Another reason to fly GA...

[john smith]

I learned today that the TSA has a rule that prohibits a passenger from
purchasing a new ticket on a flight departing in less than two hours if
that passenger has no luggage... even if the airline of a connecting
flight has lost your luggage.

[Jay Beckman]

"john smith" > wrote in message
.. .
>I learned today that the TSA has a rule that prohibits a passenger from
>purchasing a new ticket on a flight departing in less than two hours if
>that passenger has no luggage... even if the airline of a connecting flight
>has lost your luggage.

I sincerely hope they find your luggage...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Neil Gould]

Recently, john smith > posted:

> I learned today that the TSA has a rule that prohibits a passenger
> from purchasing a new ticket on a flight departing in less than two
> hours if that passenger has no luggage... even if the airline of a
> connecting flight has lost your luggage.
>
I hereby propose a re-assignment of the acronym "TSA" to mean "Terminally
Stupid Actions".

Neil

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
john smith > wrote:

> I learned today that the TSA has a rule that prohibits a passenger from
> purchasing a new ticket on a flight departing in less than two hours if
> that passenger has no luggage... even if the airline of a connecting
> flight has lost your luggage.

<sigh>

Walk into one of those stores at the airport selling luggage, buy one
(any one), buy ticket, return bag.

The subject could read something like: "Another reason to fly GA...
or yet another example of low IQ in rulemaking"

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Chris G.]

The fundamental problem with this is that you can't return the bag
because it was checked.

Chris

Bob Noel wrote:
> Walk into one of those stores at the airport selling luggage, buy one
> (any one), buy ticket, return bag.

[Peter R.]

"Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote:

> The fundamental problem with this is that you can't return the bag
> because it was checked.

What, no one shows up with carry-ons as legitimate luggage anymore?

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Chris G.]

I guess it depoends on what the airlines consider luggage. I don't
consider a carry-on bag luggage. IMHO, luggage is what gets checked.

Chris


Peter R. wrote:
> "Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote:
>
>
>>The fundamental problem with this is that you can't return the bag
>>because it was checked.
>
>
> What, no one shows up with carry-ons as legitimate luggage anymore?
>

[Peter R.]

"Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote:

> I guess it depoends on what the airlines consider luggage. I don't
> consider a carry-on bag luggage. IMHO, luggage is what gets checked.

Perhaps, but in the case of the person wanting to purchase a ticket within
two hours, I would speculate that having only a carry-on bag would be
considered luggage by the airline and the TSA. Thus, the ticket purchase
would be permitted.

--
Peter
























----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[George Patterson]

john smith wrote:
> I learned today that the TSA has a rule that prohibits a passenger from
> purchasing a new ticket on a flight departing in less than two hours if
> that passenger has no luggage... even if the airline of a connecting
> flight has lost your luggage.

The rule was slipped in under pressure from the organization of vendors that
sell luggage at airports.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Hotel 179]

--

> "john smith" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>I learned today that the TSA has a rule that prohibits a passenger from
>>purchasing a new ticket on a flight departing in less than two hours if
>>that passenger has no luggage... even if the airline of a connecting
>>flight has lost your luggage.

------------------------------------------------reply-----------------------------------------------------------------

My wife and I were flying the airlines home in December but because of the
weather we chose to arrive at the airport much earlier than usual. The very
nice lady at the ticket counter offered to get us on an earlier flight so we
checked our luggage and traded our tickets. When we got to the TSA
choke-point, the TSA folks looked at our tickets and pulled us aside to do a
pat-down.

I guess that we looked the part of a couple of middle aged school teachers
on vacation because the TSA supervisor took the time to explain that the
reason we were patted down is because of the code on the ticket. If you
change tickets within some time period before the flight (30 days??), you
are automatically singled out for a pat-down. In this case, it was the
airline that made the ticket change. The supervisor explained that if this
ever was ever the case again, make the request at the ticket counter that
the code be deleted. It's up to the airlines to make the change. I thought
that it was nice of him to let us know that jewel of information.

Stephen
Foley, Alabama



Stephen F. Pearce
Foley, Alabama

[[email protected]]

john smith wrote:
> I learned today that the TSA has a rule that prohibits a passenger from
> purchasing a new ticket on a flight departing in less than two hours if
> that passenger has no luggage... even if the airline of a connecting
> flight has lost your luggage.

They must apply that selectively because that would put the BOS-LGA-DCA
shuttle out of business.

-cwk.

[Bob Noel]

In article s.net>,
"Chris G." <nospam@noemail> wrote:

> The fundamental problem with this is that you can't return the bag
> because it was checked.

I thought about that, but many business travelers do not check luggage.
So I didn't believe that the luggage would have to be checked.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Ron Natalie]

Neil Gould wrote:

> I hereby propose a re-assignment of the acronym "TSA" to mean "Terminally
> Stupid Actions".
>
Dave Wartofsky, operator of Potomac Airfield (one of the DC-3) points
out that the TSA/HSA believe that if they had installed proper ground
security on all the Hawaian airports they could have prevented the
Pearl Harbor attack.

[Ron Natalie]

wrote:
> john smith wrote:
>
>>I learned today that the TSA has a rule that prohibits a passenger from
>>purchasing a new ticket on a flight departing in less than two hours if
>>that passenger has no luggage... even if the airline of a connecting
>>flight has lost your luggage.
>
>
> They must apply that selectively because that would put the BOS-LGA-DCA
> shuttle out of business.
>
There hasn't been a BOS-LGA-DCA shuttle in decades.

[Dave S]

Ron Natalie wrote:
>>
>> They must apply that selectively because that would put the BOS-LGA-DCA
>> shuttle out of business.
>>
> There hasn't been a BOS-LGA-DCA shuttle in decades.

Oh NO!! Its too late!

<grin>

[Peter R.]

Ron Natalie > wrote:

> There hasn't been a BOS-LGA-DCA shuttle in decades.

Sarcasm, perhaps?

I flew the USAir Shuttle from LGA to BOS routinely during 1998-99.

Additionally, I just checked the USAirways schedule and they still offer
what appear to be shuttle flights hourly from/to BOS, DCA, and LGA. The
USAirways shuttle is an Airbus 319, has been since the late 90s.

--
Peter

[[email protected]]

Ron Natalie wrote:
> wrote:
> > john smith wrote:
> >
> >>I learned today that the TSA has a rule that prohibits a passenger from
> >>purchasing a new ticket on a flight departing in less than two hours if
> >>that passenger has no luggage... even if the airline of a connecting
> >>flight has lost your luggage.
> >
> >
> > They must apply that selectively because that would put the BOS-LGA-DCA
> > shuttle out of business.
> >
> There hasn't been a BOS-LGA-DCA shuttle in decades.

Obviously I'm missing some sort of inside joke.

http://www.usairways.com/about/corporate/shuttle/#US%20Airways%20Shuttle%20Timetable

http://www.delta.com/prog_serv/delta_shuttle/index.jsp

-cwk

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Ron Natalie > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> I hereby propose a re-assignment of the acronym "TSA" to mean
>> "Terminally Stupid Actions".
>>
> Dave Wartofsky, operator of Potomac Airfield (one of the DC-3) points
> out that the TSA/HSA believe that if they had installed proper ground
> security on all the Hawaian airports they could have prevented the
> Pearl Harbor attack.
>
Then, perhaps "TSA" could alternatively mean "Terminally Stupid
Attitudes".

Neil

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> "Hotel 179" > wrote:
>
>
>>I thought that it was nice of him to let us know that jewel of information.
>
>
> hey! terrorists? have you heard that? let the folks at the counter delete
> your code. then you are free to blow up the plane.
>
> note to TSA: pad down everybody with a deleted code.
>
> #m ... and this all for a vague feeling of security.

It's good to see the British are now shooting first and asking questions
later.

[Dan Luke]

"Newps" wrote:
> It's good to see the British are now shooting first and asking questions
> later.


Yeah, brilliant. Now they can question the dead guy.

[Bob Chilcoat]

Current speculation seems to be that he was wearing a heavy coat and they
were afraid that he had a bomb belt under it. They were trying to stop him
before he could detonate it. It'll be really a shame if he was just fat.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Newps" wrote:
>> It's good to see the British are now shooting first and asking questions
>> later.
>
>
> Yeah, brilliant. Now they can question the dead guy.
>

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>It's good to see the British are now shooting first and asking questions
>>later.
>
>
> NACK. this is very bad. (including their surveillance hype)

The surveillance is bad. The most amazing part of todays action is that
the cops shot four or five times and each and every shot hit the guy in
the head. Here, in say California, the SWAT teams regularly shoot
hundreds of rounds and never hit the perp, sometimes shooting each
other. Happened again in the last two weeks in the land of fruits and nuts.

[Newps]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Newps" wrote:
>
>>It's good to see the British are now shooting first and asking questions
>>later.
>
>
>
> Yeah, brilliant. Now they can question the dead guy.

Right. He was one of the suspects from yesterday, he was wearing a
trenchcoat, in July, and a backpack and ran from the cops. It's open
season, fire away.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>> Newps > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It's good to see the British are now shooting first and asking questions
>>>later.
>>
>>
>> NACK. this is very bad. (including their surveillance hype)
>
> The surveillance is bad. The most amazing part of todays action is that
> the cops shot four or five times and each and every shot hit the guy in
> the head. Here, in say California, the SWAT teams regularly shoot
> hundreds of rounds and never hit the perp, sometimes shooting each other.
> Happened again in the last two weeks in the land of fruits and nuts.

Back when I shot pistols competitivly there was quite a bit of talk when
IIRC the FBI released a study that ~90% of all Law Enforcment shootouts were
at a range of 5 feet or less and that 80% of the rounds missed.

2nd data point

I had a very good friend who was one of the top shooters in the world and
was also a police officer with a major California PD. I asked him one day
over drinks why he wasn't SWAT he said at the department I work there is no
way they are ever going to give the GO code to one of their SWAT Snipers.

[Doug Semler]

Newps wrote:

> Right. He was one of the suspects from yesterday, he was wearing a
> trenchcoat, in July, and a backpack and ran from the cops. It's open
> season, fire away.

Sooo, if I am a student (backpack) with a resemblance to someone
(passing or specific), wearing a "padded coat" (in mid to high 60's
weather and rain forecast, and I have the chills because of the flu)
and run from armed people (unclear whether these armed police were
plainclothes or not)...it gives those armed people the right to kill me
from 2 feet away?!?!?!

I am not questioning the actions (at this time), but your
characterization of the events. Someone running from the cops is *not*
open season to shoot that person.

[John T]

Doug Semler wrote:
>
> I am not questioning the actions (at this time), but your
> characterization of the events. Someone running from the cops is
> *not* open season to shoot that person.

In and of itself, no, but what if the cops had clearly identified
themselves, had clearly ordered him specifically to stop and he continued to
run onto a crowded train.

Right after a series of bomb blasts on crowded trains.

It's easy to armchair quarterback. Were the cops right? Dunno, but with
what I've seen so far, it looks like a justified shooting.

I was surprised to hear of armed cops in London, though. I was under the
impression they were not issued firearms.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Peter Duniho]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> [...]
> I was surprised to hear of armed cops in London, though. I was under the
> impression they were not issued firearms.

According to the article I read, the standard policy is that police
generally do not carry firearms, but that certain divisions within law
enforcement do. Apparently, one of those divisions is the plainclothes
detective department these officers work for.

Pete

[George Patterson]

Doug Semler wrote:
>
> Sooo, if I am a student (backpack) with a resemblance to someone
> (passing or specific), wearing a "padded coat" (in mid to high 60's
> weather and rain forecast, and I have the chills because of the flu)
> and run from armed people (unclear whether these armed police were
> plainclothes or not)...it gives those armed people the right to kill me
> from 2 feet away?!?!?!

Yes, it does.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Sylvain]

Doug Semler wrote:
<snip>
>> and run from armed people

Me think this was the key mistake... especially in a city
where law enforcement has had good reason to be on edge

(another one to add to the list of rules to long happy
living, along with never ****ing off people who out-gun
you)

--Sylvain (I always do wear a backpack but I least I can't run :-)

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:19:57 -0600, Newps wrote:

>>>It's good to see the British are now shooting first and asking questions
>>>later.
>>
>> Yeah, brilliant. Now they can question the dead guy.
>
>Right. He was one of the suspects from yesterday, he was wearing a
>trenchcoat, in July, and a backpack and ran from the cops. It's open
>season, fire away.

well, let's hope it is not YOU one day standing somewhere, maybe not
understanding some orders and being shot. They will ask questions later.
And you will be marked as collateral damage; you HAVE to understand: it is
the war against terror.

#m

:-((


--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 02:19:29 GMT, George Patterson wrote:

>> Sooo, if I am a student (backpack) with a resemblance to someone
>> (passing or specific), wearing a "padded coat" (in mid to high 60's
>> weather and rain forecast, and I have the chills because of the flu)
>> and run from armed people (unclear whether these armed police were
>> plainclothes or not)...it gives those armed people the right to kill me
>> from 2 feet away?!?!?!
>
>Yes, it does.

you have to set the scope right: this happened in Europe. We aren't used to
shootouts. And we aren't into eye for eye.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Gary Drescher]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> He was one of the suspects from yesterday,

Where did you read that he was a suspect from Thursday's bombing attempt?
The accounts I've read did not say that.

