Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Flipside on September 15, 2004, 10:28:58 am
-
The Queen....
Ok, now I know this applies more to UK members, but a few days ago a man dressed in a Batman uniform climbed onto Buckingham Palace to protest that it was easier to get onto the balcony than see his own daughter.
The response to this is to start trying to instigate a law that allows trespassers on the Queens property to be shot by guards if nexessary. Fine fair enough you might think, were it not for the fact that, should the average person feel their life is in danger from an intruder and shots them for their own safety, you are probably looking at a good few years in Jail.
So, once again, our country is trying to divide the law up into two halves :(
-
I think it's outrageous an unarmed man could be shot. It has always been the case that the police must identify themselves three times, as armed police, and order the person to stop givng them as much time as possible to do so.
This kind of shoot on site behaviour is more American/European than traditionally British.
-
I was amazed by the way the papers put it.
"Thankfully the royal family were not in residence"
Oooh dear, they'd be in SO much danger if they were in. :rolleyes:
-
The papers don't like 'Fathers 4 Justice', and keep trying to edge them towards looking like 'mini-terrorists', it sells more papers than simply accepting the fact that fathers get the sh*t end of the stick when it comes to access rights for their kids.
Edit : Besides it might remind people that the right to protest is still free in this country.
-
I believe the fear is from suicide bombers who would technically be unarmed (in the sense of no apparent weapons beyond several kgs of explosives shoved up their arse).
I think the current SO19(IIRC) legislation will apply, though, i.e. need to give a warning/threat of force and allow adequate time.
It's....contentious, regardless. I've not really read much about the exact situation, though, so i've not decided what to make of it.
-
[q]Edit : Besides it might remind people that the right to protest is still free in this country.[/q]
Yep. Apparently tourists (dunno from where) were commenting on tha fact the guy would've been shot in thier country. MY personal response would've been "welcome to a free(ish) country".
-
My problem is not so much the right for the Queen as a public figure and a target, to defend herself, it's more with the fact that the public, who are equally targets, not just from terrorists, but from common criminals such as burglers, rapists etc, are not allowed to take similar measures to protect their lives in their own homes, and can even be punished for doing so.
We don't have the luxury of being able to afford Police Officers to walk around our houses every night :(
Edit : And yes, in most situations, the person should be given an oppurtunity to leave or surrender before being subdued, anything less is barbarism.
-
Yeah, I read about this. Way to pick the old Batman costume, not one of the cooler looking new ones (Bat-Nipples anyone?).
And no, an unarmed man should not be shot (at least not fatally), especially if he is dressed as freaking Batman. I understand the suicide bomber arguement, but if the guy hangs a big "Fathers 4 Justice" banner, I think its pretty clear he's not there on behalf of al Queda.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
My problem is not so much the right for the Queen as a public figure and a target, to defend herself, it's more with the fact that the public, who are equally targets, not just from terrorists, but from common criminals such as burglers, rapists etc, are not allowed to take similar measures to protect their lives in their own homes, and can even be punished for doing so.
But you are allowed to use reasonable force to stop them. If you have a gun you probably don't need to kill a burgler at all. Just wave the gun menacingly and the tosser will probably run away to change his trousers.
If he comes at you you can blast him away and you probably won't have to do anything more than answer a few questions and clean the blood splater off of your stuff.
-
Theres something unsettling about the idea of Batman with a utility belt stuffed with Semtex though ;)
The only down side is that his kids are now off school with 'stress' (would you, as a teenager, be able to go into school after your Dad had been on the BBC dressed as Batman?)
@Kara : Well, that is the law, but theres such a spate of burglers suing for Assault and ABH that people are scared to do it :(
It's always surprised me that less 'permanent' methods of subduing are even more illegal than a baseball bat, such as Gas or Stun Guns, the argument being that if the person has a respiratory or heart problem it might kill them. My answer is 'If the person has a respiratory or heart problem, what are they doing climbing through windows?' :)
-
Well, to be fair, the royal family has a somewhat higher risk of targeted attacks against them, be it terrorism, large scale theft (this being the less likely IMO) or assasination, simply due to their status.
