are. I think many people will make up their minds in absence of the
facts,
> >> either to preserve a "just world" view, or to advance some
> >> anti-authoritarian
> >> political agenda.
> >>
> >>> For those folks,
> >>> I have to ask a question. How willing would you be to chase down a
> >>> suspect
> >>> that may have many pounds of plastic explosives and ball bearing
attached
> >>> to
> >>> their body?
> >>
> >> Well yes, I think everyone understands that life is difficult for cops.
> >>
> >> What I don't understand is, why you feel you have to throw insults at
> >> someone
> >> who has already paid dearly for his error in judgment. I suppose if
being
> >> a
> >> smug, self-righteous prick makes you feel better, go ahead. I hope for
> >> your
> >> sake that if you or anyone close to you makes such an error in
judgment,
> >> that
> >> they have better luck than this guy.
> >>
> >>> The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
> >>> important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
> >>
> >> I don't think he thought that at all. I think he was probably scared
> >> ****less.
> >>
> >>> He was an idiot. He got exactly what he deserved.
> >>> Another thing. Everybody is bitching and moaning about the death of a
> >>> simpleton. How do you think that the police officers felt about this?
I
> >>> bet
> >>> they are devastated.
> >>
> >> I don't know. how the cops feel about it -- but I agree that they are
> >> probably
> >> better men than you.
> >>
> >Poor Donovan, being the advocate of morons and dumbasses must be hard
work.
> >But it suits you.
> >
> >As for the thoughts of our gate crasher, who cares?? The police had to
act
> >to the perceived threat. They did.
>
> Then why didn't they shoot him before he got in the tube?

Because the cops bungled it

Ellis
July 26th 05, 08:53 PM
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:15:25 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:

>
>2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
>the tube?

Well I think they were trying to stop him, but the bigger question is
why they let him get on a bus prior to that. It'll be interesting to
read the report.

>
>3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
>was shot. That is just not right if it's true.

Apparently the device to detonate the rucksack bombs that have been
used previously has been concealed in a hand (with a wire running to a
detonator inside the clothing and into the rucksack). Having him
pinned to the ground does not mean that he couldn't operate the
device.

Ellis

Ellis
July 26th 05, 08:58 PM
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:38:38 -0400, WillBrink
> wrote:

>> Do you shoot to disable? Shoot to kill?
>
>Police are trained to shoot to kill always as it's assumed that by
>drawing and fire the weapon their life or that of others is in danger.
>There is no disable shooting.

Although the full rules of engagement are not published, it's been as
good as acknowledged that there has been a shift of advice to the
police to switch main target from torso to head (note: NOT from
"disable to kill"). This advice is as much to avoid setting off a
bomb by hitting it with a bullet as anything else, but of course as
the bomb could be triggered in a split second by the suicide bomber
then a head shot makes sense for other reasons too.

Ellis

Lee Michaels
July 26th 05, 09:01 PM
<Ellis> wrote

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:15:25 -0500, John Hanson
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
>>the tube?
>
> Well I think they were trying to stop him, but the bigger question is
> why they let him get on a bus prior to that. It'll be interesting to
> read the report.
>
>>
>>3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
>>was shot. That is just not right if it's true.
>
> Apparently the device to detonate the rucksack bombs that have been
> used previously has been concealed in a hand (with a wire running to a
> detonator inside the clothing and into the rucksack). Having him
> pinned to the ground does not mean that he couldn't operate the
> device.
>
And again, this is the ultimate scary situation. Imagine pinning down a guy
with many poinds of plastic explosives and ball bearings on their person. If
that were the case, they would be lucky to recover a foot or two. Make the
guy dead as quickly as possible. That is the only option at that stage of
events.

And I think they will evaluate how they did things up to that point. But
under the circumstances, what could they do? He just plain looked and acted
like a bomber.

WillBrink
July 26th 05, 10:34 PM
In article >, Ellis <>
wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:38:38 -0400, WillBrink
> > wrote:
>
> >> Do you shoot to disable? Shoot to kill?
> >
> >Police are trained to shoot to kill always as it's assumed that by
> >drawing and fire the weapon their life or that of others is in danger.
> >There is no disable shooting.
>
> Although the full rules of engagement are not published, it's been as
> good as acknowledged that there has been a shift of advice to the
> police to switch main target from torso to head (note: NOT from
> "disable to kill").

There is no shoot to disable. Police shoot to kill for reasons
explained. Telling them to shoot for the head instead of center mass is
strictly due to the chance of center mass setting off explosion, not
because it's more lethal per se.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John Hanson
July 26th 05, 10:34 PM
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:18:56 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote
>>
>> It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan.
>
>I noticed that too. Wimping out on us John? :)

Not at all. I believe in liberty.

>
>> Having said
>> that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
>> going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop. Same
>> thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:
>>
>> 1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.
>>
>
>Doubtful. I am sure they did.

What you are sure of means nothing.

>
>> 2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
>> the tube?
>>
>
>Maybe they wanted to follow him to see where he went.

That's just ****ing stupid. You mean they wanted to see just what
population center he was going to blow up?

>
>
>> 3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
>> was shot. That is just not right if it's true.
>>
>>
>If he had a bomb, it would make sense. And he never got to prove otherwise.
>Because like a dumbass, he was running.
>
No, as the muzzle blast could have set off the charge. Doubtful but
possible. I think a rotten apple got his license to kill and decided
he was going to put it to use.

John Hanson
July 26th 05, 10:35 PM
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:01:08 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
><Ellis> wrote
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 12:15:25 -0500, John Hanson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
>>>the tube?
>>
>> Well I think they were trying to stop him, but the bigger question is
>> why they let him get on a bus prior to that. It'll be interesting to
>> read the report.
>>
>>>
>>>3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
>>>was shot. That is just not right if it's true.
>>
>> Apparently the device to detonate the rucksack bombs that have been
>> used previously has been concealed in a hand (with a wire running to a
>> detonator inside the clothing and into the rucksack). Having him
>> pinned to the ground does not mean that he couldn't operate the
>> device.
>>
>And again, this is the ultimate scary situation. Imagine pinning down a guy
>with many poinds of plastic explosives and ball bearings on their person. If
>that were the case, they would be lucky to recover a foot or two. Make the
>guy dead as quickly as possible. That is the only option at that stage of
>events.
>
>And I think they will evaluate how they did things up to that point. But
>under the circumstances, what could they do? He just plain looked and acted
>like a bomber.
>
>
I don't buy it.

David
July 26th 05, 11:04 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:18:56 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote
> >>
> >> It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan.
> >
> >I noticed that too. Wimping out on us John? :)
>
> Not at all. I believe in liberty.
>
> >
> >> Having said
> >> that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
> >> going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop. Same
> >> thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:
> >>
> >> 1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.
> >>
> >
> >Doubtful. I am sure they did.
>
> What you are sure of means nothing.
>
> >
> >> 2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
> >> the tube?
> >>
> >
> >Maybe they wanted to follow him to see where he went.
>
> That's just ****ing stupid. You mean they wanted to see just what
> population center he was going to blow up?
>
> >
> >
> >> 3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
> >> was shot. That is just not right if it's true.
> >>
> >>
> >If he had a bomb, it would make sense. And he never got to prove
otherwise.
> >Because like a dumbass, he was running.
> >
> No, as the muzzle blast could have set off the charge. Doubtful but
> possible. I think a rotten apple got his license to kill and decided
> he was going to put it to use.
>
You're making sense here. Lee is a prick

Hugh Beyer
July 27th 05, 01:11 AM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in
:

>> The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
>> important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
>
> I don't think he thought that at all. I think he was probably scared
> ****less.
>

Right. In broad daylight on a crowded subway, the people waving guns and
shouting at you are gang members after your wallet. Uh-huh.