They did say, though, that plainclothes police followed him from a house to
the subway before shooting him point-blank as he lay on the floor of a
subway train. It's unobvious how there could've been enough danger to
warrant killing him for not stopping, but not enough danger to warrant
intercepting him before he walked to the subway.

--Gary

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:19:57 -0600, Newps wrote:
>
>
>>>>It's good to see the British are now shooting first and asking questions
>>>>later.
>>>
>>>Yeah, brilliant. Now they can question the dead guy.
>>
>>Right. He was one of the suspects from yesterday, he was wearing a
>>trenchcoat, in July, and a backpack and ran from the cops. It's open
>>season, fire away.
>
>
> well, let's hope it is not YOU one day standing somewhere, maybe not
> understanding some orders and being shot. They will ask questions later.
> And you will be marked as collateral damage; you HAVE to understand: it is
> the war against terror.

I like how you conveniently miss the point the guy was a suspect and was
being followed and only when it looked like he was going to commit his
crime did the cops make themselves known. And then he ran.

[Stefan]

Newps wrote:

> I like how you conveniently miss the point the guy was a suspect

Unluckily I happen to fit a certain profile. But then, I don't wear
trenchcoats, so I might have a chance.

> And then he ran.

I'll try to never be in a hurry, then.

Stefan

[George Patterson]

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> you have to set the scope right.....

Yes, using a scope would make things easier. :-)

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> And we aren't into eye for eye.

There's nothing "eye to eye" about it. If someone goes out of their way to
convince the authorities that they are carrying a bomb and have the ability to
set it off at any time, it is not only the right but it is the *responsibility*
of the authorities to kill him as rapidly and surely as possible without
discharging the bomb. If he didn't happen to have a bomb, his actions simply
make him a candidate for the Darwin award.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Stubby]

George Patterson wrote:

> Martin Hotze wrote:
>
>> And we aren't into eye for eye.
>
>
> There's nothing "eye to eye" about it. If someone goes out of their way
> to convince the authorities that they are carrying a bomb and have the
> ability to set it off at any time, it is not only the right but it is
> the *responsibility* of the authorities to kill him as rapidly and
> surely as possible without discharging the bomb. If he didn't happen to
> have a bomb, his actions simply make him a candidate for the Darwin award.

I believe we should find a way to set off hidden bombs when terrorists
go through a fortified scanning tunnel.

[George Patterson]

Stubby wrote:
>
> I believe we should find a way to set off hidden bombs when terrorists
> go through a fortified scanning tunnel.

If you think you can convince a bunch of New Yorkers to go through such a thing
one at a time, you've never seen a typical subway turnstile on a weekday.

As long as we're dreaming, how 'bout something that can *disarm* hidden bombs?
Throw in a detection mechanism while you're at it, so we can catch them too.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Stubby]

George Patterson wrote:

> Stubby wrote:
>
>>
>> I believe we should find a way to set off hidden bombs when terrorists
>> go through a fortified scanning tunnel.
>
>
> If you think you can convince a bunch of New Yorkers to go through such
> a thing one at a time, you've never seen a typical subway turnstile on a
> weekday.
OK. Put in 1000 or so.

> As long as we're dreaming, how 'bout something that can *disarm* hidden
> bombs? Throw in a detection mechanism while you're at it, so we can
> catch them too.
No. That would dull the fun. Plus, we would have to bear the expense
of trying them in court and maintaining them in prison. Let them die by
their own hand!

[Stubby]

Richard Riley wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:51:57 +0200, Stefan >
> wrote:
>
> :Newps wrote:
> :
> :> I like how you conveniently miss the point the guy was a suspect
> :
> :Unluckily I happen to fit a certain profile. But then, I don't wear
> :trenchcoats, so I might have a chance.
> :
> :> And then he ran.
> :
> :I'll try to never be in a hurry, then.
>
> OK, how about this as a simple rule.
>
> When more than one person is aiming a gun at you and yelling "Stop,
> Police!" don't run away from them.

OK if you yell the command in 31 different languages.

[Darrel Toepfer]

Stubby wrote:

> I believe we should find a way to set off hidden bombs when terrorists
> go through a fortified scanning tunnel.

As in "Total Recall"?

[Sylvain]

Stubby wrote:

>
> OK if you yell the command in 31 different languages.

the local linguo should suffice; it's up to you to
learn the basics when you visit, learn how to say 'stop
police', right after 'where is the bathroom'

--Sylvain

[Jose]

> learn how to say 'stop
> police', right after 'where is the bathroom'

I though that only applied in totalitarian countries.

Oh wait...

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Sylvain]

Jose wrote:
>> learn how to say 'stop
>> police', right after 'where is the bathroom'
>
>
> I though that only applied in totalitarian countries.
>
> Oh wait...

may be I am a bit spoilt, as I did grow up in a country
where the cops didn't even speak the language of the local
population...

anyway:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4711021.stm

oops.

--Sylvain

[Rich Lemert]

Richard Riley wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 15:51:57 +0200, Stefan >
> wrote:
>
> :Newps wrote:
> :
> :> I like how you conveniently miss the point the guy was a suspect
> :
> :Unluckily I happen to fit a certain profile. But then, I don't wear
> :trenchcoats, so I might have a chance.
> :
> :> And then he ran.
> :
> :I'll try to never be in a hurry, then.
>
> OK, how about this as a simple rule.
>
> When more than one person is aiming a gun at you and yelling "Stop,
> Police!" don't run away from them.
>
> Just a thought.

That's fine, IF a) you recognize that they're police officers, b) you
can understand what they're saying, and c) you can even hear them in the
first place.

[George Patterson]

Stubby wrote:
>
> George Patterson wrote:
>
>> Stubby wrote:
>>
>>> I believe we should find a way to set off hidden bombs when
>>> terrorists go through a fortified scanning tunnel.
>>
>> If you think you can convince a bunch of New Yorkers to go through
>> such a thing one at a time, you've never seen a typical subway
>> turnstile on a weekday.
>
> OK. Put in 1000 or so.

So now you've saved the terrorist the trouble of finding a crowd in which to
detonate his device. Great work.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Stubby wrote:
>
> OK if you yell the command in 31 different languages.

If they don't understand that much English, they should go back home.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Sylvain]

George Patterson wrote:

> If they don't understand that much English, they should go back home.

although, in some part of the UK, law enforcement is provided
by folks speaking with a Scottish accent (I went to college in
Ireland) which I challenge you to understand under the best
conditions... a safe bet though is to translate anything they
say as 'freeze' and you should be ok :-)

--Sylvain

[Newps]

George Patterson wrote:

> Martin Hotze wrote:
>
>>
>> you have to set the scope right.....
>
>
> Yes, using a scope would make things easier. :-)

That's what we call gun control out here in the west.

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:
>
>
> George Patterson wrote:
>
>> Martin Hotze wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> you have to set the scope right.....
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, using a scope would make things easier. :-)
>
>
> That's what we call gun control out here in the west.
>

And we call it the same in Pennsylvania.

Matt

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:41:11 -0600, Newps wrote:

>> well, let's hope it is not YOU one day standing somewhere, maybe not
>> understanding some orders and being shot. They will ask questions later.
>> And you will be marked as collateral damage; you HAVE to understand: it is
>> the war against terror.
>
>I like how you conveniently miss the point the guy was a suspect

you can be a suspect in a matter of minutes. *bah*

> and was
>being followed and only when it looked like he was going to commit his
>crime did the cops make themselves known. And then he ran.

so you know more than we know.

as London is known for all their cameras: where are the pictures from those
cams?

#m
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:52:06 -0700, Richard Riley wrote:

>When more than one person is aiming a gun at you and yelling "Stop,
>Police!" don't run away from them.
>
>Just a thought.

hope you'll never become deaf.

#m
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Martin Hotze > wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:52:06 -0700, Richard Riley wrote:
>
> >When more than one person is aiming a gun at you and yelling "Stop,
> >Police!" don't run away from them.
> >
> >Just a thought.
>
> hope you'll never become deaf.

what are the odds that a deaf person will start running when
a cop yells "Stop, Police!"?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:56:37 -0700, Sylvain wrote:

>the local linguo should suffice; it's up to you to
>learn the basics when you visit, learn how to say 'stop
>police',

[1]

> right after 'where is the bathroom'

*we* don't use a bathroom for _that_ [2]. we use a toilet.
see? we mean the same thing. but there are big cultural differences. And I
suspect that there are many different cultures esp. in London.

#m

[1] it is not uncommon to leave the car when stopped by police, but this is
_here_ ... you might get shot when you do this _there_.
[2] _this_ is so ugly .. one does not speak open about _this_
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:43:10 -0700, Sylvain wrote:

>anyway:
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4711021.stm
>
>oops.

yeah ... qoute from your link:
---snip
"This tragedy has added another victim to the toll of deaths for which the
terrorists bear responsibility."
---snap

how disgusting.

>--Sylvain

#m
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:32:20 GMT, George Patterson wrote:

>> OK if you yell the command in 31 different languages.
>
>If they don't understand that much English, they should go back home.

are you trying to trigger Godwin here?

>George Patterson

#m
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:53:49 GMT, George Patterson wrote:

>> And we aren't into eye for eye.
>
>There's nothing "eye to eye" about it. If someone goes out of their way to
>convince the authorities that they are carrying a bomb and have the ability to
>set it off at any time, it is not only the right but it is the *responsibility*
>of the authorities to kill him as rapidly and surely as possible without
>discharging the bomb. If he didn't happen to have a bomb, his actions simply
>make him a candidate for the Darwin award.

after reading http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4711021.stm
what do you mean? collateral damage?

>George Patterson

#m
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 06:50:09 -0400, Bob Noel wrote:

>> >When more than one person is aiming a gun at you and yelling "Stop,
>> >Police!" don't run away from them.
>> >
>> >Just a thought.
>>
>> hope you'll never become deaf.
>
>what are the odds that a deaf person will start running when
>a cop yells "Stop, Police!"?

hu?

in this context (with the reply postings): beeing deaf and running to the
tube in a hurry, wanting to catch the next one. Then you have not uniformed
(?) police running behind you. what do you mean? maybe they also want to
catch the tube?

yes, the person shot (killed) by police was not deaf (AFAIK). It was only
an idea of how easy one could be a victim.

#m
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:56:37 -0700, Sylvain wrote:
>
>
>>the local linguo should suffice; it's up to you to
>>learn the basics when you visit, learn how to say 'stop
>>police',
>
>
> [1]
>
>
>>right after 'where is the bathroom'
>
>
> *we* don't use a bathroom for _that_ [2]. we use a toilet.
> see? we mean the same thing. but there are big cultural differences. And I
> suspect that there are many different cultures esp. in London.

When I lived in England in the 80's it was a loo or a crapper. Never
heard toilet used...


Matt

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:43:44 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:

>When I lived in England in the 80's it was a loo or a crapper. Never
>heard toilet used...
>

see? you put "here" as Europe (and everything over there is all the same).

here != England

#m
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Doug Semler]

In news:ROhEe.67$S72.63@trndny06,
George Patterson > slavered, and posted this:
> Doug Semler wrote:
>>
>> Sooo, if I am a student (backpack) with a resemblance to someone
>> (passing or specific), wearing a "padded coat" (in mid to high 60's
>> weather and rain forecast, and I have the chills because of the flu)
>> and run from armed people (unclear whether these armed police were
>> plainclothes or not)...it gives those armed people the right to kill me
>> from 2 feet away?!?!?!
>
> Yes, it does.
>

And after finding out that I am not linked to any terror events?

Look at my scenario above. The only words that witnesses identify coming
out of the cops was "Get out!". Nothing about them identifying themselves
as cops. Britain has strict gun control laws; the kid was from Brazil. I,
too, would run from people waving guns and shouting "Get Out" in
Britain...even though I understand English...English may even be a foriegn
language!

I still say a policy of "Shoot first and ask questions later" is
unacceptable. Of course, if the jacket comes off and there *IS* a bomb, I'm
all for making the guy swiss cheese.

--
Doug Semler
http://home.wideopenwest.com/~doug_semler
a.a. #705, BAAWA. EAC Guardian of the Horn of the IPU (pbuhh).
I hate spam, standard email address munging applied.
Displaced Bolts fan in Detroit :(
42
DNRC o-
Gur Hfrarg unf orpbzr fb shyy bs penc gurfr qnlf, uneqyl nalbar rira
erpbtavmrf fvzcyr guvatf yvxr ebg13 nalzber. Fnq, vfa'g vg?

[George Patterson]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> what do you mean? collateral damage?

The "Darwin Awards" are handed out to people who demonstrate a certain level of
stupidity. The judges argue that humanity is better off if people that stupid
are removed from the gene pool. IMO, wearing a winter coat when the temperature
is in the 70s and running from police when ordered to stop demonstrates that
level of stupidity, especially when a series of bombs have recently been
exploded in your area.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> in this context (with the reply postings): beeing deaf and running to the
> tube in a hurry, wanting to catch the next one.

And jumping over the turnstile in your hurry? Pull the other one -- it's got
bells on.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Gary Drescher]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:hVOEe.4822$eg4.595@trndny01...
> wearing a winter coat when the temperature is in the 70s

That's unlikely to turn out to be the case. The victim was an electrician on
his way to work. Perhaps the "bulky jacket" witnesses reported was a utility
vest holding electrical tools.

> and running from police when ordered to stop

I have yet to see any eyewitness reports confirming that the plainclothes
officers audibly identified themselves and ordered the victim to stop.

