Another reason to fly GA...

"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_s...veloperid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

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.

In article ne.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.

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/n...ationworld-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.

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

"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.

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?

"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.

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

"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?