Like when the IRA blew up Lord Mountbatten.... whilst the Monarchy aren't an effective target in terms of affecting political change, they're a strong symbolic target.
Another issue is that when someone is killed trying to rob a royal - or even a government - high security building, it will almost certainly be by a formally trained operative (be it army, police or some other). Whereas someone who shoots a burgler, doesn't have the same level of risk assessment training, i.e. it becomes a lot hazier when evaluating their logic. As such, I can understand why a jury may be required to cast judgement on the validity of that action.
-
Originally posted by vyper
This kind of shoot on site behaviour is more American/European than traditionally British.
:wtf: :doubt:
-
edit: oops, got the topics mixed up. PhE4R.
-
Seriously, I can understand this somewhat. But I'd do it the other way, just call Buckingham Palace a high-security military zone, and use normal military law. I think there are quite some laws allowing soldiers to shoot trespassers on bases.
As for the burglar suing, that is indeed quite wrong, sometimes. Other times, there really has been excessive violence. (Beating when he's down should be punished, right?)
-
They should have shot him. A warning shot to the head would discourage anyone else....
-
Clave: :wtf:
I just hope that's sarcasm.....
-
Kasp : I agree that it's too easy to get carried away and actually assault someone beyond the point of simply 'stopping' them, that's why I'm more in favour things like knockout gas and big nets that fall from the ceiling etc Not only does it not harm the offender, but means you can set your house up like Dr Dooms Lab of Destruction ;)
-
Untill the bloody cat starts triggering stuff.....
Seriously, I think that weapon controll is a good thing, but a burglar alarm should be OK. Starting with knockout gas, you;ve got something that can be used offensivly quite easy. (Dark alley, bag o' gas, unsuspecting bystander, muggers/rapists dream, right?). Nets, well, I don't know how much they help to a guy with a knife.
-
Originally posted by vyper
This kind of shoot on site behaviour is more American/European than traditionally British.
:doubt:
In France you get hit by a baguette and are released...
In Germany you get a sausage up your nose and wiener schnitzels in your ears and are released...
In Italy they wipe your ass with a steaming hot Pizza and are released...
In Holland you are offered a joint by the arresting officers and are released...
:D:p:D
-
Hehehehe I know what you mean. The thing is, at least where I live, burglar alarms and car alarms are constantly going off. The technology is imperfect, as you say, with things like cats etc. So quite often, the first time people react to an alarm is usually to phone the Police to complain about it keeping them awake.
So much for neighborhood watch, Sad but True :(
-
We need to clone off Maculie Caulkin (sp?) a few millions times and sell him as the latest and greatestm home security system in existence. That'll show them damn burgulars....
...
Home Alone guys, Home Alone.
-
Well if they do give warning first then they can shoot Warning shot if he still moves they can shoot in his legs and. If he still somehow moves they can kill target IIRC that how it was. I don't know how British guards act is this kind situation
man dressed in a Batman
:lol:
-
We need to clone off Maculie Caulkin (sp?) a few millions times and sell him as the latest and greatestm home security system in existence. That'll show them damn burgulars....
Yep, but I'd still need a gun to shoot the oily little toerag after he had disposed of the burglars ;)
-
:) @ Home Alone reference.
As for alarms being more annoying then usefull, same goes for firealarms.
-
I think it's not so much that they are annoying, I just think people get nonchalant, a basic 'not my problem' attitude. Even the Police admitted that they are more into deterrence than detection these days, which means that the people who are victims are less likely than ever to see justice.
People are discouraged from getting involved, which would be fine and good if I could feel like the Police were making an effort to get involved for us, but their hands are tied. It's a frustrating situation :(
-
Over here, there are a few campaigns about stopping street violence when you see it, but I just don't see it working. And truly, I wouldn't be too sure of myself doing anything but calling the cops and helping the victim afterwards. Not with people being beaten to death for confronting people with asocial behaviour.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
As for alarms being more annoying then usefull, same goes for firealarms.
