Why no Cannons on Police Helicopters?

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

In fact he was cleared of manslaughter on appeal.

Keith


Keith - my apologies, you are quite right.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:47:53 +1200, Kerryn Offord wrote:



Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP
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.The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.
SNIP

This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive).

If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first
confronted him....

It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.

Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
bit of property).

Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).

Of course, now that NZ has given up defending itself you will be awfully
grateful when rough men with guns show up to carry the burden. Confusing
humanity for an unwillingness to defend oneself in a game for fools.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:47:53 +1200, Kerryn Offord wrote:



Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP

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.The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.

SNIP

This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive).

If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first
confronted him....

It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.

Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
bit of property).

Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).


Of course, now that NZ has given up defending itself you will be awfully
grateful when rough men with guns show up to carry the burden. Confusing
humanity for an unwillingness to defend oneself in a game for fools.

Al Minyard

What makes you say NZ has given up defending itself?

There is a world of difference between defending yourself, which NZers
have no problem with, and shooting as a first response... and also not
being careful about where you are shooting (today's news story about 4
Iraqi school children being shot by US forces when they rushed out of
school to look at the Humvee that had been blown up.... is this the kind
of defending we are expected to be grateful for?)

NZs defence force is about 12000 from a population of ~4 million (0.3%
of pop)

This equates to a USA (pop ~300 million) or 900,000....

Ok, so relatively speaking, we are under protected (there is one regular
infantry battalion per 2 million..so does the US have 150 infantry
battalions?

OTOH... most enlist for more than a single 4 year tour (average more
experienced soldiers....)

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:14:00 +1200, Kerryn Offord wrote:



Alan Minyard wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:47:53 +1200, Kerryn Offord wrote:



Jim Yanik wrote:

SNIP

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.The police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their crimes.

SNIP

This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it vindictive).

If the householder had just shot the guy in the chest when he first
confronted him....

It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.

Americans hold everybody else's life cheap (cheaper than the cheapest
bit of property).

Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
force in defence of self or others (defence of property is different).


Of course, now that NZ has given up defending itself you will be awfully
grateful when rough men with guns show up to carry the burden. Confusing
humanity for an unwillingness to defend oneself in a game for fools.

Al Minyard

What makes you say NZ has given up defending itself?

There is a world of difference between defending yourself, which NZers
have no problem with, and shooting as a first response... and also not
being careful about where you are shooting (today's news story about 4
Iraqi school children being shot by US forces when they rushed out of
school to look at the Humvee that had been blown up.... is this the kind
of defending we are expected to be grateful for?)

NZs defence force is about 12000 from a population of ~4 million (0.3%
of pop)

This equates to a USA (pop ~300 million) or 900,000....

Ok, so relatively speaking, we are under protected (there is one regular
infantry battalion per 2 million..so does the US have 150 infantry
battalions?

OTOH... most enlist for more than a single 4 year tour (average more
experienced soldiers....)

Well, you have no air force, no real navy, no effective army, I would say that
is pretty much the definition of defenseless. NZ has given up its status as
a respectable nation. Cowards.

Al Minyard

Kerryn Offord wrote:
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.The
police
failed in providing him security,so it fell upon himself to do so.
Criminals should have no right to safety while commiting their
crimes.
SNIP

This is simply attempted murder. The target was no threat and was
departing, but the householder shot him anyway (that makes it
vindictive).


You'd rather let a burglar rob or kill someone else who is weaker or
less prepared to defend himself?


It seems to come down to a difference in attitudes.


The main difference in attitude is that you are more passive.


Americans hold everybody else's life cheap


I would hold your life cheap if you forcibly entered my home
uninvited. And BTW, very few American burglars and criminals commit
robberies to "feed their families" as someone else suggested. Some
have tried to use that as an excuse because it sounds better than
admitting they wanted to feed their drug habit, or other illegal
habits. : )

In other words, if you were foolish enough to break into a stranger's
home I would not feel any sympathy for your bullet-riddled body. Your
tough luck.

Uk/NZ and others consider both lives of value, but allow reasonable
force in defence of self or others


It's a longstanding socioeconomic reality that Americans are generally
more aggressive than Brits and Anzacs. More aggressive in the
marketplace, more aggressive on the battlefield, and unfortunately,
more aggressive when it comes to violent crime.

The British, New Zealanders and Australians have always been more
timid and passive. They have traditionally lacked a sense of urgency
-- except when they want another country to help them. I cannot say
that I admire their penchant for overcautiousness, inaction, and heavy
reliance on foreigners (often without acknowledgement). It's also
difficult to respect the British/Anzac tendency to achieve remarkably
puny results over interminably long periods of time.

That is why America is a global superpower, and Britain, New Zealand,
Australia are not. Furthermore, the UK's increasingly draconian
firearms control laws have backfired, providing further proof that
passiveness and appeasement is not something to be proud of.

"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?

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.

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?

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?

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. (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.)

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

"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

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
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.

Not if the criminals are aggressive, armed and practiced, and the ODCs are
not. It takes hard work, practice and a lot of rounds to become proficient
with a handgun.

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.

So in other words, exactly the same as in the UK: if I see him he runs away.

Why does adding firearms to the mix help matters?

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.

Dodging the question, Jim?

