[Rictor]

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.

[Gloriano]

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

 

[Flipside]

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

[kasperl]

@ Home Alone reference.

As for alarms being more annoying then usefull, same goes for firealarms.

[Flipside]

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

[kasperl]

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.

[Fergus]

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.

[Clave]

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.....

[übermetroid]

I need pics!  BATMAN!!!!

[aldo_14]

[Martinus]

[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]

[Flipside]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]Whoops, was refferring to the hardline security types there aldo.
[/color]

[aldo_14]

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."

[vyper]

I don't see why the Queen should be given any more right to defend her life fom an intruder than I would.

[aldo_14]

Symbolic value, mainly.

[vyper]

Not to me. I only think she's useful to keep the commonwealth.

[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?

[aldo_14]

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.