Hugh


--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi")

Hugh Beyer
July 27th 05, 05:00 AM
John Hanson > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:18:56 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>
>>"John Hanson" > wrote
>>>
>>> It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan.
>>
>>I noticed that too. Wimping out on us John? :)
>
> Not at all. I believe in liberty.

Troubles me that *I'm* agreeing with Lee. But there you go. Guess I'll
have to turn in my ACLU card.

>
>>
>>> Having said
>>> that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
>>> going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop. Same
>>> thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:
>>>
>>> 1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.
>>>
>>
>>Doubtful. I am sure they did.
>
> What you are sure of means nothing.

I don't give a rat's ass how they identified themselves. The scenario I
envision is that they trail this guy, who they're already suspicious of
because they had the place staked out, till he gets close to or in the
tube station at which point they decide it's too dicey and they need to
call a halt. At this point they yell at least "HEY YOU! STOP!" They
probably identified themselves; whether the guy could hear them clearly
given the acoustics of a subway station I don't know; doesn't matter
either way. At this point he starts running in the direction of maximum
impact.

>
>>
>>> 2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
>>> the tube?
>>>
>>
>>Maybe they wanted to follow him to see where he went.
>
> That's just ****ing stupid. You mean they wanted to see just what
> population center he was going to blow up?
>

No, they wanted to see if he behaved like a bomber--if he was headed
towards an actual target. Just trying to keep people like you and Dally
happy, minimizing the number of stops.

>>
>>
>>> 3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
>>> was shot. That is just not right if it's true.
>>>
>>>
>>If he had a bomb, it would make sense. And he never got to prove
>>otherwise. Because like a dumbass, he was running.
>>
> No, as the muzzle blast could have set off the charge. Doubtful but
> possible. I think a rotten apple got his license to kill and decided
> he was going to put it to use.

That's why they shoot to the head.

Look at it from the results point of view. Perhaps the Home Office will
say: "These cops did exactly what they should have done. It's too bad, but
people acting like this man are going to get shot. People of London--don't
act this way."

Conversely, the Home Office might say: "This was a terrible tragedy. We're
going to tell those cops never to shoot unless they get a really positive
ID that the suspect is carrying explosives."

I submit to you that in the first case, terrorist groups will say, "****.
That game's up just like hijacking airlines is up. What'll we try next?"

But in the second case they'll say, "Hot damn! Let's go get them! Those
cops are never going to stop us now!"

Which version of London would you rather live in?

Hugh



--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi")

Hugh Beyer
July 27th 05, 05:11 AM
Dally > wrote in :

> Lee Michaels wrote:
>
>> All he had to do was cooperate with the police. That is it. He didn't.
>> The results were tragic. But if he wasn't a dumbass, theywouldn't have
>> happened. It is as simple as that.
>
> Lee, you've got kids? Kids do dumbass things. Ever been drunk? Drunks
> do dumbass things. Ever been in a country where the native language
> isn't your native language? Visitors do dumbass things. Ever been
> busted for something trivial and lied and made it worse? People under
> stress do dumbass things.
>
> This is common, normal, everyday ****. People do dumbass things. Cops
> know that. They work with the shallow end of the gene pool every single
> day.
>
> You don't get to kill people for doing dumbass things.

You know, my son is right now in Canada doing a fairly extreme canoe trek
down some hairy water. There is a non-zero probability that he will return
dead. If he does dumbass things, that probability goes up significantly.

We are responsible for our actions. Normally, failing that responsibility
isn't lethal. Sometimes we roll snake eyes and it is. It's no one's fault.
It's just common, normal, everyday ****.

>
> Cohen gave me a scenario where body language was appropriate cause for
> unleashing lethal force: I believe he was defending Shania from a
> hip-holstered camera phone. Okay, but that was one where the guy turned
> and went to draw. This guy was fleeing.
>
> It's an everyday police scenario: what do you do with a fleeing suspect?
> Do you engage in a high speed pursuit, endangering the environment?
> Do you shoot to disable? Shoot to kill? It's a combination of judgment
> call and policy given from on-high.
>
> > Questioning the shoot to kill policy when two terrorists bombing
> > occurred recently?? That is rich. We will just serve up milk and
> > cookies for all the suicide bombers now. Don't want to offend
> > anybody's sensibilities.
>
> The "shoot to kill" scenario makes sense in some situations and I don't
> want to call for an emasculating of police forces everywhere, but I
> think we've got to examine it when its first use turns out to be a
> Brazilian illegal worker fleeing from the scene. I'd sure like to hear
> some backup evidence other than "body language" or "came out of a house
> under suspicion." Did bomb-sniffing dogs mark him? Did they have
> phone-tap evidence that he'd murmered "allah akbar" while making
> strapping-on noises in the front hall?

His nationality isn't relevant. His immigration status isn't relevant.
Everyone has the responsibility to deal with the society they live in.
Right now in London, that includes the responsibility of not imitating a
subway bomber. If your hair is black and your skin is brown, you've
already gone some distance towards imitating a bomber--you'd better be
extra careful in your behavior.

What happened to this guy is really sad -- ****-poor bad luck that this
one time a simple mistake turned fatal. But given what we know, there's
only one guy who clearly made a mistake in the situation. And it wasn't a
cop.

Hugh


--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi")

Dally
July 27th 05, 05:13 AM
Hugh Beyer wrote:

> Look at it from the results point of view. Perhaps the Home Office will
> say: "These cops did exactly what they should have done. It's too bad, but
> people acting like this man are going to get shot. People of London--don't
> act this way."
>
> Conversely, the Home Office might say: "This was a terrible tragedy. We're
> going to tell those cops never to shoot unless they get a really positive
> ID that the suspect is carrying explosives."

Are those the only choices you've got? How about requiring SOME
hallmarks of guilt besides running when approached? 'Cuz if police
start shooting every dark-skinned guy who runs from the cops they'll
quickly rack up more deaths than the terrorists did.

Personally, I have never been touched by a terrorist, but I've been
touched by new anti-terrorist methods, sometimes on a daily basis. For
example, there are now armed guards at Niagara Falls on the American
side ASKING YOU WHY YOU'RE LEAVING THE COUNTRY. They detained a bunch
of high school kids on a field trip and ended up getting these kids
deported as illegal aliens - they'd come over as toddlers and had no
country other than the U.S. and they were MINORS for God's sakes.

My library has had to institute new policies to deal with the Homeland
Security Act.

I had two flat tires last week while out bike riding. I doubt
terrorists were behind it, but my spare C02 cartridge was seized when I
was bringing my kid to his gate for a flight out (and they got very
excited about it and searched me). So I'm down a C02 cartridge and if
I get stranded with another flat tire it's going to be because of
overkill response to terrorists, not terrorists themselves.

The whole concept of going after terrorists where they are is pretty
laughable. Iraq was ruled by a guy who kept the place in tight check
(through brutal homicidal methods) and now we've turned it into a
terrorist rallying cry. Pakistan is filled with training camps and it's
unmolested by us. Nearly all of the people who have actually attacked
us (including the U.S. Cole, the WTC both times, embassies, etc) have
been Saudi and our economy is endangered by high oil prices backed by
Saudis. And we pretend we're fighting terrorism without ever mentioning
the word Wahhabite.

