London shooting
-
fakefur wrote: Have you ever had someone close to you die? Yes, actually, I have, several times. In particular, my partner died of breast cancer ten years ago and I was at her bedside, in the hospice, for the last 6 weeks of her life having nursed and looked after her for some considerable time prior to that and had to sit and watch as she just faded, painfully, away as the cancer had gone to her brain and bones and, by the end, she didn't even know her own son. She was 38 years old and the morphine just dulled the pain, it didn't take it away. And so I sat and swore I wouldn't cry or break down in front of her. And I didn't, until the end. And one day, near the end, she said to me: I know you know how long I've got but please don't tell me. So, whatever you think you know you know nothing. Until you have seen death up close and personal you know nothing. Until it has ripped your life apart you know nothing. So don't you dare presume to question me about life and death and how brave and selfless people can be and what the meaning of life or death is or the value you can put on anyone's life.
Stoopid signatures...
-
Morning. Good point. Damn it. However, most arguments do tend to revolve around single points which are opposite. Reality is a little different and depends if someone brings in that third or nth perspective. Can I swear now?
Stoopid signatures...
-
Cops need to be given stun-bullets that don't kill but just stun the targets. That way, such tragedies can be avoided.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: Cops need to be given stun-bullets that don't kill but just stun the targets. That way, such tragedies can be avoided. A close friend of mine used to be involved with 'special operations', and this sort of suggestion makes him (i) laugh and (ii) get worked up, because an injured / stunned man can still fire a gun or set off a bomb. If you are being threatened by someone with a gun or bomb, you take them out to the point where they are no longer a threat. Someone once suggested to him that if the police are confronted with an armed robber, they should "shoot the gun from his hand"! Been watching too much John Wayne...
-
fat_boy wrote: I'm sorry for you man. Appreciated.
Stoopid signatures...
-
One mistake? Dont forget the scots guy shot for carrying a table leg. How many others are there? In fact, lets conduct an investigation. How many police shootings got the right guy vs the wrong guy. Nunc est bibendum!
fat_boy wrote: Dont forget the scots guy shot for carrying a table leg. He raised it to his shoulder and pointed it towards the police like a rifle. They may ultimately have been wrong to shoot him, but when under apparent mortal danger they can't take chances.
-
fat_boy wrote: Dont forget the scots guy shot for carrying a table leg. He raised it to his shoulder and pointed it towards the police like a rifle. They may ultimately have been wrong to shoot him, but when under apparent mortal danger they can't take chances.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711619.stm[^] 'They claimed they shouted: "Stop, armed police" and fired when Mr Stanley turned around while carrying a bag which they believed contained a gun. In fact it only contained a table leg' 'Harry Stanley was walking home with a table leg in a plastic bag' So, the question arises, how many times have the UK police fucked up and how often have they shot the right guy? Nunc est bibendum!
-
Actually according to the police: 1. He was wearing a padded heavy jacket - wrong 2. He didn't comply with orders to stop - wrong. None were given. 3. He jumped the ticket barrier and ran away - wrong. 4. He tripped and fell into the train whilst running away from the police - wrong. He was seated and restrained by a security guard. In addition: The police officer doing surveillance was pee-ing at the time the guy left the apartment building (bolded there to make people realise this wasn't a small house or something). He was allowed to go several miles by foot and bus without being challenged. He was not positively identified as anything. In fact the officer said "Check identity". It wasn't done. All in all I'd say pretty damning evidence. Then add a few grains of smelly cover-up and you have a huge stinking mess that makes everyone look bad and dishonest. People should be forced to resign and face criminal charges. [edit] Like I said - I think the price is too high if innocent people can be killed like this. Clearly the UK police force isn't up to the job and they maybe should all lay down their guns. [/edit] [editedit] Answer me this honestly: If it was your brother / mother / father / sister / son / daughter would you be saying the same things? Honestly remember. [/editedit]