Perhaps he thought, at least initially, that he was being chased by a lynch
mob. Or perhaps he just saw them running and assumed they were fleeing some
danger, so he started running too. By the time he knew there were police
officers chasing him (if he ever did), he might have realized that they
would now assume he was a terrorist and would kill him the instant they
caught him (as in fact they did), so that his only chance to survive would
be to keep running and hope to get away.

--Gary

[AES]

In article >,
"Doug Semler" > wrote:

>
> I still say a policy of "Shoot first and ask questions later" is
> unacceptable. Of course, if the jacket comes off and there *IS* a bomb, I'm
> all for making the guy swiss cheese.
>

Oh, he will be (having triggered it by then).

The problem is, so will the 30 or 40 or 200 innocent others in the car.

To quote someone I overhead yesterday: "If there's a 2% chance, based
on all information known at the time, that the guy is a suicide bomber,
and 50 people in the subway car -- well, the choice is unfortunate, but
very clear."

[Franklin Newton]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> > He was one of the suspects from yesterday,
>
> Where did you read that he was a suspect from Thursday's bombing attempt?
> The accounts I've read did not say that.
>
> They did say, though, that plainclothes police followed him from a house
to
> the subway before shooting him point-blank as he lay on the floor of a
> subway train. It's unobvious how there could've been enough danger to
> warrant killing him for not stopping, but not enough danger to warrant
> intercepting him before he walked to the subway.
>
> --Gary
>
>
Oh you protest too much,no, he really was a muslim extremist suicide bomber,
the heroic London officers would never make any stupid errors and kill an
innocent man, no sir, they were all uniformed officers who identified
themselves with picture id when he first came out of his house, then
graciously let him get on a bus with his bomb to go to the subway, where
they could arrest him for the media better value that's when he ran from the
officers and they were forced to shoot him after they had him back in
custody, they simply have his bomb somewhere for inspection and as far as
his cloths he probably picked those out (Osama's Secrets) to wear to work
that day so he would look just like the terrorist he was, not just something
he wore most of the time, just like we all do, and the crusafixes, he only
had them because he thought it was Tony Blair nailed up there not Jesus and
not because he was catholic, and since he really was a terrorist the herois
officers won't have to change personnel or methods.

[Gary Drescher]

"AES" > wrote in message
...
> To quote someone I overhead yesterday: "If there's a 2% chance, based
> on all information known at the time, that the guy is a suicide bomber,
> and 50 people in the subway car -- well, the choice is unfortunate, but
> very clear."

So you and your friend think it's "very clear" that the police should
summarily execute someone whom even the police believe at the time is 98%
likely to be innocent?

--Gary

[Andrew Gideon]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> By the time he knew there were police
> officers chasing him (if he ever did), he might have realized that they
> would now assume he was a terrorist and would kill him the instant they
> caught him (as in fact they did), so that his only chance to survive would
> be to keep running and hope to get away.

Witness accounts say that he tripped and fell to the ground, but there was
some confusion about the 'tripping' part (one used a phrase
"half-tripped"). Perhaps he finally decided it was the police, and threw
himself to the ground as a form of surrender.

That didn't work so well, though, did it? What would have? Would anything?

It's also worth noting that it wasn't all the officers that fired. Just
one, that fired five times, chose that path.

How often do those CCTV cameras "snap"? I wonder if we're going to see the
start of the chase.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> So you and your friend think it's "very clear" that the police should
> summarily execute someone whom even the police believe at the time is 98%
> likely to be innocent?

The terrorists aren't really fighting for Iraq or Afganistan. They're
fighting a war to, loosly speaking, convert our culture to theirs. The
foot soldiers may honestly believe otherwise, but the Bin Ladens have been
in the game long before Iraq or Afganistan.

What would it take for our culture to become theirs? For one thing, a
mentality that the state's well-being overrides individuals' well-being.
And I say we have that here. Following a path of reason that appears quite
valid, that's exactly where London's gone.

What else? A theocratic tyranny of the majority. The majority in, for
example, the U.S. might be Christian today. But that's a problem easily
solved in the long term. Redefine the nation so that the majority can
impose its religious values upon the rest, and the remainder of the "fight"
is just a generation or three of demographic work.

Guess what: we're losing this fight. The big problem is that we're aiming
at the wrong targets, and actually shooting ourselves in the foot.

Rather than letting us become more like an oppressive theocratic police
state, we need to become *more* ourselves. We need to place the values
that make us different - minority rights, freedom from oppression or abuse,
freedom of expression and beliefm etc. - even higher upon our personal
totems.

There will still be people in opposition to us. But we'll never turn on
ourselves, and we'll never hand victory over.

- Andrew

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:02:24 GMT, George Patterson wrote:

>> in this context (with the reply postings): beeing deaf and running to the
>> tube in a hurry, wanting to catch the next one.
>
>And jumping over the turnstile in your hurry? Pull the other one -- it's got
>bells on.

my "being deaf" argument was a general one. not directly connected to this
case.
What do you think how a deaf person (without seeing the shouter and reading
his lips) would react when somebody shouts "stop, police!" ... hm?

You think Darwin should also sort out all those deaf people?

#m
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Franklin Newton]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
> > So you and your friend think it's "very clear" that the police should
> > summarily execute someone whom even the police believe at the time is
98%
> > likely to be innocent?
>
> The terrorists aren't really fighting for Iraq or Afganistan. They're
> fighting a war to, loosly speaking, convert our culture to theirs. The
> foot soldiers may honestly believe otherwise, but the Bin Ladens have been
> in the game long before Iraq or Afganistan.
>
> What would it take for our culture to become theirs? For one thing, a
> mentality that the state's well-being overrides individuals' well-being.
> And I say we have that here. Following a path of reason that appears
quite
> valid, that's exactly where London's gone.
>
> What else? A theocratic tyranny of the majority. The majority in, for
> example, the U.S. might be Christian today. But that's a problem easily
> solved in the long term. Redefine the nation so that the majority can
> impose its religious values upon the rest, and the remainder of the
"fight"
> is just a generation or three of demographic work.
>
> Guess what: we're losing this fight. The big problem is that we're aiming
> at the wrong targets, and actually shooting ourselves in the foot.
>
> Rather than letting us become more like an oppressive theocratic police
> state, we need to become *more* ourselves. We need to place the values
> that make us different - minority rights, freedom from oppression or
abuse,
> freedom of expression and beliefm etc. - even higher upon our personal
> totems.
>
> There will still be people in opposition to us. But we'll never turn on
> ourselves, and we'll never hand victory over.
>
> - Andrew
>
Andrew, those are simply old ideas put forth by our founding fathers, the're
just not relevant anymore, deep down you know you really want to live in a
ninny or is it nanny state, I always get them confused, those words and
ideas are just for display in some museum not ideals to live by.

[Icebound]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:ROhEe.67$S72.63@trndny06...
> Doug Semler wrote:
>>
>> Sooo, if I am a student (backpack) with a resemblance to someone
>> (passing or specific), wearing a "padded coat" (in mid to high 60's
>> weather and rain forecast, and I have the chills because of the flu)
>> and run from armed people (unclear whether these armed police were
>> plainclothes or not)...it gives those armed people the right to kill me
>> from 2 feet away?!?!?!
>
> Yes, it does.
>

The terrorists' dream scenario.... a society killing its own.

The damage done to a society, by the death of 20 at the hands of terrorists,
will be far less than the damage done to the same society, by the death of a
single innocent person at the hands of the "law".

Because the terrorists will forever be recognized as the ones doing the
killing, will forever be in the "wrong", will never have sympathizers, will
be hunted and brought to justice one by one, too slowly for some to be sure,
but the enemy will be clear and civilized societies will band together for
the hunt to go on.

However, a single innocent person killed by authority, in a democracy
undermines that authority. A democracy without trust in its infrastructure
is doomed to become something considerably less than a civil
democracy...fighting its own citizens, fighting its own authorities,
fighting outsiders, a state of perpetual paranoia.

Even if our Brazilian electrician was, in fact, a bomb-carrier, there is no
guarantee that his death would have "saved lives". There is no way to know
what forces would be set in motion amongst his allies, friends, family, or
even complete strangers... who may have viewed this as his "martyrdom" and
a call to even more militancy... there is just no way to know whether the 20
lives saved here, may or may not have turned into 120 otherwise-safe lives
somewhere down the road.

Now it is one thing to kill someone that is truly "known" to be a
bomb-carrier. Killing people on mere suspicion, however, makes our
democracy a sham.

Even the war in Iraq could not start on *suspicion* of WMD. It started
because there
*!was!* WMD.

--
*** A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

[Matt Whiting]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 12:43:44 GMT, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>
>>When I lived in England in the 80's it was a loo or a crapper. Never
>>heard toilet used...
>>
>
>
> see? you put "here" as Europe (and everything over there is all the same).
>
> here != England
>
> #m

Funny, we were talking about the London shooting and last I knew London
was in England. Did they move it recently? :-)


Matt

[Skywise]

"Franklin Newton" > wrote in
ink.net:

<Snipola>
> Andrew, those are simply old ideas put forth by our founding fathers,
> the're just not relevant anymore, deep down you know you really want to
> live in a ninny or is it nanny state, I always get them confused, those
> words and ideas are just for display in some museum not ideals to live
> by.

With an attitude like that I hope to God you don't live in the US,
because you don't deserve to be here. It's precisely because of
people like you that the ideals of our founding fathers are in
such jeopardy.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Franklin Newton]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Franklin Newton" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
> <Snipola>
> > Andrew, those are simply old ideas put forth by our founding fathers,
> > the're just not relevant anymore, deep down you know you really want to
> > live in a ninny or is it nanny state, I always get them confused, those
> > words and ideas are just for display in some museum not ideals to live
> > by.
>
> With an attitude like that I hope to God you don't live in the US,
> because you don't deserve to be here. It's precisely because of
> people like you that the ideals of our founding fathers are in
> such jeopardy.
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
>
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog
>
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Acually Brian I do live here, the no longer relevant stuff was taken from
our current administrations views on international treaties and I have no
desire to live in a ninny or is it nanny, state and my personaol view is if
we lived and did by word and deed the ideals set out by our founders we
would not be in the current situation.

[John T]

Icebound wrote:
>
> The damage done to a society, by the death of 20 at the hands of
> terrorists, will be far less than the damage done to the same
> society, by the death of a single innocent person at the hands of the
> "law".

Just posing a different point of view:

What's the damage to society if law enforcement is too reluctant to
prosecute suspicious individuals in the interest of protecting every single
innocent life?

I tend to agree with your sentiment, just not to the degree you seem to want
to take it. Firm checks must be maintained on state power (primarily, IMO,
to protect individual rights), but probably *the* most important role of
government is to protect and defend society.

A balance must be struck between protecting society from those who wish it
harm and protecting individual rights within that society. Unfortunately,
there will be times law enforcement will stray to either side of that
equilibrium.

> A democracy without trust in its
> infrastructure is doomed to become something considerably less than a
> civil democracy...fighting its own citizens, fighting its own
> authorities, fighting outsiders, a state of perpetual paranoia.

Interesting. What happens when that democracy no longer trusts its
governmental institutions to protect them from valid threats?

> Even if our Brazilian electrician was, in fact, a bomb-carrier, there
> is no guarantee that his death would have "saved lives". There is no
> way to know what forces would be set in motion amongst his allies,
> friends, family, or even complete strangers... who may have viewed
> this as his "martyrdom" and a call to even more militancy... there
> is just no way to know whether the 20 lives saved here, may or may
> not have turned into 120 otherwise-safe lives somewhere down the road.

Your point is valid. Now look at the other side of that. If law
enforcement now becomes more reluctant to pull the trigger on suspects, what
happens when they hesitate on the wrong suspect and they release another
chemical attack like the ones in Japan several years back? Or continue to
set off explosive attacks? How many innocent lives would be lost because of
the goal of law enforcement protecting every single innocent life?

> Killing people on mere suspicion, however, makes our
> democracy a sham.

I wouldn't go quite so far as to call it a "sham", but I agree with the
general sentiment. It's a judgement call to decide when the suspicion is
about to be confirmed in the most obvious way. "Do we shoot the suspicious
person before he's in position to do harm? Or do we wait until he pulls the
trigger to confirm our suspicions and clean up the mess?"

How to you prosecute a war where the enemy wears no uniform? Where he is
willing to sacrifice his life to achieve his tactical goal? Where he has no
apparent desire to discern miltary from civilian targets? Where there is
state sponsorship, but no state control?

I don't have the answers, but I'm working on them.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Franklin Newton" > wrote in
> ink.net:
>
> <Snipola>
> > Andrew, those are simply old ideas put forth by our founding fathers,
> > the're just not relevant anymore, deep down you know you really want to
> > live in a ninny or is it nanny state, I always get them confused, those
> > words and ideas are just for display in some museum not ideals to live
> > by.
>
> With an attitude like that I hope to God you don't live in the US,
> because you don't deserve to be here. It's precisely because of
> people like you that the ideals of our founding fathers are in
> such jeopardy.
>
Satire.

[Andrew Gideon]

John T wrote:

> What's the damage to society if law enforcement is too reluctant to
> prosecute suspicious individuals in the interest of protecting every
> single innocent life?

This has been answered numerous times, albeit with varied ratios <grin>.
Franklin's version was:

...that it is better 100 guilty Persons should
escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.