Bull****. This is all surface scare tactics. People are being herded
like sheep by a fear-mongering media backed up by patriotic flag-waving
idiots like Lee who'll put up with any indignity, injustice or
inhumanity in order to "wipe out Terrorism." Meanwhile, jack **** is
being done to address the causes or perpetrators of terrorism.

Heard anything about Osama bin Laden lately?

Dally

Dally
July 27th 05, 05:16 AM
Hugh Beyer wrote:

> His nationality isn't relevant. His immigration status isn't relevant.
> Everyone has the responsibility to deal with the society they live in.
> Right now in London, that includes the responsibility of not imitating a
> subway bomber. If your hair is black and your skin is brown, you've
> already gone some distance towards imitating a bomber--you'd better be
> extra careful in your behavior.
>
> What happened to this guy is really sad -- ****-poor bad luck that this
> one time a simple mistake turned fatal.

I agree with all of this. I really only went ballistic when Lee said
that the guy deserved it.

> But given what we know, there's
> only one guy who clearly made a mistake in the situation. And it wasn't a
> cop.

I don't know that this is true. I don't know that it is false, either.

Dally

John Hanson
July 27th 05, 05:23 AM
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:00:38 GMT, Hugh Beyer >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson > wrote in
:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:18:56 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>
>>>"John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan.
>>>
>>>I noticed that too. Wimping out on us John? :)
>>
>> Not at all. I believe in liberty.
>
>Troubles me that *I'm* agreeing with Lee. But there you go. Guess I'll
>have to turn in my ACLU card.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Having said
>>>> that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
>>>> going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop. Same
>>>> thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:
>>>>
>>>> 1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Doubtful. I am sure they did.
>>
>> What you are sure of means nothing.
>
>I don't give a rat's ass how they identified themselves. The scenario I
>envision is that they trail this guy, who they're already suspicious of
>because they had the place staked out, till he gets close to or in the
>tube station at which point they decide it's too dicey and they need to
>call a halt. At this point they yell at least "HEY YOU! STOP!" They
>probably identified themselves; whether the guy could hear them clearly
>given the acoustics of a subway station I don't know; doesn't matter
>either way. At this point he starts running in the direction of maximum
>impact.

If you and your buddies were following me and you yelled for me to
stop, I doubt that I would. If you pulled guns, I would try to flee
and if you had me cornered, I'd blow your ****ing head off.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> 2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
>>>> the tube?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe they wanted to follow him to see where he went.
>>
>> That's just ****ing stupid. You mean they wanted to see just what
>> population center he was going to blow up?
>>
>
>No, they wanted to see if he behaved like a bomber--if he was headed
>towards an actual target. Just trying to keep people like you and Dally
>happy, minimizing the number of stops.

And how do bombers behave? The should have stopped the guy right
away.

>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
>>>> was shot. That is just not right if it's true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If he had a bomb, it would make sense. And he never got to prove
>>>otherwise. Because like a dumbass, he was running.
>>>
>> No, as the muzzle blast could have set off the charge. Doubtful but
>> possible. I think a rotten apple got his license to kill and decided
>> he was going to put it to use.
>
>That's why they shoot to the head.

After he was pinned down to the ground.

>
>Look at it from the results point of view. Perhaps the Home Office will
>say: "These cops did exactly what they should have done. It's too bad, but
>people acting like this man are going to get shot. People of London--don't
>act this way."
>
>Conversely, the Home Office might say: "This was a terrible tragedy. We're
>going to tell those cops never to shoot unless they get a really positive
>ID that the suspect is carrying explosives."
>
>I submit to you that in the first case, terrorist groups will say, "****.
>That game's up just like hijacking airlines is up. What'll we try next?"
>
>But in the second case they'll say, "Hot damn! Let's go get them! Those
>cops are never going to stop us now!"
>
>Which version of London would you rather live in?
>
I don't want to live in London. Having said that, they ****ed up. He
should have never gotten to the tube if they believed he was wired
with explosives. So, if it was okay for them to shoot him in the head
after he was pinned down, it was okay to shot him in the back on the
street.

Hugh Beyer
July 27th 05, 05:36 AM
Dally > wrote in :

> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>
>> Look at it from the results point of view. Perhaps the Home Office will
>> say: "These cops did exactly what they should have done. It's too bad,
>> but people acting like this man are going to get shot. People of
>> London--don't act this way."
>>
>> Conversely, the Home Office might say: "This was a terrible tragedy.
>> We're going to tell those cops never to shoot unless they get a really
>> positive ID that the suspect is carrying explosives."
>
> Are those the only choices you've got? How about requiring SOME
> hallmarks of guilt besides running when approached? 'Cuz if police
> start shooting every dark-skinned guy who runs from the cops they'll
> quickly rack up more deaths than the terrorists did.
>
> Personally, I have never been touched by a terrorist, but I've been
> touched by new anti-terrorist methods, sometimes on a daily basis. For
> example, there are now armed guards at Niagara Falls on the American
> side ASKING YOU WHY YOU'RE LEAVING THE COUNTRY. They detained a bunch
> of high school kids on a field trip and ended up getting these kids
> deported as illegal aliens - they'd come over as toddlers and had no
> country other than the U.S. and they were MINORS for God's sakes.
>
> My library has had to institute new policies to deal with the Homeland
> Security Act.
>
> I had two flat tires last week while out bike riding. I doubt
> terrorists were behind it, but my spare C02 cartridge was seized when I
> was bringing my kid to his gate for a flight out (and they got very
> excited about it and searched me). So I'm down a C02 cartridge and if
> I get stranded with another flat tire it's going to be because of
> overkill response to terrorists, not terrorists themselves.
>
> The whole concept of going after terrorists where they are is pretty
> laughable. Iraq was ruled by a guy who kept the place in tight check
> (through brutal homicidal methods) and now we've turned it into a
> terrorist rallying cry. Pakistan is filled with training camps and it's
> unmolested by us. Nearly all of the people who have actually attacked
> us (including the U.S. Cole, the WTC both times, embassies, etc) have
> been Saudi and our economy is endangered by high oil prices backed by
> Saudis. And we pretend we're fighting terrorism without ever mentioning
> the word Wahhabite.
>
> Bull****. This is all surface scare tactics. People are being herded
> like sheep by a fear-mongering media backed up by patriotic flag-waving
> idiots like Lee who'll put up with any indignity, injustice or
> inhumanity in order to "wipe out Terrorism." Meanwhile, jack **** is
> being done to address the causes or perpetrators of terrorism.
>
> Heard anything about Osama bin Laden lately?
>
> Dally
>

I'm sorry. Your CO2 cartridge has **** all to do with a guy dying in the
London tube.

When you suspect a guy of being a suicide bomber, running towards the
closest target *is* a sign of guilt.

And to answer your first question, yes: The Home Office has the choice of
supporting the cops or repudiating them. Given the nature of public
relations, there is no beautifully nuanced third option. (This is
something Giuliani understood very well.)