fakefur wrote: Actually according to the police: 1. No, the police did not say that. 2. Yes, and this 'leaked evidence' confirms that. 3. No, the police did not say that. 4. No, the police did not say that. Like I said mate, get your facts straight. All of the police conferences are in the public domain, video archives of them are available on the BBC News web site.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
Actually according to the police: 1. He was wearing a padded heavy jacket - wrong 2. He didn't comply with orders to stop - wrong. None were given. 3. He jumped the ticket barrier and ran away - wrong. 4. He tripped and fell into the train whilst running away from the police - wrong. He was seated and restrained by a security guard. In addition: The police officer doing surveillance was pee-ing at the time the guy left the apartment building (bolded there to make people realise this wasn't a small house or something). He was allowed to go several miles by foot and bus without being challenged. He was not positively identified as anything. In fact the officer said "Check identity". It wasn't done. All in all I'd say pretty damning evidence. Then add a few grains of smelly cover-up and you have a huge stinking mess that makes everyone look bad and dishonest. People should be forced to resign and face criminal charges. [edit] Like I said - I think the price is too high if innocent people can be killed like this. Clearly the UK police force isn't up to the job and they maybe should all lay down their guns. [/edit] [editedit] Answer me this honestly: If it was your brother / mother / father / sister / son / daughter would you be saying the same things? Honestly remember. [/editedit]
fakefur wrote: Answer me this honestly: If it was your brother / mother / father / sister / son / daughter would you be saying the same things? Honestly remember. Honestly, yes. And that's closer to home than you may have thought. :| I do not appreciate, or see the point of, trying to turn this into a pesonal emotive discussion.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
fakefur wrote: [editedit] Answer me this honestly: If it was your brother / mother / father / sister / son / daughter would you be saying the same things? Honestly remember. [/editedit] I think it weas an atypical Wulff post - normally he's one of the most neutral guys here in the Soapbox. Maybe he got affected by the tone/language used by your original post.
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: an atypical Wulff post Wow, I have benchmarks?! :~ But as John said, although I feel he probably mentioned it for the wrong reasons, I am completely for trusting the police to handle the situations we require them to until any investigations have proven that that trust would be misplaced. The investigation into this shooting has not concoluded yet, and as of yesterday has been set back because the media can't waste a good controversy. We, as members of our respective societies, have to accept the responsibility of the people we employ to protect us, because we are every bit as responsable as they are for what they do. Whether it is a soldier fighting in Iraq, a politician sitting in Westminster, or a policeman trying to protect his community at home, we asked those people to stand forward and take on the responsibilities of all of us, and we should not blindly run away from that whenever something we don't like has happened. Do you think I am happy or pleased that Mr. Menezes is dead? Or that my countries defensive forces are currently involved in overthrowing foreign governments? I'm not, at all, but is not the fault of the policemen or the soldiers. We employ people to stand at the top, whether they are the heads of police forces or members of parliament, and we pay them vast sums of money to unload our responsibilities on them. When something goes wrong, we learn from those mistakes, we trust those people to apply that learning, and if they don't or can't or were negligent in any way we take their heads and we display them on the walls of the London Tower for the ravens to pick at.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
Oh, that explains why he spazed out about my views on the police. Perhaps he is an ex copper or married to one? Nunc est bibendum!
I spazed out about your views on the police because you were being a wanker, period.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
I spazed out about your views on the police because you were being a wanker, period.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
Cops need to be given stun-bullets that don't kill but just stun the targets. That way, such tragedies can be avoided.