Do you imagine that he, and all those others that said something similar,
had no conception of the possibility that those guilty persons could harm
innocent persons? I dare say they did realize this, but that they
recognized that this reflects the nature of our society. We expose
ourselves to the risk of harm by individuals abusing our freedoms because
the alternative - an elimination of those freedoms - would be more harm
than those guilty persons could possibly hope to achieve.

Guilty persons can harm persons. The elimination of freedom harms the
society and every innocent member.

In Franklin's case, I expect that it was reasoning of this sort that
resulted in:

They who would give up an essential liberty for
temporary security, deserve neither liberty or
security.

> How to you prosecute a war where the enemy wears no uniform?Â*Â*
> Where heÂ*is willing to sacrifice his life to achieve his
> tactical goal?Â*Â*WhereÂ*heÂ*hasÂ*no apparent desire to discern
> miltary from civilian targets?Â*Â*WhereÂ*thereÂ*is state
> sponsorship, but no state control?

I don't know the complete answer either, but I do know part. You deny your
enemy his weapons whereever possible. Terrorists thrive on terror. Deny
them this. Don't react with fear. Banning aircraft from wide swaths of
airspace is no more rational than banning rental vans from a city would be.

I've complaints about the UK's Tony Blair, but his "will not be terrorised"
was right on the mark. Where he claims "we will hold true to the British
way of life", he is denying the enemy the gain they crave when they write
"Britain is now burning in fear" on the web from their hiding spots.

Unfortunately, since the recent shooting of that unfortunate Brazilian, the
"fear" statement is a lot closer to truth. And that's completely
self-inflicted.

- Andrew

[Franklin Newton]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Franklin Newton" > wrote in
> > ink.net:
> >
> > <Snipola>
> > > Andrew, those are simply old ideas put forth by our founding fathers,
> > > the're just not relevant anymore, deep down you know you really want
to
> > > live in a ninny or is it nanny state, I always get them confused,
those
> > > words and ideas are just for display in some museum not ideals to live
> > > by.
> >
> > With an attitude like that I hope to God you don't live in the US,
> > because you don't deserve to be here. It's precisely because of
> > people like you that the ideals of our founding fathers are in
> > such jeopardy.
> >
> Satire.
>
>
Well Matts, at least your mother didn't have to explain jokes to you, yes
it was satire/sarcasm.

[Jose]

> "Do we shoot the suspicious
> person before he's in position to do harm? Or do we wait until he pulls the
> trigger to confirm our suspicions and clean up the mess?"

That depends on what kind of society we want to live in. What counts as
"suspicious" and what one may be "suspected of" changes from
administration to administration. What sounds good today will come back
and bite you tomorrow if you give the state too many teeth. And if the
state has too many teeth, it matters not whether the teeth that bite you
are from your own state or from outside.

I want to live in a society where one is innocent until =proven= guilty,
not innocent until =seemingly= guilty. Especially when the end result
is a bullet in my head or an anti-aircraft missle up my tail.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John T]

"Jose" > wrote in message

>
> I want to live in a society where one is innocent until =proven=
> guilty, not innocent until =seemingly= guilty. Especially when the
> end result is a bullet in my head or an anti-aircraft missle up my
> tail.

What would provide that proof you need? Would you prefer the state monitor
everybody's activities so that suspicious behavior can be confirmed or
discounted easily? Would the proof require the self-immolation of the
suspect in a devastating suicide bombing?

It seems you're method risks as many innocents as giving the state the power
you oppose.

I'm curious. It seems folks are treating these bombers as criminals. I
don't see them as criminals as much as a new type of enemy fighter ("enemy
combatant"?). Again, when these people are prepared to kill themselves to
accomplish their goal, when they have absolutely no regard for innocent
life, when they cowardly hide among their victims, when they see you and me
as legitimate a target as a soldier, how do you fight them?

"Turn the other cheek" or "just ignore them" simply will not cut it.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

[Jose]

> Would you prefer the state monitor
> everybody's activities so that suspicious behavior can be confirmed or
> discounted easily?

No. That is "guilty until proven innocent".

> Would the proof require the self-immolation of the
> suspect in a devastating suicide bombing?

It might. This is the price of freedom.

There is no "good" answer. You need a number that is both less than
four, and greater than six. If you can solve that problem, then you can
"solve" this one. But the common answer, five, is =neither= greater
than six, =nor= less than four.

This is what we are doing now.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[AES]

In article e.com>,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> Franklin's version was:
>
> ...that it is better 100 guilty Persons should
> escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.


Many of us are fully aware of this and generally agree with it, in the
context where it was probably intended to apply, which I suspect was in
the workings of the justice system -- that is, where the situation is
under control, we have time to examine the facts and reflect on them and
the primary downside question is, do we risk a 1% chance of convicting
an innocent person.

In the suspected bomber situation, the context is exactly opposite: The
situation is not under control; we don't have any time to determine or
reflect on the facts (though the suspected bomber has the power to
provide that, by stopping, raising his or her hands; and cooperating);
and the downside is a 1% risk of killing 100 __innocent__ (not guilty)
Persons (and maybe maiming many more).

The real problem is determining when the few percent chance is really a
few percent, or much smaller.

[Jose]

> In the suspected bomber situation, the context is exactly opposite: The
> situation is not under control; we don't have any time to determine or
> reflect on the facts (though the suspected bomber has the power to
> provide that, by stopping, raising his or her hands; and cooperating);
> and the downside is a 1% risk of killing 100 __innocent__ (not guilty)
> Persons (and maybe maiming many more).

The principle is the same, and it =is= the price of freedom. In a
situation where the police do not have the time to reflect upon the
likelyhood of guilt or innocence, "kill first, as questions later"
should not be applied. Minimum necessary force should be used.

And in this case it was "kill first", not "Shoot first", since (from
what I understand) the victim was already under control, and was then
shot five times.

> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0507230117jul23,1,7884972.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

"He sort of tripped, but they were hotly pursuing him and couldn't have
been more than 2 or 3 feet behind him at this time. He half-tripped, was
half-pushed to the floor.

"The policeman nearest to me had the black automatic pistol in his left
hand. He held it down to the guy and unloaded five shots into him."

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Corky Scott]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:17:42 -0400, "Icebound"
> wrote:

>Even the war in Iraq could not start on *suspicion* of WMD. It started
>because there
>*!was!* WMD.

Sorry Icebound, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or if you
really believe this. I thought it was common knowledge now that the
Bush administration actually did invent the WMD specifically to start
the war.

There have been numerous leaks of memo's and briefings stating as
such.

Corky Scott

[Icebound]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:17:42 -0400, "Icebound"
> > wrote:
>
>>Even the war in Iraq could not start on *suspicion* of WMD. It started
>>because there
>>*!was!* WMD.
>
> Sorry Icebound, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or if you
> really believe this. I thought it was common knowledge now that the
> Bush administration actually did invent the WMD specifically to start
> the war.
>

LOL.

I'll explain it to you:

Saddam: suspected bomber in the subway system.
WMD: bomb.
Bush: cop.

Cop did not shoot on "suspicion". Cop did not even *suggest* shooting on
suspicion. Cop spent considerable time investigating the existence of bomb.
Cop then proved to the world, with pictures, about the existence of bomb.

Only then did cop shoot. (If it was good enough for this situation, surely
it is good enough for the *real* subway cops.) :-)

Just because cop bent the facts a bit along the way was not part of my
analogy. Then I would have to get into way too much stuff for a simple
analogy.... such as: investigation of cop by civilian overseeing agency,
suspension of cop, possibly firing of cop, perhaps even jail-time for cop...
:-)

I should mention here, that the issue is not so much whether specifically
the London police should or should not have killed the Brazilian
electrician... the issue is the adoption of "kill on mere suspicion" as a
matter of policy. That can never fly in civil democratic societies, never,
never, never.

Hell, even after all the facts are in, the case investigated, the jury's
judgment rendered, and the killing of the perpetrator has been approved,
even mandated, by the state... even after all that, still 119 death-row
prisoners were found to be innocent and released, and at least 23
known-innocent people have been executed...

http://www.karisable.com/crpundeath.htm (and others)

.... this, in the "greatest justice system in the world". Geez, we kill (or
intend to kill) innocent people *after* the facts are in... now we want to
do it on mere *suspicion*???...

Not in my idea of democracy.

[Skywise]

Jose > wrote in
:

<Snipola>
> And in this case it was "kill first", not "Shoot first", since (from
> what I understand) the victim was already under control, and was then
> shot five times.
<Snipola>

I don't know how it is in other countries, or even in other parts of
the US, but law enforcement in the Los Angeles area seems to be trained
to shoot to kill. it seems that if they pull the trigger they completely
unload their weapons then reload before reassessing the situation.

If this is not actual policy or training, it is de facto policy in
that it is how they respond. There have been two police shootings in
recent months where multiple officers unloaded into the suspect. In
one case something like 120 rounds were fired, only a handful of which
hit the suspect, and at least one round hit another officer.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
> I don't know how it is in other countries, or even in other parts of
> the US, but law enforcement in the Los Angeles area seems to be trained
> to shoot to kill. it seems that if they pull the trigger they completely
> unload their weapons then reload before reassessing the situation.
>
> If this is not actual policy or training, it is de facto policy in
> that it is how they respond. There have been two police shootings in
> recent months where multiple officers unloaded into the suspect. In
> one case something like 120 rounds were fired, only a handful of which
> hit the suspect, and at least one round hit another officer.
>

Police officers are taught to shoot at the center of mass. This is to A.
give them a better chance of actually hitting what they shoot at and B. To
stop the target from doing what ever it is he is doing.

The old cowboy crap of shooting the gun out of the bad guy's hand doesn't
work because as you point they do seem to miss alot.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Corky Scott > wrote:

> Sorry Icebound, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or if you
> really believe this. I thought it was common knowledge now that the
> Bush administration actually did invent the WMD specifically to start
> the war.

at one time it was common knowledge that the earth was flat.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Skywise]

"John T" > wrote in
m:

> "Jose" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> I want to live in a society where one is innocent until =proven=
>> guilty, not innocent until =seemingly= guilty. Especially when the
>> end result is a bullet in my head or an anti-aircraft missle up my
>> tail.
>
> What would provide that proof you need? Would you prefer the state
> monitor everybody's activities so that suspicious behavior can be
> confirmed or discounted easily? Would the proof require the
> self-immolation of the suspect in a devastating suicide bombing?
>
> It seems you're method risks as many innocents as giving the state the
> power you oppose.
>
> I'm curious. It seems folks are treating these bombers as criminals. I
> don't see them as criminals as much as a new type of enemy fighter
> ("enemy combatant"?). Again, when these people are prepared to kill
> themselves to accomplish their goal, when they have absolutely no regard
> for innocent life, when they cowardly hide among their victims, when
> they see you and me as legitimate a target as a soldier, how do you
> fight them?
>
> "Turn the other cheek" or "just ignore them" simply will not cut it.

If you want to draw the not entirely incorrect analogy of soldiers
and combatants in a war, there have been and probably always will be
'friendly fire' accidents.

On the other side, there have been many soldiers lost because they
didn't shoot first becasue they were not 100% sure that they were
dealing with an enemy out to kill them and not a simple innocent
bystander.

It's all really a matter of perspective and what is important to the
individual.

I would rather live in a society that preserves the freedoms of the
individual and accept the risk that I may die from a suicide bombing.

If you would rather live in a police state that tracks your every move
and tells you what you can or cannot do, there are still many totalitarian
regimes in the world where I'm sure you'll be completely safe from any
terrorists.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> Jose > wrote in
> :
>
> <Snipola>
> > And in this case it was "kill first", not "Shoot first", since (from
> > what I understand) the victim was already under control, and was then
> > shot five times.
> <Snipola>
>
> I don't know how it is in other countries, or even in other parts of
> the US, but law enforcement in the Los Angeles area seems to be trained
> to shoot to kill.

The only place where "shoot to wound" exists is in Hollyweird.

[Matt Barrow]

> "Jose" > wrote in message
>

>
> I'm curious. It seems folks are treating these bombers as criminals.

Now THAT'S funny!!

> I don't see them as criminals as much as a new type of enemy fighter
> ("enemy combatant"?).

Geez!!

[Roger]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:32:20 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>Stubby wrote:
>>
>> OK if you yell the command in 31 different languages.
>
>If they don't understand that much English, they should go back home.

Let's see: Your in England where the police do not carry guns.
Bad guys carry guns.
There's been a bombing.
You are a minority. The wrong minority.
You may not speak English well.
Two guys with guns holler at you.
Good guys don't carry guns in England.
First thought: Lynch mob, or vigilantes.
Second thought: Run like Hell as you are going to be dead if you
don't. What do you have to lose.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.

[Skywise]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in
news:SddFe.32$_t.14@okepread01:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>> I don't know how it is in other countries, or even in other parts of
>> the US, but law enforcement in the Los Angeles area seems to be trained
>> to shoot to kill. it seems that if they pull the trigger they
>> completely unload their weapons then reload before reassessing the
>> situation.
>>
>> If this is not actual policy or training, it is de facto policy in
>> that it is how they respond. There have been two police shootings in
>> recent months where multiple officers unloaded into the suspect. In
>> one case something like 120 rounds were fired, only a handful of which
>> hit the suspect, and at least one round hit another officer.
>>
>
> Police officers are taught to shoot at the center of mass. This is to A.
> give them a better chance of actually hitting what they shoot at and B.
> To stop the target from doing what ever it is he is doing.
>
> The old cowboy crap of shooting the gun out of the bad guy's hand
> doesn't work because as you point they do seem to miss alot.