Hugh


--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi")

Hugh Beyer
July 27th 05, 05:37 AM
John Hanson > wrote in
:

> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:00:38 GMT, Hugh Beyer >
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>John Hanson > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:18:56 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan.
>>>>
>>>>I noticed that too. Wimping out on us John? :)
>>>
>>> Not at all. I believe in liberty.
>>
>>Troubles me that *I'm* agreeing with Lee. But there you go. Guess I'll
>>have to turn in my ACLU card.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Having said
>>>>> that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
>>>>> going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop.
Same
>>>>> thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Doubtful. I am sure they did.
>>>
>>> What you are sure of means nothing.
>>
>>I don't give a rat's ass how they identified themselves. The scenario I
>>envision is that they trail this guy, who they're already suspicious of
>>because they had the place staked out, till he gets close to or in the
>>tube station at which point they decide it's too dicey and they need to
>>call a halt. At this point they yell at least "HEY YOU! STOP!" They
>>probably identified themselves; whether the guy could hear them clearly
>>given the acoustics of a subway station I don't know; doesn't matter
>>either way. At this point he starts running in the direction of maximum
>>impact.
>
> If you and your buddies were following me and you yelled for me to
> stop, I doubt that I would. If you pulled guns, I would try to flee
> and if you had me cornered, I'd blow your ****ing head off.
>

Then one of my buddies returns the favor, excuse me, favour, and you're
still dead. Except now you're dead and stupid.

Hugh


--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi")

Dally
July 27th 05, 05:42 AM
Hugh Beyer wrote:

> Dally > wrote in :

>>You don't get to kill people for doing dumbass things.
>
>
> You know, my son is right now in Canada doing a fairly extreme canoe trek
> down some hairy water. There is a non-zero probability that he will return
> dead. If he does dumbass things, that probability goes up significantly.
>
> We are responsible for our actions. Normally, failing that responsibility
> isn't lethal. Sometimes we roll snake eyes and it is. It's no one's fault.
> It's just common, normal, everyday ****.

I agree with this.

One of the things that is really bothering me about the "Wipe Out
Terrorism" campaign is that it isn't possible to live in a world where
bad things don't happen.

Sometimes our enemy battleships (the Cole) will get attacked by people
who don't like us. Sometimes our embassies will get attacked by people
who don't like us. Our country was paralyzed by an anthrax attack in
October of '01. The OK City bombing. The abortion clinic bombings - OB
doctors getting hit by snipers in their driveways.

Terrorism is meant to instill terror. We're walking right into it by
demanding to have the terror removed at once. We've become terrified of
the possibility of being terrorized. No, I don't want Buffalo to be
bombed (well, not much) but I think we need to take our chances in a big
bad world and let people go about their business unmolested as much as
possible.

There are Coast Guard escort vehicles running alongside the Casco Bay
ferries outside of Porland, ME. There used to be big naval shipyards
there - the Aegis class destroyers were built there - but there aren't
any anymore. What you have is the most Lily-white bunch of preppy
vacationers that ever summered off the coast of Maine. You won't see
anything darker than a tennis tan on that ferry. (I've looked for it.)

Why are we providing an armed escort for tourist ferries? Is it really
because we're fighting terrorism, or because we're trying to terrorize
the population into being terrified about terrorism?

Dally

Lee Michaels
July 27th 05, 05:56 AM
"Hugh Beyer" > wrote

> John Hanson > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:18:56 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>
>>>"John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan.
>>>
>>>I noticed that too. Wimping out on us John? :)
>>
>> Not at all. I believe in liberty.
>
> Troubles me that *I'm* agreeing with Lee. But there you go. Guess I'll
> have to turn in my ACLU card.
>

It's OK Hugh. Some very fine folks agree with me. ;)

And if you turn in your ACLU card, tell them it is because they refuse to
defend the second amendment.

>>
>>>
>>>> Having said
>>>> that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
>>>> going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop. Same
>>>> thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:
>>>>
>>>> 1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Doubtful. I am sure they did.
>>
>> What you are sure of means nothing.
>
> I don't give a rat's ass how they identified themselves. The scenario I
> envision is that they trail this guy, who they're already suspicious of
> because they had the place staked out, till he gets close to or in the
> tube station at which point they decide it's too dicey and they need to
> call a halt. At this point they yell at least "HEY YOU! STOP!" They
> probably identified themselves; whether the guy could hear them clearly
> given the acoustics of a subway station I don't know; doesn't matter
> either way. At this point he starts running in the direction of maximum
> impact.
>
Again, did he act like a bomber?

And how cooperative was he with police?

>>
>>>
>>>> 2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
>>>> the tube?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe they wanted to follow him to see where he went.
>>
>> That's just ****ing stupid. You mean they wanted to see just what
>> population center he was going to blow up?
>>
>
> No, they wanted to see if he behaved like a bomber--if he was headed
> towards an actual target. Just trying to keep people like you and Dally
> happy, minimizing the number of stops.
>

Again, the difference between dealing with the actual threat versus arm
chair analysis. They were on the ground having to deal with what appeared
to be a genuine bomb threat.


>>>
>>>
>>>> 3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
>>>> was shot. That is just not right if it's true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If he had a bomb, it would make sense. And he never got to prove
>>>otherwise. Because like a dumbass, he was running.
>>>
>> No, as the muzzle blast could have set off the charge. Doubtful but
>> possible. I think a rotten apple got his license to kill and decided
>> he was going to put it to use.
>
> That's why they shoot to the head.
>
All cops have a right to kill if the situation warrents it. Suicide bombers
probably have a few less rights. And folks who act like suicide bombers have
even less rights. The only difference is a tactic that is usedif they think
they are dealing with a bomber.

The lesson here is to not act like a dumbass. Which seems to be lost on
some folks who maintain that they have the right to act like a dumbass. And
they do have this sacred right. Just don't expext good results. Thus,
darwinism.


> Look at it from the results point of view. Perhaps the Home Office will
> say: "These cops did exactly what they should have done. It's too bad, but
> people acting like this man are going to get shot. People of London--don't
> act this way."
>
> Conversely, the Home Office might say: "This was a terrible tragedy. We're
> going to tell those cops never to shoot unless they get a really positive
> ID that the suspect is carrying explosives."
>
> I submit to you that in the first case, terrorist groups will say, "****.
> That game's up just like hijacking airlines is up. What'll we try next?"
>
> But in the second case they'll say, "Hot damn! Let's go get them! Those
> cops are never going to stop us now!"
>
> Which version of London would you rather live in?
>
This seems to be lost on folks who can not get the idea out of their head
that these scumbag terrorists play by the rules. The only good terrorist is
a dead one. And if people want to pretend that terrorists don't exist or
act like terrorists, they will have some big surprises coming to them.

Because concerned citizens or vigilant governments aren't going to tolerate
a lot of crap along these lines. I read in the news today that Tony Blair
met with opposition leaders today to fast track some legislation that will
give the brits some tools to deal with these radical groups. The present
laws do not allow them to do many things. Islamfascists are allowed to open
advocate terrorism and provide funding and training etc. No more.

And guess what? The only reason that these laws are going into effect is
because of the bombings. The loss of rights occured in direct relationship
to the acts of terrorism. It is unlikely that very many folks who live
normal lives will be affected that much.

Lee Michaels
July 27th 05, 06:05 AM
"Dally" wrote

> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>
>> His nationality isn't relevant. His immigration status isn't relevant.
>> Everyone has the responsibility to deal with the society they live in.
>> Right now in London, that includes the responsibility of not imitating a
>> subway bomber. If your hair is black and your skin is brown, you've
>> already gone some distance towards imitating a bomber--you'd better be
>> extra careful in your behavior.
>>
>> What happened to this guy is really sad -- ****-poor bad luck that this
>> one time a simple mistake turned fatal.
>
> I agree with all of this. I really only went ballistic when Lee said that
> the guy deserved it.
>
<blushing>

I made you go ballistic Dally?