Two, sad, things to raise: 1. When you are hunting a dangerous animal, you don't injure it, you kill it. A cornered animal has nothing to lose and an injured cornered animal knows he is about to lose everything. 2. Stun rounds are not very effective, and give the non-lethality of them they tend to be used with less due consideration - resulting in more people being injured, and in some cases very painful fatalities. Normal armed police units do not shoot to kill, even when faced with a direct threat (i.e. someone shooting at them). The police in this case used a shoot-to-kill policy because the people they were hunting had no desire to live. That is a very important difference, that needs consideration.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: an atypical Wulff post Wow, I have benchmarks?! :~ But as John said, although I feel he probably mentioned it for the wrong reasons, I am completely for trusting the police to handle the situations we require them to until any investigations have proven that that trust would be misplaced. The investigation into this shooting has not concoluded yet, and as of yesterday has been set back because the media can't waste a good controversy. We, as members of our respective societies, have to accept the responsibility of the people we employ to protect us, because we are every bit as responsable as they are for what they do. Whether it is a soldier fighting in Iraq, a politician sitting in Westminster, or a policeman trying to protect his community at home, we asked those people to stand forward and take on the responsibilities of all of us, and we should not blindly run away from that whenever something we don't like has happened. Do you think I am happy or pleased that Mr. Menezes is dead? Or that my countries defensive forces are currently involved in overthrowing foreign governments? I'm not, at all, but is not the fault of the policemen or the soldiers. We employ people to stand at the top, whether they are the heads of police forces or members of parliament, and we pay them vast sums of money to unload our responsibilities on them. When something goes wrong, we learn from those mistakes, we trust those people to apply that learning, and if they don't or can't or were negligent in any way we take their heads and we display them on the walls of the London Tower for the ravens to pick at.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
How about the bolloxed up investigations into all the other police shootings? When do you start to feel your trust is misplaced? 'we asked those people to stand forward and take on the responsibilities of all of us' Bollocks, an ex-squaddie or other person of limited inteligence wants a steady job with a pension. He isnt capable of much so he joins the force. Either that or he is a power hungry sadist, and yes, I've met a few coppers like that in my youth too, and wants the job for emotional reasons, like he enjoys shitting on people. I'll tell you what, go down to torquay nick and ask them why they joined. I'll give you a handfull of names too. Dont forget, I know these poeple socially! Ha! we asked them to take on our responsibilites! what a crock of shit. How did you get to be so naive? Nunc est bibendum!
-
Are you really only 22? That explains why you know jack shit. Wait around sonny, you'll see what I mean. Nunc est bibendum!
22? No, I'm 21. If you double click on that clock in the bottom right of your screen you will bring up a calendar which helps with working out complicated things like dates, or years. fat_boy wrote: Wait around sonny, you'll see what I mean. I've got some bad news for you grandpa, I've been involved in the policing of my local community for many years now, so I am well aware of the issues, the schemes, the offenders, and how it all works. Thanks for your concern though - it means a lot. :rose:
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
Two, sad, things to raise: 1. When you are hunting a dangerous animal, you don't injure it, you kill it. A cornered animal has nothing to lose and an injured cornered animal knows he is about to lose everything. 2. Stun rounds are not very effective, and give the non-lethality of them they tend to be used with less due consideration - resulting in more people being injured, and in some cases very painful fatalities. Normal armed police units do not shoot to kill, even when faced with a direct threat (i.e. someone shooting at them). The police in this case used a shoot-to-kill policy because the people they were hunting had no desire to live. That is a very important difference, that needs consideration.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
'cornered animal has nothing to lose and an injured cornered animal knows he is about to lose everything' So you are an expert on deer or rabbit psychology are you? Just how much hunting have you done, and with what kind of weapon and amunition? 308, 22LR? 'Stun rounds are not very effective' The paras used to put A batteries in their SLRs in stead of the ruber bullets. They found them nore effective. 'Normal armed police units do not shoot to kill' Cock, they use semi jacketed, or hollow nose bullets. They very much mean to kill. It is not like the army, who mean to injure. Nunc est bibendum!