Well, I tend to agree that in a fluid situation that's rapidly
degenerating there may not be much you can do.

However, I recall seeing on one of them TV cop shows once where there was
a standoff situation with a man holding a gun on a hostage and a police
sniper shot the gun out of the suspects hand. Damned impressive.

No 'hollyweird' special effects.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Jay Beckman]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in
> news:SddFe.32$_t.14@okepread01:
>
>>
>> "Skywise" > wrote in message
>>> I don't know how it is in other countries, or even in other parts of
>>> the US, but law enforcement in the Los Angeles area seems to be trained
>>> to shoot to kill. it seems that if they pull the trigger they
>>> completely unload their weapons then reload before reassessing the
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> If this is not actual policy or training, it is de facto policy in
>>> that it is how they respond. There have been two police shootings in
>>> recent months where multiple officers unloaded into the suspect. In
>>> one case something like 120 rounds were fired, only a handful of which
>>> hit the suspect, and at least one round hit another officer.
>>>
>>
>> Police officers are taught to shoot at the center of mass. This is to A.
>> give them a better chance of actually hitting what they shoot at and B.
>> To stop the target from doing what ever it is he is doing.
>>
>> The old cowboy crap of shooting the gun out of the bad guy's hand
>> doesn't work because as you point they do seem to miss alot.
>
> Well, I tend to agree that in a fluid situation that's rapidly
> degenerating there may not be much you can do.
>
> However, I recall seeing on one of them TV cop shows once where there was
> a standoff situation with a man holding a gun on a hostage and a police
> sniper shot the gun out of the suspects hand. Damned impressive.
>
> No 'hollyweird' special effects.
>
> Brian

I recall a similar incident (may have been the same one...but no hostage...)
where a guy was sitting in the middle of an intersection with a handgun and
kept waiving it at the Cops and threatening to cap himself.

Police Sniper did shoot the gun out of his hand when he dropped it to his
side for a second.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Gary Drescher]

"AES" > wrote in message
...
> To quote someone I overhead yesterday: "If there's a 2% chance, based
> on all information known at the time, that the guy is a suicide bomber,
> and 50 people in the subway car -- well, the choice is unfortunate, but
> very clear."

I see several problems with this proposal.

* The proposal presumes that an expected-gain calculation (about lives saved
or lost) is morally decisive. But there are well-known problems with such a
strict utilitarian criterion. For example, strict utilitarianism implies
that if you are healthy, killing you to harvest your organs would be
justifiable--doing so would save several lives by taking only one life. The
philosophical issues are too complex to analyze here; suffice it to say that
at present, it is (to put it mildly) less than "very clear" that killing for
organs--or killing someone who is known at the time to be 98% likely to be
innocent--is morally justifiable, even if (in both cases) the expected-gain
calculation is somewhat favorable.

Other difficulties concern the implementation of the proposal, even if the
utilitarian calculation were indeed morally decisive. Some are technical
problems:

* People's intuitions about small probabilities are notoriously inaccurate.
If a subject stands out because evidence shows he is hundreds of times more
likely than the average person to be a suicide bomber, then he may seem to
be at least 2% likely to be one, even though a trivial Bayesian calculation
shows that the actual probability is orders of magnitude less than that. But
we cannot realistically expect police to perform Bayesian calculations while
making split-second life-and-death decisions.

* The calculation, as framed, presumes that in the 2%-likely case in which
the person killed is indeed a suicide bomber, the killing is both necessary
and sufficient to prevent the 50 deaths. That might be roughly true if, say,
you shoot a bomber who is running toward (but still distant from) a crowd.
But the presumption's accuracy is much less clear if (as in the present
instance) the person is already on the crowded train (the bomb, if any,
might explode anyway due to a passive-release trigger, or just from the
impact of falling, due to TATP's instability), and is already flat on the
ground, surrounded by police, without having detonated any bomb (so the
police, at that point, may well be able to subdue him less lethally).

Other problems stem from the readily foreseeable deliberate or inadvertent
abusability of the proposed policy:

* If the 2%-likely suspects belong disproportionately to an identifiable
minority group, then the majority will (accurately) perceive themselves to
be much less at risk from the proposed policy, and will thus have diminished
incentive to give due consideration to the moral and technical problems with
the policy.

* If those disproportionately targeted by the policy belong to a widely
*disliked* minority, then their endangerment may be devalued even further
(often unconsciously, and thus unscrutinized); their endangerment may even
be perceived by many as desirable, rather than as a drawback of the policy.

* Our species has demonstrably inherited a primate quasi-sexual appetite for
(often-lethal) gratuitous cruelty (see e.g. Nell 2005, forthcoming in
Behavioral and Brain Sciences). Contemporary civilization has devised
various ways to help keep this tendency in check, but the power to engage in
socially approved killing of innocents inevitably serves in part to give
expression to this unfortunate inclination (the inclination can be
manifested --without necessarily being recognized as such--both by the
advocates of the proposed policy, and by those whose task is to execute it).

For these reasons and others, I believe a reasonable policy only permits
killing someone who is overwhelmingly likely to be posing a lethal threat
that cannot otherwise be countered.

--Gary

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skywise" > wrote in message >> "Skywise"
> wrote in message
>>> I don't know how it is in other countries, or even in other parts of
>>> the US, but law enforcement in the Los Angeles area seems to be trained
>>> to shoot to kill. it seems that if they pull the trigger they
>>> completely unload their weapons then reload before reassessing the
>>> situation.
>>>
>>> If this is not actual policy or training, it is de facto policy in
>>> that it is how they respond. There have been two police shootings in
>>> recent months where multiple officers unloaded into the suspect. In
>>> one case something like 120 rounds were fired, only a handful of which
>>> hit the suspect, and at least one round hit another officer.
>>>
>>
>> Police officers are taught to shoot at the center of mass. This is to A.
>> give them a better chance of actually hitting what they shoot at and B.
>> To stop the target from doing what ever it is he is doing.
>>
>> The old cowboy crap of shooting the gun out of the bad guy's hand
>> doesn't work because as you point they do seem to miss alot.
>
> Well, I tend to agree that in a fluid situation that's rapidly
> degenerating there may not be much you can do.
>
> However, I recall seeing on one of them TV cop shows once where there was
> a standoff situation with a man holding a gun on a hostage and a police
> sniper shot the gun out of the suspects hand. Damned impressive.
>
> No 'hollyweird' special effects.
>


Assuming that you mean TV cop REALITY show please keep in mind that sniper
is a VERY small subset of police shooting skill and he was probably shooting
for the guys head anyway and missed.

We had a police officer here shoot the gun of a crazy that had a revolver
cocked and aimed at his own head. But he spent several seconds aiming and he
got lucky. Later the gun was examinied and the crazy did pul the trigger
after it was hit. The only reason it didn't fire was the hammer was jamed
due to the damage done by the police officer's shot. THe really bad part of
this was that the crazy and his family sued the officer and the city. The
case was setteled out of court.

Just to keep this thread somewhat on topic years ago we had a problem of
many deers on the runway at the airport. The PD's Emergency Reaction Team
(AKA SWAT) decided to use it as a training excersise. 5 "snipers" along with
their spoters surrounded the suspect deers and when through the entire
process of setting up their shots just as they might in a multi badguy
hostage situation. When the commander gave the go code there was much sound
and smoke and I will let you guess how many dead deer.

If you can't guess scroll down.




























ZERO


I've heard they had some significant retraining since this happened and that
now about half the team now are reserve officers who really are pretty damn
good shots.

[Corky Scott]

I wrote:
> Sorry Icebound, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or if you
> really believe this. I thought it was common knowledge now that the
> Bush administration actually did invent the WMD specifically to start
> the war.


On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:55:23 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:

>at one time it was common knowledge that the earth was flat.

Exactly, until it was overwhelmingly proved otherwise. Thanks, great
parallel.

Unfortunately, some still believe the world is flat... Another great
parallel.

Corky Scott

[George Patterson]

Skywise wrote:
>
> However, I recall seeing on one of them TV cop shows once where there was
> a standoff situation with a man holding a gun on a hostage and a police
> sniper shot the gun out of the suspects hand. Damned impressive.

Then you get into reality. At Ruby Ridge, an FBI sniper shooting at a suspect
standing in a doorway missed by a couple feet and hit his wife in the head.

> No 'hollyweird' special effects.

I'd say a TV show is "hollyweird special effects."

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[AES]

In article >,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

> "AES" > wrote in message
> ...
> > To quote someone I overhead yesterday: "If there's a 2% chance, based
> > on all information known at the time, that the guy is a suicide bomber,
> > and 50 people in the subway car -- well, the choice is unfortunate, but
> > very clear."
>
> I see several problems with this proposal.
(REMAINDER OF THIS RESPONSE APPENDED FURTHER DOWN)



As the one who quoted -- not made -- the assertion above, I recognize
the merits of essentially all the points made in the reply appended
below.

We're faced, however, with a new and very difficult situation in the
suicide bomber phenomena. The fact that it's primarily based in, caused
by, and supported by religious fanaticism (not primarily anything we do)
makes it all the more difficult to cope with.

Simply quoting Ben Franklin's "better that 100 guilty escape punishment
than 1 innocent be convicted" -- an aphorism that validly applies to a
very different situation or set of circumstances -- and concluding from
this, as some apparently do, that the bottom line is clear: the police
should never shoot in any suicide bombing situation, is not a conclusion
I find acceptable.


REMAINDER OF RESPONSE:
> * The proposal presumes that an expected-gain calculation (about lives saved
> or lost) is morally decisive. But there are well-known problems with such a
> strict utilitarian criterion. For example, strict utilitarianism implies
> that if you are healthy, killing you to harvest your organs would be
> justifiable--doing so would save several lives by taking only one life. The
> philosophical issues are too complex to analyze here; suffice it to say that
> at present, it is (to put it mildly) less than "very clear" that killing for
> organs--or killing someone who is known at the time to be 98% likely to be
> innocent--is morally justifiable, even if (in both cases) the expected-gain
> calculation is somewhat favorable.
>
> Other difficulties concern the implementation of the proposal, even if the
> utilitarian calculation were indeed morally decisive. Some are technical
> problems:
>
> * People's intuitions about small probabilities are notoriously inaccurate.
> If a subject stands out because evidence shows he is hundreds of times more
> likely than the average person to be a suicide bomber, then he may seem to
> be at least 2% likely to be one, even though a trivial Bayesian calculation
> shows that the actual probability is orders of magnitude less than that. But
> we cannot realistically expect police to perform Bayesian calculations while
> making split-second life-and-death decisions.
>
> * The calculation, as framed, presumes that in the 2%-likely case in which
> the person killed is indeed a suicide bomber, the killing is both necessary
> and sufficient to prevent the 50 deaths. That might be roughly true if, say,
> you shoot a bomber who is running toward (but still distant from) a crowd.
> But the presumption's accuracy is much less clear if (as in the present
> instance) the person is already on the crowded train (the bomb, if any,
> might explode anyway due to a passive-release trigger, or just from the
> impact of falling, due to TATP's instability), and is already flat on the
> ground, surrounded by police, without having detonated any bomb (so the
> police, at that point, may well be able to subdue him less lethally).
>
> Other problems stem from the readily foreseeable deliberate or inadvertent
> abusability of the proposed policy:
>
> * If the 2%-likely suspects belong disproportionately to an identifiable
> minority group, then the majority will (accurately) perceive themselves to
> be much less at risk from the proposed policy, and will thus have diminished
> incentive to give due consideration to the moral and technical problems with
> the policy.
>
> * If those disproportionately targeted by the policy belong to a widely
> *disliked* minority, then their endangerment may be devalued even further
> (often unconsciously, and thus unscrutinized); their endangerment may even
> be perceived by many as desirable, rather than as a drawback of the policy.
>
> * Our species has demonstrably inherited a primate quasi-sexual appetite for
> (often-lethal) gratuitous cruelty (see e.g. Nell 2005, forthcoming in
> Behavioral and Brain Sciences). Contemporary civilization has devised
> various ways to help keep this tendency in check, but the power to engage in
> socially approved killing of innocents inevitably serves in part to give
> expression to this unfortunate inclination (the inclination can be
> manifested --without necessarily being recognized as such--both by the
> advocates of the proposed policy, and by those whose task is to execute it).
>
> For these reasons and others, I believe a reasonable policy only permits
> killing someone who is overwhelmingly likely to be posing a lethal threat
> that cannot otherwise be countered.
>
> --Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"AES" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>
>> "AES" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > To quote someone I overhead yesterday: "If there's a 2% chance, based
>> > on all information known at the time, that the guy is a suicide bomber,
>> > and 50 people in the subway car -- well, the choice is unfortunate, but
>> > very clear."
>>
>> I see several problems with this proposal.
>
> As the one who quoted -- not made -- the assertion above,

Distinction acknowledged; however, when you present a quote without further
comment, and nothing in the context of the presentation suggests
disagreement, then you are reasonably understood to be quoting approvingly.
(The preface "To quote someone..." further affirms the quoted sentiment, as
opposed to the more neutral "I heard someone say...".)