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you,
thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you,
thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you,
thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.

<sharpening my pointy stick>

Hugh Beyer
July 27th 05, 06:07 AM
Dally > wrote in :

> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>
>> Dally > wrote in :
>
>>>You don't get to kill people for doing dumbass things.
>>
>>
>> You know, my son is right now in Canada doing a fairly extreme canoe
>> trek down some hairy water. There is a non-zero probability that he
>> will return dead. If he does dumbass things, that probability goes up
>> significantly.
>>
>> We are responsible for our actions. Normally, failing that
>> responsibility isn't lethal. Sometimes we roll snake eyes and it is.
>> It's no one's fault. It's just common, normal, everyday ****.
>
> I agree with this.
>
> One of the things that is really bothering me about the "Wipe Out
> Terrorism" campaign is that it isn't possible to live in a world where
> bad things don't happen.
>
> Sometimes our enemy battleships (the Cole) will get attacked by people
> who don't like us. Sometimes our embassies will get attacked by people
> who don't like us. Our country was paralyzed by an anthrax attack in
> October of '01. The OK City bombing. The abortion clinic bombings - OB
> doctors getting hit by snipers in their driveways.
>
> Terrorism is meant to instill terror. We're walking right into it by
> demanding to have the terror removed at once. We've become terrified of
> the possibility of being terrorized. No, I don't want Buffalo to be
> bombed (well, not much) but I think we need to take our chances in a big
> bad world and let people go about their business unmolested as much as
> possible.
>
> There are Coast Guard escort vehicles running alongside the Casco Bay
> ferries outside of Porland, ME. There used to be big naval shipyards
> there - the Aegis class destroyers were built there - but there aren't
> any anymore. What you have is the most Lily-white bunch of preppy
> vacationers that ever summered off the coast of Maine. You won't see
> anything darker than a tennis tan on that ferry. (I've looked for it.)
>
> Why are we providing an armed escort for tourist ferries? Is it really
> because we're fighting terrorism, or because we're trying to terrorize
> the population into being terrified about terrorism?

FWIW, I agree that a lot of our anti-terrorist actions right now don't
make rational sense. For a quick example, I think the fourth 9/11 flight
and the shoe bomber demonstrate that blowing up airplanes is no longer
practical. I think we should scale back on over-the-top airline security
and start looking for where the next new attack is coming from.

Since I don't have access to the latest classified anti-terrorist reports
I don't know whether escorting ferries makes sense or not. I do worry
about the slow erosion of civil liberties. But that has more to do with
what laws we pass and how we interpret them than with second-guessing
police making split-second decisions on the front lines.

Hugh



--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi")

Dally
July 27th 05, 06:12 AM
Lee Michaels wrote:

> Because concerned citizens or vigilant governments aren't going to tolerate
> a lot of crap along these lines. I read in the news today that Tony Blair
> met with opposition leaders today to fast track some legislation that will
> give the brits some tools to deal with these radical groups. The present
> laws do not allow them to do many things. Islamfascists are allowed to open
> advocate terrorism and provide funding and training etc. No more.

I presume you've got a handy-dandy test in place to determine when the
ideas being advocated and funded are "terrorist" and thus okey-dokey to
outlaw, right? Because what you're advcocating sounds an awful lot like
you want a thought police to shut down heretical ideas.

Mind you, I have no problem with outlawing the transfer of money to
states we won't transfer money to, and tracing funds is a great way to
find terrorists. It just sounds like you want to shut down all Islamic
bookstores in Leeds because three bombers met there.

Obvioulsy you'll then have to shut down mosques. And University
Libraries. And coffee houses. And the internet, of course.

> And guess what? The only reason that these laws are going into effect is
> because of the bombings. The loss of rights occured in direct relationship
> to the acts of terrorism. It is unlikely that very many folks who live
> normal lives will be affected that much.

Utter bull****. Everyone being searched randomly on the New York subway
will be affected. Everyone putting up with even more outrageous
indignities at airports will be affected. I fully expect that they'll
peace-bond people's opposable thumbs any day now. Next step will be to
administer a gas that knocks everyone out but the pilots. You obviously
won't object, because it's all in the name of keeping us safe. So what
if a few infants suffocate, they should have known not to fly when that
gas was sure to be administered.

Lee, when does it stop? When does the impact on the economy from the
PROTECTION from terrorism overwhelm the impact on the economy from a few
kooks doing an occasional terrorist act? Do you have any idea how many
people die in the world from EVERYTHING else? How about drunk driving?
Drousy driving? Drive-by shootings? Drownings in 5 gallon ketchup
buckets? Tsunamis?

Hear anything lately about installing warning buoys in the Indian Ocean?
I heard it would only cost a few hundred thousand to do and could save
thousands of lives. How's that for bang for the buck?

Meanwhile, I bet you opened your mail this afternoon without ever
testing it for anthrax. You're a victim of media fear-mongering and
you've totally lost perspective on what you ought to fear.

Dally

Dally
July 27th 05, 06:21 AM
Hugh Beyer wrote:

> Dally > wrote in :
>
>
>>Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Look at it from the results point of view. Perhaps the Home Office will
>>>say: "These cops did exactly what they should have done. It's too bad,
>>>but people acting like this man are going to get shot. People of
>>>London--don't act this way."
>>>
>>>Conversely, the Home Office might say: "This was a terrible tragedy.
>>>We're going to tell those cops never to shoot unless they get a really
>>>positive ID that the suspect is carrying explosives."
>>
>>Are those the only choices you've got? How about requiring SOME
>>hallmarks of guilt besides running when approached? 'Cuz if police
>>start shooting every dark-skinned guy who runs from the cops they'll
>>quickly rack up more deaths than the terrorists did.

> And to answer your first question, yes: The Home Office has the choice of
> supporting the cops or repudiating them. Given the nature of public
> relations, there is no beautifully nuanced third option. (This is
> something Giuliani understood very well.)

I think the reponse from Home Office ought to have some relation to what
the set of facts was. I don't know the set of facts, but I can envision
a scenario where they say, "We think that the police need to be able to
have this authority but we regret to say that we think this particular
shooting didn't meet the standards of suspicion that we hope to meet.
The cop is being given further training." Something like that: we
reserve the right to do this again but hope to do it better.

I don't want to suggest this is what they OUGHT to say. I still don't
know if it was a good shooting or not. The guy might have been sniffed
positive for explosives or they might have had some other intelligence
that lead them to believe he was intent on bombing. I hope so. Because
I'd really hate to think that turning and running while wearing a coat
was all they had on him.

Lee's right that it's a scary job and I really wouldn't want to be in
their position. But one of the reasons it IS scary and it is a bad
situation is because you can't just shoot everyone prophylactively.