Lol, you wont be saying that if a fire alarm saves your life.
-
There is no such thing as a 'warning shot' nor do you shoot anyone in the legs.
The requirement is that you give a verbal warning "in a loud and clear voice" IF there is enough time. If the suspect is behaving in way that leads you to think he will endanger your life or that of anyone nearby, then you may open fire "without warning" If and when you do open fire always "aim at the centre of the exposed part of the body" For example: the chest if they are standing in full view, or their head if that is all you can see.
The parts in quotes are from the Green Card - Rules of Engagement for military personnel.
There was a 'scandal' in the UK press a while back about a so-called 'shoot to kill policy' in Northern Ireland. It was stupid - Of course it is shoot to kill, there is no middle ground here. If you are are dealing with terrorists or suspected terrorists, there is no time to consider your options, you have to react faster than they do.
'Batman' should count himself very lucky to be alive right now.....
-
I need pics! BATMAN!!!!
-
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40065000/jpg/_40065706_batman.jpg)
-
[color=66ff00]Guy stood there for a few hours, relented immediately when the cops showed up and went quietly.
And they think people like him should be shot? He'd immediately have been called a hero and it would have caused a lot more trouble in the long run I reckon.
Would his plight have gotten news coverage otherwise? I think not.
[/color]
-
If he had been shot, it would have been 100 times harder to instigate a 'shoot to kill' policy of any kind, since it would be viewed as an accidental shooting of an innocent man, the weight of responsibility would be on the Police, not the guy in the Batman suit.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Guy stood there for a few hours, relented immediately when the cops showed up and went quietly.
And they think people like him should be shot? He'd immediately have been called a hero and it would have caused a lot more trouble in the long run I reckon.
Would his plight have gotten news coverage otherwise? I think not.
[/color]
I don't think they were saying he should be, just that the could be if security saw him.
-
[color=66ff00]Whoops, was refferring to the hardline security types there aldo.
[/color]
-
oh, no-one has posted a story linkie yet. Here's one;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3657158.stm
In a statement, Sir John, who is the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said: "Having now examined and considered the report in detail and listened to the officers involved I wish to make the following clear: if anyone was encouraged by yesterday's Batman stunt - think twice before you go ahead - you risk being shot.
"At this current level of terrorist threat it is unacceptable for our officers to be placed in the difficult and unnecessary position of having to decide in a split second 'protestor or terrorist?'"
He said Met officers had showed their "professionalism and good judgment" but warned: "I would not want anyone to be injured or killed in the future because of someone taking a chance too far."
-
I don't see why the Queen should be given any more right to defend her life fom an intruder than I would.
-
Symbolic value, mainly.
-
Not to me. I only think she's useful to keep the commonwealth.
-
I suppose part of the problem is that more and more Police officers are being required to work in anti-terrorism roles, which is pulling them away from things like Murders, Assaults etc.
Those Police that are being pulled off the streets and put on SO19 duty in Heathrow etc are not being replaced.
This leaves imprtant financial and government buildings protected (though obviously not well enough) and leaves the average person in the street to fend for themselves to a greater extent. I have certainly seen a large drop of 'In the street' Police in the London area of late, outside of 'possible targets'.
I guess if the government is going to effectively withdraw everyday Police support from it's citizens, it will have to be prepared for the fact that people will take matters into their own hands. If the law does not support them, why should they support the law?
-
Originally posted by vyper
Not to me. I only think she's useful to keep the commonwealth.
Not to me either, but the monarchy is a proven terrorist target. Same as the House of Commons, except with (obviously) less impact on the actual running of government.
-
Yep, you either have a monarchy or you don't. And although it has not been tested for a long time, the monarch does have to grant permission for the government to be formed, so in theory, she could say 'no' and we would have no parliament....