> I recognize the merits of essentially all the points made in the
> reply appended below.

Thank you.

> Simply quoting Ben Franklin's "better that 100 guilty escape punishment
> than 1 innocent be convicted" -- an aphorism that validly applies to a
> very different situation or set of circumstances -- and concluding from
> this, as some apparently do, that the bottom line is clear: the police
> should never shoot in any suicide bombing situation, is not a conclusion
> I find acceptable.

Nor I; that's why I didn't include that as one of my reasons. :) (And I've
seen no one conclude that police should *never* shoot in such a situation.)

> We're faced, however, with a new and very difficult situation in the
> suicide bomber phenomena.

Mass-murder for political ends is hardly novel; it's been going on for at
least millennia. The suicide aspect is perhaps more recent (a quirk of
current technology), but has little bearing on the moral or pragmatic
ramifications of the attacks.

> The fact that it's primarily based in, caused
> by, and supported by religious fanaticism (not primarily anything we do)
> makes it all the more difficult to cope with.

Although the attackers' motivations aren't directly relevant to operational
questions of how to counter a suspected attack-in-progress, I should at
least mention in passing that I disagree with your analysis of those
motivations. Yes, there is a large faction that supports terror bombings for
reasons of religious fanaticism. But among the recent notorious suicide
attackers, many or most had a secular upbringing and lifestyle, and appeared
to be motivated primarily by political opposition to US policies (e.g. in
Saudia Arabia and Palestine, and now Iraq). Moreover, even fanatical
religious motivations, to the extent that they thrive in a given culture,
tend to do so only to insofar as they promote the culture's mundane
(political and economic) goals, which therefore are properly seen as the
ultimate motivators, I believe. (Mystical fanaticism that is substantially
decoupled from mundane interests--e.g. mass suicide to rendezvous with the
mothership--is freakishly rare.)

Again, these considerations don't particularly bear on the tactical choices
under discussion above, but I think they're important to a broader
understanding of the situation.

--Gary

[Skywise]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in
news:AkrFe.49$_t.41@okepread01:

<Snipola>
> Assuming that you mean TV cop REALITY show please keep in mind that
> sniper is a VERY small subset of police shooting skill and he was
> probably shooting for the guys head anyway and missed.

Oh no, the program made it very clear that the intent of the
sniper was to shoot the suspects gun, thus saving both lives.

<Snipola>
> Just to keep this thread somewhat on topic years ago we had a problem of
> many deers on the runway at the airport. The PD's Emergency Reaction
> Team (AKA SWAT) decided to use it as a training excersise. 5 "snipers"
> along with their spoters surrounded the suspect deers and when through
> the entire process of setting up their shots just as they might in a
> multi badguy hostage situation. When the commander gave the go code
> there was much sound and smoke and I will let you guess how many dead
> deer.
<Snipola>

Any idea what the range to target was?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

George Patterson > wrote in
news:c_sFe.2311$S72.261@trndny06:

> Skywise wrote:
>>
>> However, I recall seeing on one of them TV cop shows once where there
>> was a standoff situation with a man holding a gun on a hostage and a
>> police sniper shot the gun out of the suspects hand. Damned impressive.
>
> Then you get into reality. At Ruby Ridge, an FBI sniper shooting at a
> suspect standing in a doorway missed by a couple feet and hit his wife
> in the head.
>
>> No 'hollyweird' special effects.
>
> I'd say a TV show is "hollyweird special effects."
>

Then I guess you think that the video of airliners hitting the
twin towers on a TV show is "hollyweird special effects" too?

Not everything on TV is bogus. Most is, but not all.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, AES > posted:

> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>
>> "AES" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> To quote someone I overhead yesterday: "If there's a 2% chance,
>>> based on all information known at the time, that the guy is a
>>> suicide bomber, and 50 people in the subway car -- well, the choice
>>> is unfortunate, but very clear."
>>
>> I see several problems with this proposal.
[...]
>
> We're faced, however, with a new and very difficult situation in the
> suicide bomber phenomena. The fact that it's primarily based in,
> caused by, and supported by religious fanaticism (not primarily
> anything we do) makes it all the more difficult to cope with.
>
> Simply quoting Ben Franklin's "better that 100 guilty escape
> punishment than 1 innocent be convicted" -- an aphorism that validly
> applies to a very different situation or set of circumstances -- and
> concluding from this, as some apparently do, that the bottom line is
> clear: the police should never shoot in any suicide bombing
> situation, is not a conclusion I find acceptable.
>
The problems that Gary presented should make it quite clear that the
likelihood is that police shooting in this situation will not be
effective. In the real world example, someone completely unrelated to
suicide bombings was summarily executed, and the reasons could be
attributable to some of these very problems.

To take another view, the fact is that if someone is determined to perform
random acts of violence and murder, there is no way to stop them, even in
a society where personal freedoms are at a minimum. So, the notion that
police should open fire whenever they profile someone is not a situation I
find acceptable.

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in
> news:AkrFe.49$_t.41@okepread01:
>
> <Snipola>
>> Assuming that you mean TV cop REALITY show please keep in mind that
>> sniper is a VERY small subset of police shooting skill and he was
>> probably shooting for the guys head anyway and missed.
>
> Oh no, the program made it very clear that the intent of the
> sniper was to shoot the suspects gun, thus saving both lives.

Oh, no doubt that there are plenty off snipers who could do it. There are
fewer SWAT commanders that would let them do it. But there are many PD
spokesmen who would tell the media after the shot was taken and missed that
they were aiming for the gun.



>
> <Snipola>
>> Just to keep this thread somewhat on topic years ago we had a problem of
>> many deers on the runway at the airport. The PD's Emergency Reaction
>> Team (AKA SWAT) decided to use it as a training excersise. 5 "snipers"
>> along with their spoters surrounded the suspect deers and when through
>> the entire process of setting up their shots just as they might in a
>> multi badguy hostage situation. When the commander gave the go code
>> there was much sound and smoke and I will let you guess how many dead
>> deer.
> <Snipola>
>
> Any idea what the range to target was?
>


They were ranging from 50 to 250 yards. Only the 2 that were beyond 100 had
real "sniper" rifles (Model 700). The others had AR-15/M16 variants.

It wasn't a total waste though. It did make some of the deer run away for
about an hour. More importantly though it did get the teams training budget
increased.

[Hotel 179]

--
> They were ranging from 50 to 250 yards. Only the 2 that were beyond 100
> had real "sniper" rifles (Model 700). The others had AR-15/M16 variants.

----------------------------------reply-----------------------------------------------

The Colts that you mentioned are routinely fired out to ranges in excess of
250 yards during quals. Why the sour grapes regarding the police
department?

Stephen
Foley, Alabama

[Matt Whiting]

Skywise wrote:

> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in
> news:SddFe.32$_t.14@okepread01:
>
>
>>"Skywise" > wrote in message
>>
>>>I don't know how it is in other countries, or even in other parts of
>>>the US, but law enforcement in the Los Angeles area seems to be trained
>>>to shoot to kill. it seems that if they pull the trigger they
>>>completely unload their weapons then reload before reassessing the
>>>situation.
>>>
>>>If this is not actual policy or training, it is de facto policy in
>>>that it is how they respond. There have been two police shootings in
>>>recent months where multiple officers unloaded into the suspect. In
>>>one case something like 120 rounds were fired, only a handful of which
>>>hit the suspect, and at least one round hit another officer.
>>>
>>
>>Police officers are taught to shoot at the center of mass. This is to A.
>>give them a better chance of actually hitting what they shoot at and B.
>>To stop the target from doing what ever it is he is doing.
>>
>>The old cowboy crap of shooting the gun out of the bad guy's hand
>>doesn't work because as you point they do seem to miss alot.
>
>
> Well, I tend to agree that in a fluid situation that's rapidly
> degenerating there may not be much you can do.
>
> However, I recall seeing on one of them TV cop shows once where there was
> a standoff situation with a man holding a gun on a hostage and a police
> sniper shot the gun out of the suspects hand. Damned impressive.

And also stupid. If he'd missed, the hostage would likely be dead.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Beckman wrote:
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in
>>news:SddFe.32$_t.14@okepread01:
>>
>>
>>>"Skywise" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>I don't know how it is in other countries, or even in other parts of
>>>>the US, but law enforcement in the Los Angeles area seems to be trained
>>>>to shoot to kill. it seems that if they pull the trigger they
>>>>completely unload their weapons then reload before reassessing the
>>>>situation.
>>>>
>>>>If this is not actual policy or training, it is de facto policy in
>>>>that it is how they respond. There have been two police shootings in
>>>>recent months where multiple officers unloaded into the suspect. In
>>>>one case something like 120 rounds were fired, only a handful of which
>>>>hit the suspect, and at least one round hit another officer.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Police officers are taught to shoot at the center of mass. This is to A.
>>>give them a better chance of actually hitting what they shoot at and B.
>>>To stop the target from doing what ever it is he is doing.
>>>
>>>The old cowboy crap of shooting the gun out of the bad guy's hand
>>>doesn't work because as you point they do seem to miss alot.
>>
>>Well, I tend to agree that in a fluid situation that's rapidly
>>degenerating there may not be much you can do.
>>
>>However, I recall seeing on one of them TV cop shows once where there was
>>a standoff situation with a man holding a gun on a hostage and a police
>>sniper shot the gun out of the suspects hand. Damned impressive.
>>
>>No 'hollyweird' special effects.
>>
>>Brian
>
>
> I recall a similar incident (may have been the same one...but no hostage...)
> where a guy was sitting in the middle of an intersection with a handgun and
> kept waiving it at the Cops and threatening to cap himself.
>
> Police Sniper did shoot the gun out of his hand when he dropped it to his
> side for a second.

Yes, I saw that also. That was an easy shot and no hostage was involved
so not much to lose in that case. I don't think any police sniper would
try that with a hostage involved.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message >> "Skywise"
> > wrote in message
>
>>>>I don't know how it is in other countries, or even in other parts of
>>>>the US, but law enforcement in the Los Angeles area seems to be trained
>>>>to shoot to kill. it seems that if they pull the trigger they
>>>>completely unload their weapons then reload before reassessing the
>>>>situation.
>>>>
>>>>If this is not actual policy or training, it is de facto policy in
>>>>that it is how they respond. There have been two police shootings in
>>>>recent months where multiple officers unloaded into the suspect. In
>>>>one case something like 120 rounds were fired, only a handful of which
>>>>hit the suspect, and at least one round hit another officer.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Police officers are taught to shoot at the center of mass. This is to A.
>>>give them a better chance of actually hitting what they shoot at and B.
>>>To stop the target from doing what ever it is he is doing.
>>>
>>>The old cowboy crap of shooting the gun out of the bad guy's hand
>>>doesn't work because as you point they do seem to miss alot.
>>
>>Well, I tend to agree that in a fluid situation that's rapidly
>>degenerating there may not be much you can do.
>>
>>However, I recall seeing on one of them TV cop shows once where there was
>>a standoff situation with a man holding a gun on a hostage and a police
>>sniper shot the gun out of the suspects hand. Damned impressive.
>>
>>No 'hollyweird' special effects.
>>
>
>
>
> Assuming that you mean TV cop REALITY show please keep in mind that sniper
> is a VERY small subset of police shooting skill and he was probably shooting
> for the guys head anyway and missed.
>
> We had a police officer here shoot the gun of a crazy that had a revolver
> cocked and aimed at his own head. But he spent several seconds aiming and he
> got lucky. Later the gun was examinied and the crazy did pul the trigger
> after it was hit. The only reason it didn't fire was the hammer was jamed
> due to the damage done by the police officer's shot. THe really bad part of
> this was that the crazy and his family sued the officer and the city. The
> case was setteled out of court.
>
> Just to keep this thread somewhat on topic years ago we had a problem of
> many deers on the runway at the airport. The PD's Emergency Reaction Team
> (AKA SWAT) decided to use it as a training excersise. 5 "snipers" along with
> their spoters surrounded the suspect deers and when through the entire
> process of setting up their shots just as they might in a multi badguy
> hostage situation. When the commander gave the go code there was much sound
> and smoke and I will let you guess how many dead deer.
>
> If you can't guess scroll down.

> ZERO

That's pretty funny if it really is true. Our average hunter here in PA
is much better than that.