-
David Wulff wrote: Like you, a big part of me wants the police officers involved in this case to be sent to prison for carrying out their sworn duties to protect us. That way, when every armed police unit in the country goes on strike and lays down their weapons, leading to a surge in violent and gun crime, I can take glee in The Sun publishing a full written appology for helping to bring our country into exactly what the terrorists want it to become. Look, if your police are that big a bunch of wankers that they would quit because the public doesn't exactly like the idea of police officers gunning down innocent people then you got bigger problems than terrorism to worry about. "Art doesn't want to be familiar. It wants to astonish us. Or, in some cases, to enrage us. It wants to move us. To touch us. Not accommodate us, make us comfortable." -- Jamake Highwater Toasty0.com My Grandkids
Would you take a job where the guaranteed reaction to you carrying out your role would be jail time? I wouldn't. Don't compare the UK armed police units with other countries' police forces. We don't arm our cops on the streets, we only have the equivalent of S.W.A.T., and we set our benchmarks very high to keep wankers out of them.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
David Wulff wrote: That way, when every armed police unit in the country goes on strike and lays down their weapons, leading to a surge in violent and gun crime, I can take glee in The Sun publishing a full written appology for helping to bring our country into exactly what the terrorists want it to become. It seems you want it to become a police state. The police, like the military, must be subject to civilian control. If the police can't accept that, they have no business being police. The loss of civil liberties as a reaction to terrorism threatens to become more damaging than the terrorism itself. John Carson "The English language, complete with irony, satire, and sarcasm, has survived for centuries wihout smileys. Only the new crop of modern computer geeks finds it impossible to detect a joke that is not Clearly Labelled as such." Ray Shea
Yes, I agree. That is precisely what I am saying John, the only thing wrong with your statement is the very first sentance. What is happening here right not is not the police force being subject to civilian control, it is a public, sensationalist witch hunt, to make a bunch of scared people in the cities feel better about themselves. Untill the next strike. The IPCC investigation must be allowed to complete unhindered and unswayed by public opinion, otherwise it is nothing more than a clown show.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
'cornered animal has nothing to lose and an injured cornered animal knows he is about to lose everything' So you are an expert on deer or rabbit psychology are you? Just how much hunting have you done, and with what kind of weapon and amunition? 308, 22LR? 'Stun rounds are not very effective' The paras used to put A batteries in their SLRs in stead of the ruber bullets. They found them nore effective. 'Normal armed police units do not shoot to kill' Cock, they use semi jacketed, or hollow nose bullets. They very much mean to kill. It is not like the army, who mean to injure. Nunc est bibendum!
You forget, I live in the heart of Devon, hunting is much a part of life round here as breathing is. For many years in my childhood I lived in a village called Kenn, my family owned the local pub there, and there would be hunting parties in there almost daily. It was there that I first learned to handle a rifle, though I couldn't tell much more about it now. Nowadays I prefer to hunt people[^]. fat_boy wrote: The paras used to put A batteries in their SLRs in stead of the ruber bullets. They found them nore effective. Uhuh, and? fat_boy wrote: Cock, they use semi jacketed, or hollow nose bullets. Not the standard ARUs.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
-
Would you take a job where the guaranteed reaction to you carrying out your role would be jail time? I wouldn't. Don't compare the UK armed police units with other countries' police forces. We don't arm our cops on the streets, we only have the equivalent of S.W.A.T., and we set our benchmarks very high to keep wankers out of them.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
David Wulff wrote: Would you take a job where the guaranteed reaction to you carrying out your role would be jail time? I wouldn't. Don't compare the UK armed police units with other countries' police forces. We don't arm our cops on the streets, we only have the equivalent of S.W.A.T., and we set our benchmarks very high to keep wankers out of them. I guess, sadly I might add, that you condone their action of executing an innocent man? "Art doesn't want to be familiar. It wants to astonish us. Or, in some cases, to enrage us. It wants to move us. To touch us. Not accommodate us, make us comfortable." -- Jamake Highwater Toasty0.com My Grandkids
-
Two, sad, things to raise: 1. When you are hunting a dangerous animal, you don't injure it, you kill it. A cornered animal has nothing to lose and an injured cornered animal knows he is about to lose everything. 2. Stun rounds are not very effective, and give the non-lethality of them they tend to be used with less due consideration - resulting in more people being injured, and in some cases very painful fatalities. Normal armed police units do not shoot to kill, even when faced with a direct threat (i.e. someone shooting at them). The police in this case used a shoot-to-kill policy because the people they were hunting had no desire to live. That is a very important difference, that needs consideration.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (video)
David Wulff wrote: Normal armed police units do not shoot to kill No one "shoots to kill." No one "shoots to injure" either. You shoot to stop the threat and you aim center mass while doing it. When your body floods with adrenaline during a high stress situation like that, you lose fine motor control, so you aim for the largest target (the chest). Jeff Martin My Blog