Of course that won't happen, as it is a matter of routine protocol these days, but back in Cromwell's time it was a different story, and years of bloody civil war resulted in the devolution of power away from the monarch to parliament. [/end boring history lecture]
-
Originally posted by Flipside
I suppose part of the problem is that more and more Police officers are being required to work in anti-terrorism roles, which is pulling them away from things like Murders, Assaults etc.
Those Police that are being pulled off the streets and put on SO19 duty in Heathrow etc are not being replaced.
This leaves imprtant financial and government buildings protected (though obviously not well enough) and leaves the average person in the street to fend for themselves to a greater extent. I have certainly seen a large drop of 'In the street' Police in the London area of late, outside of 'possible targets'.
I guess if the government is going to effectively withdraw everyday Police support from it's citizens, it will have to be prepared for the fact that people will take matters into their own hands. If the law does not support them, why should they support the law?
Hmm, not to sure on this, my local area (twenty miles from Birmingham) was starting to turn into a pretty nasty place (the usual gang ****, stupid kids mostly) and as a result we have, for the first time in my life, been having regular police patrols as well as a local, umm, I should imagine warden would be the right term, that walks the streets just keeping an eye out. I have to admit it's made a huge difference to the atmosphere on my estate and it's nowhere near as bad as it has been in the past.
-
Originally posted by vyper
This kind of shoot on site behaviour is more American/European than traditionally British.
Not true, police officers will only shoot if there is a iminent threat to them or anyone else.
-
One more thing. Its seems kinda funny that no one in Engerland is allowed to own a gun but they have more gun violence then the US? Trap shooting is fun. :D
-
We don't have anywhere near the armed crime problem of the U.S. afaik :wtf:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
"At this current level of terrorist threat it is unacceptable for our officers to be placed in the difficult and unnecessary position of having to decide in a split second 'protestor or terrorist?'"
"/quote]
Morons.
Hey, why don't we show up at the next anti-war demo with some tanks, cause Lord knows we can't distinguish between terrorist and protesters. That'll show them damn dissenters we don't tolerate their kind around here.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Morons.
Hey, why don't we show up at the next anti-war demo with some tanks, cause Lord knows we can't distinguish between terrorist and protesters. That'll show them damn dissenters we don't tolerate their kind around here.
Well, that's taken completely out of context...........
Bloke breaks into palace / house of commons / a.n. other (lets assume he's not wearing a batman costume, albeit this is arguable irrelevant). Starts running when police officer calls on him to stop.
What do you assume? Especially if you know there are people who will happily strap a belt of semtex to their chest to kill a few people with themselves?
-
Originally posted by Flipside
We don't have anywhere near the armed crime problem of the U.S. afaik :wtf:
Not true from what I have heard but ok.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Not true from what I have heard but ok.
Put it this way, a crime where a weapon is used or discharged is a major news story in the UK. The US has the highest gun crime rate of any developed nation, anyways, unless I'm very much mistaken.
-
US major cities (which on their own count as small countries); High crime rates. Higher then almost anywhere in the 'Western' world. (Most larger cities, not all)
The rest of the US (small towns and ****); Low to average as long as it's a little bit populated.
In other words, if you take crime rate per square kilometer, you'll find extremely low crime rates for the US. If you take crime rates per average head, you'll get higher then average crime rates in the US compared to other 1st world countries.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, that's taken completely out of context...........
Bloke breaks into palace / house of commons / a.n. other (lets assume he's not wearing a batman costume, albeit this is arguable irrelevant). Starts running when police officer calls on him to stop.
What do you assume? Especially if you know there are people who will happily strap a belt of semtex to their chest to kill a few people with themselves?
yes, but as far as I know, all he did was get up on the ledge and hang the sign. He didn't really do anything all that threatening, other than entering government property or whatever.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
yes, but as far as I know, all he did was get up on the ledge and hang the sign. He didn't really do anything all that threatening, other than entering government property or whatever.
which is why he wasn't shot
-
The gun violence in the United States is through the roof. And as we speak, Congress is on the verge of letting a ban on assault weapons expire.
-
I know, great isn't it?
Finally, I'll be able to get myself an assult rifle.