Matt

[W P Dixon]

Wow that's sad!,
I don't understand why the cops have such poor shots. At 500 meters I am
bullseye 10 out 0f 10 , with a scope that range would get wayyyy on out
there. Really makes the officers look like Keystone Cops when the only
inflicted wound in a 50 round fired shoot out is a bruise from an ejected
9mm empty brass! ;)
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> "Skywise" > wrote in message >> "Skywise"
>> > wrote in message
>>
>>>>>I don't know how it is in other countries, or even in other parts of
>>>>>the US, but law enforcement in the Los Angeles area seems to be trained
>>>>>to shoot to kill. it seems that if they pull the trigger they
>>>>>completely unload their weapons then reload before reassessing the
>>>>>situation.
>>>>>
>>>>>If this is not actual policy or training, it is de facto policy in
>>>>>that it is how they respond. There have been two police shootings in
>>>>>recent months where multiple officers unloaded into the suspect. In
>>>>>one case something like 120 rounds were fired, only a handful of which
>>>>>hit the suspect, and at least one round hit another officer.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Police officers are taught to shoot at the center of mass. This is to A.
>>>>give them a better chance of actually hitting what they shoot at and B.
>>>>To stop the target from doing what ever it is he is doing.
>>>>
>>>>The old cowboy crap of shooting the gun out of the bad guy's hand
>>>>doesn't work because as you point they do seem to miss alot.
>>>
>>>Well, I tend to agree that in a fluid situation that's rapidly
>>>degenerating there may not be much you can do.
>>>
>>>However, I recall seeing on one of them TV cop shows once where there was
>>>a standoff situation with a man holding a gun on a hostage and a police
>>>sniper shot the gun out of the suspects hand. Damned impressive.
>>>
>>>No 'hollyweird' special effects.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Assuming that you mean TV cop REALITY show please keep in mind that
>> sniper is a VERY small subset of police shooting skill and he was
>> probably shooting for the guys head anyway and missed.
>>
>> We had a police officer here shoot the gun of a crazy that had a revolver
>> cocked and aimed at his own head. But he spent several seconds aiming and
>> he got lucky. Later the gun was examinied and the crazy did pul the
>> trigger after it was hit. The only reason it didn't fire was the hammer
>> was jamed due to the damage done by the police officer's shot. THe really
>> bad part of this was that the crazy and his family sued the officer and
>> the city. The case was setteled out of court.
>>
>> Just to keep this thread somewhat on topic years ago we had a problem of
>> many deers on the runway at the airport. The PD's Emergency Reaction Team
>> (AKA SWAT) decided to use it as a training excersise. 5 "snipers" along
>> with their spoters surrounded the suspect deers and when through the
>> entire process of setting up their shots just as they might in a multi
>> badguy hostage situation. When the commander gave the go code there was
>> much sound and smoke and I will let you guess how many dead deer.
>>
>> If you can't guess scroll down.
>
>> ZERO
>
> That's pretty funny if it really is true. Our average hunter here in PA
> is much better than that.
>
> Matt

[Roger]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:18:36 -0400, Corky Scott
> wrote:

>I wrote:
>> Sorry Icebound, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or if you
>> really believe this. I thought it was common knowledge now that the
>> Bush administration actually did invent the WMD specifically to start
>> the war.
>
>
>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:55:23 -0400, Bob Noel
> wrote:
>
>>at one time it was common knowledge that the earth was flat.
>
>Exactly, until it was overwhelmingly proved otherwise. Thanks, great
>parallel.
>
>Unfortunately, some still believe the world is flat... Another great
>parallel.

Yup! The only way you can have true parallels N/S AND E/W is on a flat
surface. We've been given two paralles so it must be flat.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Corky Scott
>

[Matt Whiting]

W P Dixon wrote:

> Wow that's sad!,
> I don't understand why the cops have such poor shots. At 500 meters I
> am bullseye 10 out 0f 10 , with a scope that range would get wayyyy on
> out there. Really makes the officers look like Keystone Cops when the
> only inflicted wound in a 50 round fired shoot out is a bruise from an
> ejected 9mm empty brass! ;)

You are obviously using much larger targets than the rest of us.


Matt

[John E. Carty]

>W P Dixon wrote:
>
>> Wow that's sad!,
>> I don't understand why the cops have such poor shots. At 500 meters I
>> am bullseye 10 out 0f 10 , with a scope that range would get wayyyy on
>> out there. Really makes the officers look like Keystone Cops when the
>> only inflicted wound in a 50 round fired shoot out is a bruise from an
>> ejected 9mm empty brass! ;)
>

Ever been in a firefight where the 'target' is shooting back at you? Makes a
difference :-)

[W P Dixon]

As an old Marine you could say I have been in a 'few" firefights..and my
target was the basic human "shadow" and all hits are in the center chest .
Also Marine rifle coach with 4 awards expert rifleman. And I still do not
see how a 'trained' professional marksman can miss so much. An M-16/AR-15 is
a very accurate weapon in the right hands.

Patrick

"John E. Carty" > wrote in message
...
>
>>W P Dixon wrote:
>>
>>> Wow that's sad!,
>>> I don't understand why the cops have such poor shots. At 500 meters I
>>> am bullseye 10 out 0f 10 , with a scope that range would get wayyyy on
>>> out there. Really makes the officers look like Keystone Cops when the
>>> only inflicted wound in a 50 round fired shoot out is a bruise from an
>>> ejected 9mm empty brass! ;)
>>
>
> Ever been in a firefight where the 'target' is shooting back at you? Makes
> a difference :-)
>

[Sylvain]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> You are obviously using much larger targets than the rest of us.

there is also a bit of a difference between shooting in a safe
environment at cardboard targets that don't move and don't
shoot back (I am not half bad at that either) and doing
same in a combat zone environment (about which I don't have
the beginning of a clue, but I'd guess it probably affects
one's marksmanship a bit)

--Sylvain

[W P Dixon]

You are correct , it will have an effect but some of these stories of 50-75
shots being fired within 15 feet and no one gets a scratch? Hardly a
professional marksman. A SWAT sniper should NEVER miss as for the fact is he
is a sniper and should be in hiding and not seen thus not in the situation
of having return fire .

Patrick

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> You are obviously using much larger targets than the rest of us.
>
> there is also a bit of a difference between shooting in a safe
> environment at cardboard targets that don't move and don't
> shoot back (I am not half bad at that either) and doing
> same in a combat zone environment (about which I don't have
> the beginning of a clue, but I'd guess it probably affects
> one's marksmanship a bit)
>
> --Sylvain

[John E. Carty]

I'm also a former combat Marine and could always hit 10 for 10 from the 500
yard line (it was never measured in meters for us) with an M-16 with open
sights. However, firing a rifle from the prone position and firing a handgun
while on the move are two entirely different things :-)


"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> As an old Marine you could say I have been in a 'few" firefights..and my
> target was the basic human "shadow" and all hits are in the center chest .
> Also Marine rifle coach with 4 awards expert rifleman. And I still do not
> see how a 'trained' professional marksman can miss so much. An M-16/AR-15
> is a very accurate weapon in the right hands.
>
> Patrick
>
> "John E. Carty" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>W P Dixon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Wow that's sad!,
>>>> I don't understand why the cops have such poor shots. At 500 meters
>>>> I am bullseye 10 out 0f 10 , with a scope that range would get wayyyy
>>>> on out there. Really makes the officers look like Keystone Cops when
>>>> the only inflicted wound in a 50 round fired shoot out is a bruise from
>>>> an ejected 9mm empty brass! ;)
>>>
>>
>> Ever been in a firefight where the 'target' is shooting back at you?
>> Makes a difference :-)
>>
>

[W P Dixon]

but John,
50 or so shots and not hit anything? Now firing the old .45 out the huey
door while flying, doubt I could hit anything ..but you'd have to be running
away firing over your shoulder not to hit anything that close. ;) My grandma
could get a better grouping than that! heck alot of these "shoot outs" are
within 15 feet. Maybe it's all the donut glaze stuck on their trigger
fingers? ;)

Semper Fi,
Patrick

"John E. Carty" > wrote in message
...
> I'm also a former combat Marine and could always hit 10 for 10 from the
> 500 yard line (it was never measured in meters for us) with an M-16 with
> open sights. However, firing a rifle from the prone position and firing a
> handgun while on the move are two entirely different things :-)
>
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> As an old Marine you could say I have been in a 'few" firefights..and my
>> target was the basic human "shadow" and all hits are in the center chest
>> . Also Marine rifle coach with 4 awards expert rifleman. And I still do
>> not see how a 'trained' professional marksman can miss so much. An
>> M-16/AR-15 is a very accurate weapon in the right hands.
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> "John E. Carty" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>>W P Dixon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wow that's sad!,
>>>>> I don't understand why the cops have such poor shots. At 500 meters
>>>>> I am bullseye 10 out 0f 10 , with a scope that range would get wayyyy
>>>>> on out there. Really makes the officers look like Keystone Cops when
>>>>> the only inflicted wound in a 50 round fired shoot out is a bruise
>>>>> from an ejected 9mm empty brass! ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ever been in a firefight where the 'target' is shooting back at you?
>>> Makes a difference :-)
>>>
>>
>
>

[John E. Carty]

Patrick,
Hey, that old .45 certainly had better stopping power then a 9mm, but we
only had 7 rounds in which to hit the target! :-)
Semper Fi,
John

{Formerly}
Headquarters Company
2nd Force Service Support Group
Fleet Marine Force Atlantic
Camp Lejeune, NC

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> but John,
> 50 or so shots and not hit anything? Now firing the old .45 out the huey
> door while flying, doubt I could hit anything ..but you'd have to be
> running away firing over your shoulder not to hit anything that close. ;)
> My grandma could get a better grouping than that! heck alot of these
> "shoot outs" are within 15 feet. Maybe it's all the donut glaze stuck on
> their trigger fingers? ;)
>
> Semper Fi,
> Patrick
>
> "John E. Carty" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I'm also a former combat Marine and could always hit 10 for 10 from the
>> 500 yard line (it was never measured in meters for us) with an M-16 with
>> open sights. However, firing a rifle from the prone position and firing a
>> handgun while on the move are two entirely different things :-)
>>
>>
>> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> As an old Marine you could say I have been in a 'few" firefights..and my
>>> target was the basic human "shadow" and all hits are in the center chest
>>> . Also Marine rifle coach with 4 awards expert rifleman. And I still do
>>> not see how a 'trained' professional marksman can miss so much. An
>>> M-16/AR-15 is a very accurate weapon in the right hands.
>>>
>>> Patrick
>>>
>>> "John E. Carty" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>W P Dixon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Wow that's sad!,
>>>>>> I don't understand why the cops have such poor shots. At 500
>>>>>> meters I am bullseye 10 out 0f 10 , with a scope that range would get
>>>>>> wayyyy on out there. Really makes the officers look like Keystone
>>>>>> Cops when the only inflicted wound in a 50 round fired shoot out is a
>>>>>> bruise from an ejected 9mm empty brass! ;)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ever been in a firefight where the 'target' is shooting back at you?
>>>> Makes a difference :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

[W P Dixon]

Yep,
The old .45, we seemed to always have the most rattlin' pistols available.
Loose barrels and all, but was sad to see them start going bye bye in the
80's. And now I carry a 9mm, would not dream of carrying the .45 anymore. I
like the .45 stopping power, but I am much more accurate with the 9mm. Can't
say that is the way it is for everyone but it sure makes a difference in my
grouping!
But hey maybe we may be onto something there? Maybe some of those
officers need to caliber down? Maybe they could also get a better grouping
by using the smaller cal? I like the CZ52 myself, matter of fact I need to
get me another one! Pick them up really cheap and do some custom work on it
and you have a nice custom slabside for a fraction of the cost of the new
tricked out .45's . And sorry guys , I guess we have gotten way off the
aviation toipc here.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech
(formerly)
HML-167, HMM-261 REIN
MCAS NEW RIVER
USS Iwo Jima 22MAU
Peacekeeper

"John E. Carty" > wrote in message
...
> Patrick,
> Hey, that old .45 certainly had better stopping power then a 9mm, but we
> only had 7 rounds in which to hit the target! :-)
> Semper Fi,
> John
>
> {Formerly}
> Headquarters Company
> 2nd Force Service Support Group
> Fleet Marine Force Atlantic
> Camp Lejeune, NC
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

Sylvain wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> You are obviously using much larger targets than the rest of us.
>
>
> there is also a bit of a difference between shooting in a safe
> environment at cardboard targets that don't move and don't
> shoot back (I am not half bad at that either) and doing
> same in a combat zone environment (about which I don't have
> the beginning of a clue, but I'd guess it probably affects
> one's marksmanship a bit)

Doesn't matter the environment. Nobody shoots as well as this poster
claimed.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

John E. Carty wrote:

> I'm also a former combat Marine and could always hit 10 for 10 from the 500
> yard line (it was never measured in meters for us) with an M-16 with open
> sights. However, firing a rifle from the prone position and firing a handgun
> while on the move are two entirely different things :-)

What size is the 10 ring on the targets you were using at 500 yards?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

John E. Carty wrote:

> Patrick,
> Hey, that old .45 certainly had better stopping power then a 9mm, but we
> only had 7 rounds in which to hit the target! :-)

You didn't put one in the chamber and carry "cocked and locked?"

