Another reason to fly GA...

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

"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

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.

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 :-)

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