Dally

Charles
July 27th 05, 08:45 AM
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:00:38 GMT, Hugh Beyer >
wrote:

>John Hanson > wrote in
:
>
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:18:56 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>
>>>"John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan.
>>>
>>>I noticed that too. Wimping out on us John? :)
>>
>> Not at all. I believe in liberty.
>
>Troubles me that *I'm* agreeing with Lee. But there you go. Guess I'll
>have to turn in my ACLU card.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Having said
>>>> that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
>>>> going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop. Same
>>>> thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:
>>>>
>>>> 1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Doubtful. I am sure they did.
>>
>> What you are sure of means nothing.
>
>I don't give a rat's ass how they identified themselves. The scenario I
>envision is that they trail this guy, who they're already suspicious of
>because they had the place staked out, till he gets close to or in the
>tube station at which point they decide it's too dicey and they need to
>call a halt. At this point they yell at least "HEY YOU! STOP!" They
>probably identified themselves; whether the guy could hear them clearly
>given the acoustics of a subway station I don't know; doesn't matter
>either way. At this point he starts running in the direction of maximum
>impact.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> 2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
>>>> the tube?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe they wanted to follow him to see where he went.
>>
>> That's just ****ing stupid. You mean they wanted to see just what
>> population center he was going to blow up?
>>
>
>No, they wanted to see if he behaved like a bomber--if he was headed
>towards an actual target. Just trying to keep people like you and Dally
>happy, minimizing the number of stops.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
>>>> was shot. That is just not right if it's true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>If he had a bomb, it would make sense. And he never got to prove
>>>otherwise. Because like a dumbass, he was running.
>>>
>> No, as the muzzle blast could have set off the charge. Doubtful but
>> possible. I think a rotten apple got his license to kill and decided
>> he was going to put it to use.
>
>That's why they shoot to the head.
>
>Look at it from the results point of view. Perhaps the Home Office will
>say: "These cops did exactly what they should have done. It's too bad, but
>people acting like this man are going to get shot. People of London--don't
>act this way."
>
>Conversely, the Home Office might say: "This was a terrible tragedy. We're
>going to tell those cops never to shoot unless they get a really positive
>ID that the suspect is carrying explosives."
>
>I submit to you that in the first case, terrorist groups will say, "****.
>That game's up just like hijacking airlines is up. What'll we try next?"
>
>But in the second case they'll say, "Hot damn! Let's go get them! Those
>cops are never going to stop us now!"
>
>Which version of London would you rather live in?

Don't wear bulky coats, rucksacks and beanie hats on the underground,
particularly if you have a heavy 'tan'!!

Ellis
July 27th 05, 08:51 AM
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:34:13 -0400, WillBrink
> wrote:

>There is no shoot to disable. Police shoot to kill for reasons
>explained. Telling them to shoot for the head instead of center mass is
>strictly due to the chance of center mass setting off explosion, not
>because it's more lethal per se.

That's what I was trying to say.

Although I would have thought that statistically a head shot would
prove more fatal than a shot to the torso - but that is incidental.

Ellis

Charles
July 27th 05, 08:59 AM
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:13:40 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>Hugh Beyer wrote:
>
>> Look at it from the results point of view. Perhaps the Home Office will
>> say: "These cops did exactly what they should have done. It's too bad, but
>> people acting like this man are going to get shot. People of London--don't
>> act this way."
>>
>> Conversely, the Home Office might say: "This was a terrible tragedy. We're
>> going to tell those cops never to shoot unless they get a really positive
>> ID that the suspect is carrying explosives."
>
>Are those the only choices you've got? How about requiring SOME
>hallmarks of guilt besides running when approached? 'Cuz if police
>start shooting every dark-skinned guy who runs from the cops they'll
>quickly rack up more deaths than the terrorists did.

It is long overdue that the 'good guys' should go on the offensive.
It's time these *******s had the grip of fear in *their* entrails!!

>
>Personally, I have never been touched by a terrorist, but I've been
>touched by new anti-terrorist methods, sometimes on a daily basis. For
>example, there are now armed guards at Niagara Falls on the American
>side ASKING YOU WHY YOU'RE LEAVING THE COUNTRY. They detained a bunch
>of high school kids on a field trip and ended up getting these kids
>deported as illegal aliens - they'd come over as toddlers and had no
>country other than the U.S. and they were MINORS for God's sakes.

Let's have strict policies and even stricter application of those
policies.

>
>My library has had to institute new policies to deal with the Homeland
>Security Act.
>
>I had two flat tires last week while out bike riding. I doubt
>terrorists were behind it, but my spare C02 cartridge was seized when I
>was bringing my kid to his gate for a flight out (and they got very
>excited about it and searched me). So I'm down a C02 cartridge and if
>I get stranded with another flat tire it's going to be because of
>overkill response to terrorists, not terrorists themselves.

And the next time you are emplaned you may just be able to relax and
enjoy your flight!!

>
>The whole concept of going after terrorists where they are is pretty
>laughable. Iraq was ruled by a guy who kept the place in tight check
>(through brutal homicidal methods) and now we've turned it into a
>terrorist rallying cry. Pakistan is filled with training camps and it's
>unmolested by us. Nearly all of the people who have actually attacked
>us (including the U.S. Cole, the WTC both times, embassies, etc) have
>been Saudi and our economy is endangered by high oil prices backed by
>Saudis. And we pretend we're fighting terrorism without ever mentioning
>the word Wahhabite.

Isn't it likely that there must come a time when people in Iraq say
enough is enough and rise up against these insurgents that are killing
Iraqis wholesale?

>
>Bull****. This is all surface scare tactics. People are being herded
>like sheep by a fear-mongering media backed up by patriotic flag-waving
>idiots like Lee who'll put up with any indignity, injustice or
>inhumanity in order to "wipe out Terrorism." Meanwhile, jack **** is
>being done to address the causes or perpetrators of terrorism.

What and who are they Dally dear? Are you suggesting that the western
world should acquiesce and all become Muslims in the interests of
world peace?

God is great - oh yeah!!

>
>Heard anything about Osama bin Laden lately?

Yes of course you silly girl. We hear that this great leader of men,
who has inspired this world-wide upsurge in violence in the name of
Islam, and who has inspired countless numbers of young people to kill
themselves in the name of his cause, is hiding away from the world in
a cave somewhere for fear of getting a bullet up his scrawny arse!!

Some man eh Dally?!! ;o)

Charles
July 27th 05, 09:10 AM
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:23:36 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:00:38 GMT, Hugh Beyer >
>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>John Hanson > wrote in
:
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:18:56 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan.
>>>>
>>>>I noticed that too. Wimping out on us John? :)
>>>
>>> Not at all. I believe in liberty.
>>
>>Troubles me that *I'm* agreeing with Lee. But there you go. Guess I'll
>>have to turn in my ACLU card.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Having said
>>>>> that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
>>>>> going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop. Same
>>>>> thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Doubtful. I am sure they did.
>>>
>>> What you are sure of means nothing.
>>
>>I don't give a rat's ass how they identified themselves. The scenario I
>>envision is that they trail this guy, who they're already suspicious of
>>because they had the place staked out, till he gets close to or in the
>>tube station at which point they decide it's too dicey and they need to
>>call a halt. At this point they yell at least "HEY YOU! STOP!" They
>>probably identified themselves; whether the guy could hear them clearly
>>given the acoustics of a subway station I don't know; doesn't matter
>>either way. At this point he starts running in the direction of maximum
>>impact.
>
>If you and your buddies were following me and you yelled for me to
>stop, I doubt that I would. If you pulled guns, I would try to flee
>and if you had me cornered, I'd blow your ****ing head off.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
>>>>> the tube?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Maybe they wanted to follow him to see where he went.
>>>
>>> That's just ****ing stupid. You mean they wanted to see just what
>>> population center he was going to blow up?
>>>
>>
>>No, they wanted to see if he behaved like a bomber--if he was headed
>>towards an actual target. Just trying to keep people like you and Dally
>>happy, minimizing the number of stops.
>
>And how do bombers behave? The should have stopped the guy right
>away.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
>>>>> was shot. That is just not right if it's true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>If he had a bomb, it would make sense. And he never got to prove
>>>>otherwise. Because like a dumbass, he was running.
>>>>
>>> No, as the muzzle blast could have set off the charge. Doubtful but
>>> possible. I think a rotten apple got his license to kill and decided
>>> he was going to put it to use.
>>
>>That's why they shoot to the head.
>
>After he was pinned down to the ground.
>
>>
>>Look at it from the results point of view. Perhaps the Home Office will
>>say: "These cops did exactly what they should have done. It's too bad, but
>>people acting like this man are going to get shot. People of London--don't
>>act this way."
>>
>>Conversely, the Home Office might say: "This was a terrible tragedy. We're
>>going to tell those cops never to shoot unless they get a really positive
>>ID that the suspect is carrying explosives."
>>
>>I submit to you that in the first case, terrorist groups will say, "****.
>>That game's up just like hijacking airlines is up. What'll we try next?"
>>
>>But in the second case they'll say, "Hot damn! Let's go get them! Those
>>cops are never going to stop us now!"
>>
>>Which version of London would you rather live in?
>>
>I don't want to live in London. Having said that, they ****ed up. He
>should have never gotten to the tube if they believed he was wired
>with explosives. So, if it was okay for them to shoot him in the head
>after he was pinned down, it was okay to shot him in the back on the
>street.

