Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
So you've got the crime anyway, and the armed criminals, and the
accidental deaths and suicides... and the answer is "more guns"?

In the hands of ODCs.yes.

How do you tell ODCs from criminals who haven't been convicted yet?

If you see them commiting a crime,then they are criminals.If they have
committed no crimes,then they are ODCs.

Removing the guns will not decrease crime,it has
the opposite effect,and is practically impossible.

Absolutely true: but it's a poor advertisment for the idea that a few
thousand weapons would transform the UK and turn it into a crime-free
paradise.

Never claimed it would.It would allow ODCs to defend themselves with less
risk to themselves,though.Especially the elderly,infirm.

I'm arguing against transplanting US solutions to the UK, is all.

What's the property value that justifies homicide, out of interest?

Can I kill a man for stealing my car? (About $7,000 at last check).

you can use a gun to defend against a carjacking.

You don't get carjacked in the UK, Jim, it's on a par with
elephant-rated fatalities: you can find a couple but they're
celebrated for their rarity.

Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police
can arrive.

I challenge him and he starts to run. Can I shoot him? If not, how do
I detain him?

If he runs towards you,then you shoot him.If he runs away,then he gets
away.

Can I kill a man for stealing my watch? (About $100)

Well,to take that watch means he threatens force against you.

No, let's suppose I took it off to wash my hands in a public restroom,
and he snatches it up and runs. Can I shoot him in the back in order
to reclaim my watch?

Can I kill a man for stealing a loaf of bread?

If he does it by force or threat of force,yes.

He grabs it off a shelf in a supermarket and runs for the exit. Can I
shoot him?

I see where you are going here,and I'm not playing that game.

Or you could use the gun to -safely- detain the thief,until police
can arrive.

How does one "safely" detain another with a firearm? If you're not
willing and ready to shoot, it's not effective: to be effective, it
certainly can't be safe (at least not for the detainee!) I'm not
opposed to the concept, but I'm trying to pare away the hyperbole and
get to the facts of when you *actually* are and are not allowed to use
deadly force, rather than the exaggerations spouted by both extremes.

Now,that UK man who shot the burglars in the back was justified,as
the police were of NO use,and he had suffered repeated burglaries.

No, he committed premeditated murder, and a jury agreed.

Well,one of your appeasing jurys ruled that way.In the US,many jurys would
rule justifiable homicide.Some places would not even bring charges.

(He'd have
been acquitted if he'd ceased fire when they fled: he might even have
been acquitted or had the charges downgraded if he'd told the truth.
But to (a) pursue the intruders and continue firing when they were in
headlong flight, and (b) to lie about events both to the police and to
the court, convinced the jury that he wasn't acting to defend himself
but had planned and prepared to kill.)

And that's about the only way his burglaries would have been stopped.The
police failed him.

The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.

And he was entitled to do so: but not to cold-bloodedly plan the
killing of the next person to intrude.

Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their
crimes.

I'm a little uncertain about this one. I'd rather say that the burden
of proof is on the criminal to show that they were seriously
mistreated. For instance, a criminal has no right to protest about a
householder using reasonable force to drive them off, detain them or
disable them. Even a burglar is entitled to complain if the
householder then starts applying electroshock therapy or just a damn
good kicking to "teach him a lesson", or just for amusement.

You try to equate the value of a possession against a criminal's
life,

I'm just curious where the threshold falls for the use of deadly force
and its attendant risks.

but
the true and higher cost is the lack of security and freedom to own
property.

Again, I can only presume life is much more difficult and dangerous
where you live, that so much theft happens in plain sight and
unprevented. Property theft here is done where nobody's looking, so
issuing firearms wouldn't help.

--
Paul J. Adam



So,you are saying there's no at-home burglaries in the UK? Iknow George
Harrison would have benefitted from having a handgun when that intruder
entered his home.Maybe he (and his wife)wouldn't have been stabbed so many
times.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net