Am you legally justified in killing a passenger who refuses toturn off their cell phone?

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:25:02 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:09:52 +0000 (UTC), bill
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 04:34:25 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 08:51:36 +0000 (UTC), bill
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:09:37 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:45:46 +0000 (UTC), bill
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:34:20 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 17:06:50 +0000 (UTC), bill
wrote:

On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:20:29 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:


First of all any story in the Sun needs to betaken with a very large
pinch of salt, and secondly any brief look at just about any UK
police web site will tell you that the H&K weapons are not capable
of fully automatic fire.

So they are simply large capacity assault weapons?

Can you define 'assault weapon' for me please?

As far as I'm a ware it's a US propaganda term for 'big scary black
gun'.

So the police
themselves are lying about carrying machine guns?

I very much doubt an policeman ever called these weapons 'machine
guns'.

I also doubt you or I would either.


Odd that I keep finding countless references to the British Police
carrying machine guns...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G36

The British police use the special version, developed I understand for
an FBI requirement, for a self loading non fully automatic capable
version.

Except of course for the Fully Automatic 36C which I also posted links
to.


I noticed.

I don't for one moment imagine you have a primary sourcerather than athe
yellow press as a source do you?

Quite seriously I would like one because I could then make some quite
serious trouble for the 'met' when I get back.

But I imagine all you've actually got is a gutter journalist with a copy
of 'Small Arms of the World' and a blurry photograph.

--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:23:43 -0800, Gunner Asch wrote:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:06:06 +0000 (UTC), bill
wrote:


Then you can provide those claimed mistakes were actually erronious
and not actually mistakes at all...but your "source" was trying to
cover up the fact that armed citizens were involved in helping the
police.

Trot them out if you would be so kind.

Ill be waiting with amused interest.

I already gave it, and it's the same book that Wikipedia gives.

The Battle of Stepney, Colin Rogers

Please note that on the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Si...detectives.jpg

There's a picture of the house on fire.

No sign of artillery damage at all...

Odd..I cant see if there is any or not. Small bore arty was common in
1911 Under 1" was very common

No it wasn't, not in UK domestic service anyway.

There may have been the odd 'pom pom' about but that wouldn't have been
available in London.


Which reminds me...you claimed they were shooting .380s


Nope.

Re-read.

7.65 Mauser, a bottle neck pistol cartridge.


--
William Black

Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy a dog...

SaPeIsMa writes:

Let's see
THe dropping oxygen masks
The proper position for a crash landing
THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device

None of this has anything to do with electronic devices.

Airline crews never, ever say that an electronic device will cause a crash or
accident. Not only because it's not true, but also because the policy of
airlines is to never, ever mention accidents or crashes if there's any way to
avoid it.

The stuff about masks and so on is required by law, so they have to talk about
it.

SaPeIsMa writes:

I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can crash
and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not exactly
free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any count
Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during takeoffs
and landings ?

Maybe, but what does this have to do with cell phones? Cell phones don't cause
crashes.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
SaPeIsMa writes:

I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
crash
and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not exactly
free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any count
Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
takeoffs
and landings ?

Maybe, but what does this have to do with cell phones? Cell phones don't
cause
crashes.

Never claimed they did
Read why I originally wrote instead of quoting me out of context

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
SaPeIsMa writes:

Let's see
THe dropping oxygen masks
The proper position for a crash landing
THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device

None of this has anything to do with electronic devices.

Airline crews never, ever say that an electronic device will cause a crash
or
accident. Not only because it's not true, but also because the policy of
airlines is to never, ever mention accidents or crashes if there's any way
to
avoid it.

The stuff about masks and so on is required by law, so they have to talk
about
it.

Maybe you should stop cutting text and destroying context before you respond

"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
SaPeIsMa writes:

You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?

It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
bodily harm is
not satisfied.

I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
count
Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
takeoffs and landings ?

:-)

Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of crashing
and burning are trivial.

I've heard other people talk about this "no control" issue, but I just
fail to get it. I don't *want* to be in control of the airplane; I'm
not the trained pilot.

--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
SaPeIsMa writes:

You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?

It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
bodily harm is
not satisfied.

I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
count
Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
takeoffs and landings ?

:-)

Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of crashing
and burning are trivial.


People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about it.

I've heard other people talk about this "no control" issue, but I just
fail to get it. I don't *want* to be in control of the airplane; I'm
not the trained pilot.


What you may want or not want has nothing to do with it.
You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person in fear.
Your view counts for nothing in their universe.

"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
"SaPeIsMa" writes:

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
SaPeIsMa writes:

You're strapped into a metal cylinder with the doors closed
Where exactly do you imagine you can do a "feasible retreat" ?

It doesn't matter. The criterion of immediate fear or death or
bodily harm is
not satisfied.

I don't know about you, but being strapped into a metal tube that can
crash and burn, and over which you have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROl, is not
exactly free of the fear of immediate death and or bodily harm by any
count
Why do you think that white-knuckle syndrome os so prevalent during
takeoffs and landings ?

:-)

Not reasonable in the legal sense, though; the actual odds of crashing
and burning are trivial.


People who are afraid are not necessarily rational or "reasonable" about it.

But the legal right to use deadly force IS conditioned on your fear
being both immediate and "reasonable", which is where this discussion
began.

I've heard other people talk about this "no control" issue, but I just
fail to get it. I don't *want* to be in control of the airplane; I'm
not the trained pilot.

What you may want or not want has nothing to do with it.
You need to put yourself in the shoes of the person in fear.
Your view counts for nothing in their universe.

Wrong; I might be on the jury.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

SaPeIsMa writes:

Let's see
THe dropping oxygen masks
The proper position for a crash landing
THe use of a seat cushion as a floatation device

None of this has anything to do with electronic devices.

It could (in theory) and over the years passengers have had it drummed
into them that electronic devices could screw up cockpit instrumentation.

Airline crews never, ever say that an electronic device will cause a
crash or accident.

Correct.....they have said that it may cause false readings on cockpit
instrumentation.

Not only because it's not true, but also because
the policy of airlines is to never, ever mention accidents or crashes
if there's any way to avoid it.

The stuff about masks and so on is required by law, so they have to
talk about it.




--
It's impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

William G McAdoo


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)