Someone snatches a loaf of bread and runs away. How many rounds are you
allowed to fire at his fleeing back, to prevent the theft? How much risk are
you allowed to take? If they're running through a crowd, how many bystanders
are you permitted to hit before your use of force becomes "unreasonable"?

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

Well,one of your appeasing jurys ruled that way.

They saw the evidence, noted that the defended lied repeatedly, and drew
their own conclusions. That's the point of juries, Jim, they're selected
from your peers. If Martin had called the police and presented them with a
corpse whose wound was in the chest, he'd maybe have been hit for the
illegal firearm.

In the US,many jurys would
rule justifiable homicide.Some places would not even bring charges.

So, shooting fleeing and unarmed boys in the back and lying to the police is
acceptable behaviour in the US?

(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.

Sure, and nobody's denied it. On the other hand he was notably eccentric,
refused to fit the most basic security, and contributed a lot to his own
misfortune. You're entitled not to have your car stolen, but part of the
deal is not leaving it parked with the window open, door unlocked and keys
in the ignition.

Sitting up in the night with an illegal weapon waiting for intruders so you
can go downstairs and kill them (and then claim never to have left your
room)... that's not self-defence, that's premeditated murder.

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.

So,you are saying there's no at-home burglaries in the UK?

No, just that they're generally rare enough to make newspaper headlines.

Iknow George
Harrison would have benefitted from having a handgun when that intruder
entered his home.

Sure - how many years ago was that? He's been dead and buried for a while,
Jim. Don't you have any new examples? Or is life in the UK actually a lot
quieter and safer than your NRA tracts would like you to believe?

Maybe he (and his wife)wouldn't have been stabbed so many
times.

Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had the
option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?

--
Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...


Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had the
option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?


Its also worth recalling that the attacker was a paranoid schizophrenic
with an obsession about harrison and not a common burglar
and had no previous criminal record. In the US he like the
the man who shot John Lennon would have had access to a more lethal
weapon than a knife.

He was released in 2002 having responded to treatment
and had been symptom free for 2 years.

Keith

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
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.

Not if the criminals are aggressive, armed and practiced, and the ODCs
are not. It takes hard work, practice and a lot of rounds to become
proficient with a handgun.


Well,that's NOT the way it's been here in the US,and I doubt that UK
criminals are any different.I've read of plenty of examples of elderly
people using handguns well enough without any extensive training.
It's simply not that hard to use a handgun.

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.

So in other words, exactly the same as in the UK: if I see him he runs
away.

Depends on how close he is to you,too.

Why does adding firearms to the mix help matters?

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.

Dodging the question, Jim?

No,you're trying to pin me down with a dumb question.I'm not playing that
game.

Someone snatches a loaf of bread and runs away. How many rounds are
you allowed to fire at his fleeing back, to prevent the theft? How
much risk are you allowed to take? If they're running through a crowd,
how many bystanders are you permitted to hit before your use of force
becomes "unreasonable"?

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

Well,one of your appeasing jurys ruled that way.

They saw the evidence, noted that the defended lied repeatedly, and
drew their own conclusions. That's the point of juries, Jim, they're
selected from your peers. If Martin had called the police and
presented them with a corpse whose wound was in the chest, he'd maybe
have been hit for the illegal firearm.

In the US,many jurys would
rule justifiable homicide.Some places would not even bring charges.

So, shooting fleeing and unarmed boys in the back and lying to the
police is acceptable behaviour in the US?

Lying,no.Shooting those two after repeated burglaries with police being
useless would be "justifiable homicide" in many parts of the US.

(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.

Sure, and nobody's denied it. On the other hand he was notably
eccentric, refused to fit the most basic security, and contributed a
lot to his own misfortune. You're entitled not to have your car
stolen, but part of the deal is not leaving it parked with the window
open, door unlocked and keys in the ignition.

And I doubt he left the keys in his door locks,or windows open after
repeated burglaries.

Sitting up in the night with an illegal weapon waiting for intruders
so you can go downstairs and kill them (and then claim never to have
left your room)... that's not self-defence, that's premeditated
murder.

Justifiable homicide.Police could do noting for him,he had no other
recourse.Why should he have to turn his home into a prison?

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.

So,you are saying there's no at-home burglaries in the UK?

No, just that they're generally rare enough to make newspaper
headlines.

Well,I believe that they would not make newspaper headlines,but that does
not mean they don't happen.Heck,many people,especially the elderly are
embarassed that they were victimized,and don't report such crimes.

Iknow George
Harrison would have benefitted from having a handgun when that
intruder entered his home.

Sure - how many years ago was that? He's been dead and buried for a
while, Jim. Don't you have any new examples? Or is life in the UK
actually a lot quieter and safer than your NRA tracts would like you
to believe?

Why should the passage of time make that example any less valid? I don't
keep up on what happens in the UK,that's just the most visible and
remembered incident I know of.You still haven't refuted it after all this
time,either.

Maybe he (and his wife)wouldn't have been stabbed so many
times.

Or maybe a peacenik ex-Beatle wouldn't have owned a firearm even had
the option been open to him - ever pause to consider that?

well,sure,it's his choice(or it would be,if UK alowed it) to be armed(and
prepared for such things,especially after the Queen having an intruder in
her bedroom,and Lennon getting killed.)

But peaceniks have a habit of changing their position after they've been
attacked or threatened,and they find out what the police CAN'T do for their
security.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net