It is one of the greatest places in the world in which to live,
although I still like to get down to Cornwall quite regularly, which
is a delightful contrast.

However, after nearly thirty years travelling the world for a living,
and delighting in such places as New York, Sydney, Capetown, Montreal,
Auckland, Rio, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mayport, San Francisco, Colombo,
Mauritius, Hamburg, and too many others to mention, there is still
nothing like the thrill of London.

This despite the fact that large tracts of it have been utterly
destroyed by intensive immigration.

Donovan Rebbechi
July 27th 05, 11:27 AM
On 2005-07-27, Hugh Beyer > wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in
> :
>
>>> The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
>>> important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
>>
>> I don't think he thought that at all. I think he was probably scared
>> ****less.
>
> Right. In broad daylight on a crowded subway, the people waving guns and
> shouting at you are gang members after your wallet. Uh-huh.

I said nothing of the sort. Nice strawman though.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Donovan Rebbechi
July 27th 05, 11:35 AM
On 2005-07-26, Lee Michaels > wrote:

> Poor Donovan, being the advocate of morons and dumbasses must be hard work.
> But it suits you.
>
> As for the thoughts of our gate crasher, who cares??

Apparently, you do. I don't know why you brought that into the discussion,
but I suspect it's because it's easier to accept the guys death if you can
find that he's guilty of a *moral* failing, and not just poor judgment.

> The police had to act to the perceived threat. They did.

Thanks for making my point. As I pointed out, you've already made up your
mind despite not knowing all the facts.

> As for my actions, I always am courteous and respectful to the police. I
> don't have problems like the dead guy.

I'm sure you've never done anything potentially dangerous or risky, Lee --
because you strike me as such a smart guy. The fact that you're alive today
is most definitely because you are a true genius. Now go look in the mirror
and tell your reflection what a swell guy he is.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Runs With Knives
July 27th 05, 12:55 PM
In article >,
Ellis <> writes:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:34:13 -0400, WillBrink
> > wrote:
>
>>There is no shoot to disable. Police shoot to kill for reasons
>>explained. Telling them to shoot for the head instead of center mass is
>>strictly due to the chance of center mass setting off explosion, not
>>because it's more lethal per se.
>
> That's what I was trying to say.
>
> Although I would have thought that statistically a head shot would
> prove more fatal than a shot to the torso - but that is incidental.

That all depends. One to the heart is usually pretty final. So is
one to the liver (tho not as quick). But in most cases, where we're
talking about average caliber combat rounds: Yes.

Head shots are also more difficult. *Much* more difficult. It's a
smaller target and much more mobile than the torso. The vast
majority of LE training, any combat training, is to go for
mid-to-upper torso shots.

I disagree with Will's assertion that LEOs are trained to shoot to
kill. Most LEOs are not commonly trained to shoot to kill, per se,
in most situations, but to "shoot to *stop*, to end the threat, as
quickly and effectively as possible." The target expiring is only a
(sometimes regrettable, sometimes not) side-effect. To suggest LEOs
are trained to shoot to kill is to suggest the LE community regards
its members as judge, jury and executioner. I can't say as I've ever
met a LEO, local, county, state, federal or military, that feels that
way.

LEOs are not trained to shoot "disabling" shots (feet, legs, hands,
arms) for two reasons: 1. Even more so than head shots, shooting
limbs is exceedingly difficult to do--especially under combat
conditions. 2. By the time things have gone so far that
(potentially) deadly force is called-for, the goal is to
*incapacitate* the target utterly, as quickly and effectively as
possible.

Using deadly force to halt a threat to the public safety, which
includes ones self, is not a measure taken lightly by any sane
individual.

Contrary to popular belief (mostly resulting from too much credence
in westerns and cop shows, no doubt): The vast majority of shootings,
by law enforcement or otherwise, do not result in death--or even
necessarily lasting injury. The truth of the matter is that handgun
rounds simply aren't nearly as effective as most people believe them
to be. (Yes, it's true, as noted elsewhere: A knife is much more
deadly, at close range, than a handgun.) Not to mention that most
people, even LEOs, can't hit the broad side of a barn--especially
under combat conditions.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
| - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876

WillBrink
July 27th 05, 01:51 PM
In article >, Ellis <>
wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:34:13 -0400, WillBrink
> > wrote:
>
> >There is no shoot to disable. Police shoot to kill for reasons
> >explained. Telling them to shoot for the head instead of center mass is
> >strictly due to the chance of center mass setting off explosion, not
> >because it's more lethal per se.
>
> That's what I was trying to say.
>
> Although I would have thought that statistically a head shot would
> prove more fatal than a shot to the torso

It is, but that's not the point.

> - but that is incidental.

More or less.

>
> Ellis

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

WillBrink
July 27th 05, 01:55 PM
In article >,
(Runs With Knives) wrote:

> In article >,
> Ellis <> writes:
> > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:34:13 -0400, WillBrink
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>There is no shoot to disable. Police shoot to kill for reasons
> >>explained. Telling them to shoot for the head instead of center mass is
> >>strictly due to the chance of center mass setting off explosion, not
> >>because it's more lethal per se.
> >
> > That's what I was trying to say.
> >
> > Although I would have thought that statistically a head shot would
> > prove more fatal than a shot to the torso - but that is incidental.
>
> That all depends. One to the heart is usually pretty final. So is
> one to the liver (tho not as quick). But in most cases, where we're
> talking about average caliber combat rounds: Yes.
>
> Head shots are also more difficult. *Much* more difficult. It's a
> smaller target and much more mobile than the torso. The vast
> majority of LE training, any combat training, is to go for
> mid-to-upper torso shots.
>
> I disagree with Will's assertion that LEOs are trained to shoot to
> kill. Most LEOs are not commonly trained to shoot to kill, per se,
> in most situations, but to "shoot to *stop*, to end the threat, as
> quickly and effectively as possible."