Matt

[W P Dixon]

Whatever you wish to believe Matt ;)


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Sylvain wrote:
>
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> You are obviously using much larger targets than the rest of us.
>>
>>
>> there is also a bit of a difference between shooting in a safe
>> environment at cardboard targets that don't move and don't
>> shoot back (I am not half bad at that either) and doing
>> same in a combat zone environment (about which I don't have
>> the beginning of a clue, but I'd guess it probably affects
>> one's marksmanship a bit)
>
> Doesn't matter the environment. Nobody shoots as well as this poster
> claimed.
>
> Matt

[Matt Whiting]

W P Dixon wrote:
> Whatever you wish to believe Matt ;)
>
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Sylvain wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are obviously using much larger targets than the rest of us.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> there is also a bit of a difference between shooting in a safe
>>> environment at cardboard targets that don't move and don't
>>> shoot back (I am not half bad at that either) and doing
>>> same in a combat zone environment (about which I don't have
>>> the beginning of a clue, but I'd guess it probably affects
>>> one's marksmanship a bit)
>>
>>
>> Doesn't matter the environment. Nobody shoots as well as this poster
>> claimed.
>>
>> Matt
>
>

And whatever you dream! :-)

Matt

[W P Dixon]

**** YOU! PLONK!!
"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>W P Dixon wrote:
>> Whatever you wish to believe Matt ;)
>>
>>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Sylvain wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are obviously using much larger targets than the rest of us.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> there is also a bit of a difference between shooting in a safe
>>>> environment at cardboard targets that don't move and don't
>>>> shoot back (I am not half bad at that either) and doing
>>>> same in a combat zone environment (about which I don't have
>>>> the beginning of a clue, but I'd guess it probably affects
>>>> one's marksmanship a bit)
>>>
>>>
>>> Doesn't matter the environment. Nobody shoots as well as this poster
>>> claimed.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>>
>
> And whatever you dream! :-)
>
> Matt

[John E. Carty]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> John E. Carty wrote:
>
>> Patrick,
>> Hey, that old .45 certainly had better stopping power then a 9mm, but we
>> only had 7 rounds in which to hit the target! :-)
>
> You didn't put one in the chamber and carry "cocked and locked?"
>
> Matt

Never :-)

[John E. Carty]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> John E. Carty wrote:
>
>> I'm also a former combat Marine and could always hit 10 for 10 from the
>> 500 yard line (it was never measured in meters for us) with an M-16 with
>> open sights. However, firing a rifle from the prone position and firing a
>> handgun while on the move are two entirely different things :-)
>
> What size is the 10 ring on the targets you were using at 500 yards?
>
> Matt

To tell the truth I really don't know. I never worked in the pits pulling
them :-)

[Casey Wilson]

"John E. Carty" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John E. Carty wrote:
>>
>>> I'm also a former combat Marine and could always hit 10 for 10 from the
>>> 500 yard line (it was never measured in meters for us) with an M-16 with
>>> open sights. However, firing a rifle from the prone position and firing
>>> a handgun while on the move are two entirely different things :-)
>>
>> What size is the 10 ring on the targets you were using at 500 yards?
>>
>> Matt
>
> To tell the truth I really don't know. I never worked in the pits pulling
> them :-)

Tsk, Tsk, John... How could you forget something like that. Must
have been commissioned. <<GRIN!>>
First off, the diameter of the "bull's eye" on the 600Yd target is 12
inches [I don't think they shoot 500 yards anymore, you're giving away your
age.]. Second, there ain't no 10-ring, hehehe. Marines don't need big
scores -- five is enough.
Perhaps I should explain that the Army uses a MUCH bigger bull's eye
that does count up to ten.
Anybody that shoots a 'maggie's drawers' at 600 yards needs to go into
some other line of work.
Oh, by the way, I am also a former Marine. I used to shoot my pistols
on the 200 yard range from a modified Weaver stance. I could hit the paper
consistently, like every time, with my .45.

I am a staunch supporter of the police, but I have trouble with the
concept of emptying a magazine from less than ten yards and not hitting the
target. I have a sleeve patch that reads: "One Shot - One Kill." When I
requalify for my CCW, my practice includes popping a clay target taped over
the target's shoulder.

[John E. Carty]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2gGe.15744$Eo3.8381@trnddc08...
>
> "John E. Carty" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> John E. Carty wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm also a former combat Marine and could always hit 10 for 10 from the
>>>> 500 yard line (it was never measured in meters for us) with an M-16
>>>> with open sights. However, firing a rifle from the prone position and
>>>> firing a handgun while on the move are two entirely different things
>>>> :-)
>>>
>>> What size is the 10 ring on the targets you were using at 500 yards?
>>>
>>> Matt
>>
>> To tell the truth I really don't know. I never worked in the pits pulling
>> them :-)
>
> Tsk, Tsk, John... How could you forget something like that. Must
> have been commissioned. <<GRIN!>>

Must have been commissioned 'Sir' ;-)

> First off, the diameter of the "bull's eye" on the 600Yd target is 12
> inches [I don't think they shoot 500 yards anymore, you're giving away
> your age.]. Second, there ain't no 10-ring, hehehe. Marines don't need
> big scores -- five is enough.
> Perhaps I should explain that the Army uses a MUCH bigger bull's eye
> that does count up to ten.
> Anybody that shoots a 'maggie's drawers' at 600 yards needs to go into
> some other line of work.

Wow, how did I forget "we don't need no maggie's drawers, all we shoot are
5's and 4's" :-)

> Oh, by the way, I am also a former Marine. I used to shoot my pistols
> on the 200 yard range from a modified Weaver stance. I could hit the paper
> consistently, like every time, with my .45.
>
> I am a staunch supporter of the police, but I have trouble with the
> concept of emptying a magazine from less than ten yards and not hitting
> the target. I have a sleeve patch that reads: "One Shot - One Kill." When
> I requalify for my CCW, my practice includes popping a clay target taped
> over the target's shoulder.
>

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Doesn't matter the environment. Nobody shoots as well as this poster
> claimed.

You think it's impossible to hit a 12" circle every time at 500 yards? You
obviously have no experience with competition shooting.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Matt Barrow]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> **** YOU! PLONK!!

(The other) Matt has a tendency to try to be as annoying as possible and say
as little as possible. Like a kid (he's not, IIUC) he just tries to wear you
down so as to not admit he's stuck his foot in his mouth.

My guess is extreme envy.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:lchGe.8268$S72.4451@trndny06...
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
> > Doesn't matter the environment. Nobody shoots as well as this poster
> > claimed.
>
> You think it's impossible to hit a 12" circle every time at 500 yards? You
> obviously have no experience with competition shooting.
>

He can't do it, so he believes no one else can either.

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:18:36 -0400, Corky Scott
> > wrote:
>
> >I wrote:
> >> Sorry Icebound, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or if you
> >> really believe this. I thought it was common knowledge now that the
> >> Bush administration actually did invent the WMD specifically to start
> >> the war.

I guess he fell for that reputed British memo (a statement of OPINION, not
FACT).

> >
> >>at one time it was common knowledge that the earth was flat.
> >
> >Exactly, until it was overwhelmingly proved otherwise. Thanks, great
> >parallel.
> >
> >Unfortunately, some still believe the world is flat... Another great
> >parallel.
>
> Yup! The only way you can have true parallels N/S AND E/W is on a flat
> surface. We've been given two paralles so it must be flat.

It must be if that's what the majority believes (Social Metaphysics).


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[W P Dixon]

Maybe so, and to the rest of the group I apologize for my language..like
anyone else I do not like being called a liar. If anyone looks at any post I
have written I am sure they would think I would lie about alot more things
than being an expert rifleman. I have not lied about my condition, my
finances and last but not least I have not lied about my skill as a marine
rifleman.
I just suspect he may be an obese donut eating cop that can't
shoot,..but hey I don't know him...nor care to.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft strutural mech
"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "W P Dixon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> **** YOU! PLONK!!
>
> (The other) Matt has a tendency to try to be as annoying as possible and
> say
> as little as possible. Like a kid (he's not, IIUC) he just tries to wear
> you
> down so as to not admit he's stuck his foot in his mouth.
>
> My guess is extreme envy.
>
>
> --
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Maybe so, and to the rest of the group I apologize for my language..like
> anyone else I do not like being called a liar. If anyone looks at any post
I
> have written I am sure they would think I would lie about alot more things
> than being an expert rifleman. I have not lied about my condition, my
> finances and last but not least I have not lied about my skill as a marine
> rifleman.
> I just suspect he may be an obese donut eating cop that can't
> shoot,..but hey I don't know him...nor care to.

No...he's just one of those characters that needs to get in the last
word....no matter how stupid that last one becomes.

[W P Dixon]

Hmmm,
And here I thought it was only ex wives that did that!;)

Patrick

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> No...he's just one of those characters that needs to get in the last
> word....no matter how stupid that last one becomes.
>
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

John E. Carty wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>John E. Carty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Patrick,
>>>Hey, that old .45 certainly had better stopping power then a 9mm, but we
>>>only had 7 rounds in which to hit the target! :-)
>>
>>You didn't put one in the chamber and carry "cocked and locked?"
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Never :-)
>
>
If you do, then you are carrying 8! At least if you add the one back to
the clip that you stripped for the chamber... :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

George Patterson wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>
>> Doesn't matter the environment. Nobody shoots as well as this poster
>> claimed.
>
>
> You think it's impossible to hit a 12" circle every time at 500 yards?
> You obviously have no experience with competition shooting.

With a standard issue M16 with open sights? Yes, I think that would be
impossible. Look at the scores from Camp Perry and other long range
competitions. Nobody shoots perfect scores ALL the time.

Yes, I don't have much experience shooting. I didn't start until I was
about 6 years old and I'm only 46 now so I'm just getting stared. :-)


Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"W P Dixon" > wrote in message
...
> Hmmm,
> And here I thought it was only ex wives that did that!;)
>
> Patrick

Current wives, too. :!) {Not mine, fortunately}

>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > No...he's just one of those characters that needs to get in the last
> > word....no matter how stupid that last one becomes.
> >
> >
> >
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> John E. Carty wrote:
>
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>John E. Carty wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Patrick,
> >>>Hey, that old .45 certainly had better stopping power then a 9mm, but
we
> >>>only had 7 rounds in which to hit the target! :-)
> >>
> >>You didn't put one in the chamber and carry "cocked and locked?"
> >>
> >>Matt
> >
> >
> > Never :-)
> >
> >
> If you do, then you are carrying 8! At least if you add the one back to
> the clip that you stripped for the chamber... :-)

Sigh...

I rest my case. (RE: Last word)

[Casey Wilson]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> John E. Carty wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>John E. Carty wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Patrick,
>>>>Hey, that old .45 certainly had better stopping power then a 9mm, but we
>>>>only had 7 rounds in which to hit the target! :-)
>>>
>>>You didn't put one in the chamber and carry "cocked and locked?"
>>>
>>>Matt
>>
>>
>> Never :-)
> If you do, then you are carrying 8! At least if you add the one back to
> the clip that you stripped for the chamber... :-)
>
> Matt

Except that the Model 1911, .45ACP, doesn't use a clip. :}

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Nobody shoots perfect scores ALL the time.

Hitting a 12" bull every time is not shooting a perfect score. The 10 ring on
the type of target they use in 500 yard competitions is about 6" across. Hitting
in a 12" bull every time would be a score in the 90s. I've known many people who
always shot in the high 90s in the prone position.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Matt Barrow]

"Casey Wilson" <N2310D @ gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dDAGe.7680$W%5.4627@trnddc05...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > John E. Carty wrote:
> >
> >> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>John E. Carty wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Patrick,
> >>>>Hey, that old .45 certainly had better stopping power then a 9mm, but
we
> >>>>only had 7 rounds in which to hit the target! :-)
> >>>
> >>>You didn't put one in the chamber and carry "cocked and locked?"
> >>>
> >>>Matt
> >>
> >>
> >> Never :-)
> > If you do, then you are carrying 8! At least if you add the one back to
> > the clip that you stripped for the chamber... :-)
> >
> > Matt
>
> Except that the Model 1911, .45ACP, doesn't use a clip. :}
>

He might be loading his magazines from a stripper clip :~)

[Matt Whiting]

Casey Wilson wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>John E. Carty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>John E. Carty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Patrick,
>>>>>Hey, that old .45 certainly had better stopping power then a 9mm, but we
>>>>>only had 7 rounds in which to hit the target! :-)
>>>>
>>>>You didn't put one in the chamber and carry "cocked and locked?"
>>>>
>>>>Matt
>>>
>>>
>>>Never :-)
>>
>>If you do, then you are carrying 8! At least if you add the one back to
>>the clip that you stripped for the chamber... :-)
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> Except that the Model 1911, .45ACP, doesn't use a clip. :}
>
>

Clip, magazine, extra ammunition receptacle, ...

Matt

[Darrel Toepfer]

Skywise wrote:

> Then I guess you think that the video of airliners hitting the
> twin towers on a TV show is "hollyweird special effects" too?
>
> Not everything on TV is bogus. Most is, but not all.

http://www.gagreport.com/bizarrenews%20-%20video%20-%20US%20sniper%20in%20Iraq.htm#news

They're shooting with 50 calibers...

[Skywise]

Darrel Toepfer > wrote in
:

> Skywise wrote:
>
>> Then I guess you think that the video of airliners hitting the
>> twin towers on a TV show is "hollyweird special effects" too?
>>
>> Not everything on TV is bogus. Most is, but not all.
>
> http://www.gagreport.com/bizarrenews%20-%20video%20-%20US%20sniper%20in%2
> 0Iraq.htm#news
>
> They're shooting with 50 calibers...

Nice....one of those shots I couldn't even make out the target
until the body parts went flying.

I was reluctant to say it before as I have no references to
back it up, but seem to recall hearing somewhere that our
snipers routinely hit stuff over a mile away and the best
can get close to three miles.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism

Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Blog: http://www.skywise711.com/Blog

Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Chris Colohan]

Skywise > writes:
> Nice....one of those shots I couldn't even make out the target
> until the body parts went flying.
>
> I was reluctant to say it before as I have no references to
> back it up, but seem to recall hearing somewhere that our
> snipers routinely hit stuff over a mile away and the best
> can get close to three miles.

Probably there are many kills which do not get reported, but the last
time I heard the distance record for a "confirmed kill" was 2430m (=
1.5 miles), made by a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan:

http://www.riflebarrels.com/articles/50calibre/50sniping.htm
http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/KillingShot_2430Metres.asp

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751