You are right here, but I consider it semantics and legal liability
issues not what is the reality of what they are taught. My main point:
police do not shoot to disable, at least in the US. Some early attempts
at "shoot to disable" policy had disastrous results. So yes, shoot to
stop the threat more correct then shoot to kill.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

John Hanson
July 27th 05, 03:09 PM
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:37:46 GMT, Hugh Beyer >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson > wrote in
:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 04:00:38 GMT, Hugh Beyer >
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>John Hanson > wrote in
:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:18:56 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>>>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan.
>>>>>
>>>>>I noticed that too. Wimping out on us John? :)
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. I believe in liberty.
>>>
>>>Troubles me that *I'm* agreeing with Lee. But there you go. Guess I'll
>>>have to turn in my ACLU card.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Having said
>>>>>> that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
>>>>>> going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop.
>Same
>>>>>> thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Doubtful. I am sure they did.
>>>>
>>>> What you are sure of means nothing.
>>>
>>>I don't give a rat's ass how they identified themselves. The scenario I
>>>envision is that they trail this guy, who they're already suspicious of
>>>because they had the place staked out, till he gets close to or in the
>>>tube station at which point they decide it's too dicey and they need to
>>>call a halt. At this point they yell at least "HEY YOU! STOP!" They
>>>probably identified themselves; whether the guy could hear them clearly
>>>given the acoustics of a subway station I don't know; doesn't matter
>>>either way. At this point he starts running in the direction of maximum
>>>impact.
>>
>> If you and your buddies were following me and you yelled for me to
>> stop, I doubt that I would. If you pulled guns, I would try to flee
>> and if you had me cornered, I'd blow your ****ing head off.
>>
>
>Then one of my buddies returns the favor, excuse me, favour, and you're
>still dead. Except now you're dead and stupid.
>
You're making a big assumption. No reason I can't kill all of you.

John Hanson
July 27th 05, 03:20 PM
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:56:17 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"Hugh Beyer" > wrote
>
>> John Hanson > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:18:56 -0400, "Lee Michaels"
>>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"John Hanson" > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>> It troubles me that I'm agreeing with Dally and Donovan.
>>>>
>>>>I noticed that too. Wimping out on us John? :)
>>>
>>> Not at all. I believe in liberty.
>>
>> Troubles me that *I'm* agreeing with Lee. But there you go. Guess I'll
>> have to turn in my ACLU card.
>>
>
>It's OK Hugh. Some very fine folks agree with me. ;)
>
>And if you turn in your ACLU card, tell them it is because they refuse to
>defend the second amendment.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Having said
>>>>> that, I'm confused about this "shoot to kill" policy. If you are
>>>>> going to shoot, aren't you always shooting to kill...or to stop. Same
>>>>> thing basically. My main problems with the shooting are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.) The cops may not have identified themselves properly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Doubtful. I am sure they did.
>>>
>>> What you are sure of means nothing.
>>
>> I don't give a rat's ass how they identified themselves. The scenario I
>> envision is that they trail this guy, who they're already suspicious of
>> because they had the place staked out, till he gets close to or in the
>> tube station at which point they decide it's too dicey and they need to
>> call a halt. At this point they yell at least "HEY YOU! STOP!" They
>> probably identified themselves; whether the guy could hear them clearly
>> given the acoustics of a subway station I don't know; doesn't matter
>> either way. At this point he starts running in the direction of maximum
>> impact.
>>
>Again, did he act like a bomber?

How do bombers act?

>
>And how cooperative was he with police?

Doesn't sound like the police were trying to cooperate with him. He
could have been stopped and neutralized well before he got in the
tube.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 2.) If the guy was such a threat, why did they allow him to get into
>>>>> the tube?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Maybe they wanted to follow him to see where he went.
>>>
>>> That's just ****ing stupid. You mean they wanted to see just what
>>> population center he was going to blow up?
>>>
>>
>> No, they wanted to see if he behaved like a bomber--if he was headed
>> towards an actual target. Just trying to keep people like you and Dally
>> happy, minimizing the number of stops.
>>
>
>Again, the difference between dealing with the actual threat versus arm
>chair analysis. They were on the ground having to deal with what appeared
>to be a genuine bomb threat.
>
But the man they murdered wasn't an actual threat.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 3.) The account I read said they had him pinned to the ground when he
>>>>> was shot. That is just not right if it's true.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>If he had a bomb, it would make sense. And he never got to prove
>>>>otherwise. Because like a dumbass, he was running.
>>>>
>>> No, as the muzzle blast could have set off the charge. Doubtful but
>>> possible. I think a rotten apple got his license to kill and decided
>>> he was going to put it to use.
>>
>> That's why they shoot to the head.
>>
>All cops have a right to kill if the situation warrents it. Suicide bombers
>probably have a few less rights. And folks who act like suicide bombers have
>even less rights. The only difference is a tactic that is usedif they think
>they are dealing with a bomber.
>
>The lesson here is to not act like a dumbass. Which seems to be lost on
>some folks who maintain that they have the right to act like a dumbass. And
>they do have this sacred right. Just don't expext good results. Thus,
>darwinism.
>
If he didn't know they were cops, he did the right thing.
>
>> Look at it from the results point of view. Perhaps the Home Office will
>> say: "These cops did exactly what they should have done. It's too bad, but
>> people acting like this man are going to get shot. People of London--don't
>> act this way."
>>
>> Conversely, the Home Office might say: "This was a terrible tragedy. We're
>> going to tell those cops never to shoot unless they get a really positive
>> ID that the suspect is carrying explosives."
>>
>> I submit to you that in the first case, terrorist groups will say, "****.
>> That game's up just like hijacking airlines is up. What'll we try next?"
>>
>> But in the second case they'll say, "Hot damn! Let's go get them! Those
>> cops are never going to stop us now!"
>>
>> Which version of London would you rather live in?
>>
>This seems to be lost on folks who can not get the idea out of their head
>that these scumbag terrorists play by the rules. The only good terrorist is
>a dead one. And if people want to pretend that terrorists don't exist or
>act like terrorists, they will have some big surprises coming to them.

He wasn't a terrorist.

>
>Because concerned citizens or vigilant governments aren't going to tolerate
>a lot of crap along these lines. I read in the news today that Tony Blair
>met with opposition leaders today to fast track some legislation that will
>give the brits some tools to deal with these radical groups. The present
>laws do not allow them to do many things. Islamfascists are allowed to open
>advocate terrorism and provide funding and training etc. No more.

This has been a **** up on the part of the Brits for years. You don't
fix it by allowing plain clothes cops to pin a guy down and shoot him
in the head numerous times.

>
>And guess what? The only reason that these laws are going into effect is
>because of the bombings. The loss of rights occured in direct relationship
>to the acts of terrorism. It is unlikely that very many folks who live
>normal lives will be affected that much.
>
And that is the goal of the terrorists.

Ellis
July 27th 05, 03:20 PM
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 08:51:44 -0400, WillBrink
> wrote:

>> Although I would have thought that statistically a head shot would
>> prove more fatal than a shot to the torso
>
>It is, but that's not the point.

....I know, hence...

>
>> - but that is incidental.

Ellis

Hugh Beyer
July 27th 05, 09:24 PM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in
:

> On 2005-07-27, Hugh Beyer > wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>> The guy was a moron who thought his own problems were more
>>>> important than the national security of a sovereign nation.
>>>
>>> I don't think he thought that at all. I think he was probably scared
>>> ****less.
>>
>> Right. In broad daylight on a crowded subway, the people waving guns and
>> shouting at you are gang members after your wallet. Uh-huh.
>
> I said nothing of the sort. Nice strawman though.
>

Hmm. I wonder how I screwed up the attribution so badly. That was *supposed*
to be in response to the suggestion that he thought he was about to be
mugged or something.

Hugh


--
Exercise is a dirty word. Whenever I hear it, I wash my mouth out with
chocolate. ("Ladi")