On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:35:01 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Thu 18 Aug 2005 09:24:16a, David wrote in message
:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:12:25 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


On Wed 17 Aug 2005 07:52:57a, "Brenda Ann" wrote
in message :

Here ya go folks.. seems that guy they shot wasn't acting suspicious
at all

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=308557


There's version-2, which purports a case of mistaken identity. Will
there be any more versions?

-=jd=-
The point is that people with guns panicked.



I think the people with guns were the least panicked involved as they
seemed, so far, to be *quite* efficient at their tasks. It appears that
once they received a "Positive ID", they did what they were supposed to do.
The "problem" is with whoever made the "Positive ID" -AND- it seems two or
more people were working on that confirmation. This presumes we are talking
only about the current case and the rapid sequence of events that took
place once "Positive ID" was ahem confirmed.

If you are talking about cops being armed in the first place, or a policy
of disabling a suicide bomber by speedily boring a large, violent hole
through their medulla-oblongata, then that's a different (though related)
issue.

-=jd=-
10 rounds at the head?

They were afraid he had an invisible bomb.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...

I think the people with guns were the least panicked involved as they
seemed, so far, to be *quite* efficient at their tasks.

Come on, jd...-seven- rounds to the head, from about as close as you can
get? At the very least, it's wasteful. IMO somebody had trouble with their
nerve.

If you are talking about cops being armed in the first place, or a policy
of disabling a suicide bomber by speedily boring a large, violent hole
through their medulla-oblongata, then that's a different (though related)
issue.

Is there really anyone here who doesn't support that? (That's not directed
at jd...that's a serious query.)

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:56:10 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:



Still no name... How does a mob of reporters get the juicy details of the
shooting, but not the name of the Cop/official dispensing said details?
It's got to be out there, buried on one of the news sites. I just can't
find it. Or is this a case, as I mentioned before, where some decidedly
unofficial source provided unverified details of a big juicy story that
through over-play in the media, has now morphed into a media-created
conspiracy?

-=jd=-
I found yer guy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706913.stm

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:10:48 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:




You heard there were 10 rounds fired? I heard there were 8 rounds total,
only 7 of which perforated the victim. Discrepancies abound with this
story... Was it an invisible bomb? Doubtful. Perhaps the bomb was already
on-board & he was supposed to detonate it or be transported to allah by it
- heck if *I* know. We'll know when the rest of the information comes out.
The "scoot & shoot" team was apparently told that this was "positively the
guy" and they believed he was in the process of, or intending to, detonate
a bomb. So, they did what they were *supposed* to do based on the
information they were given. The question I'm asking is how was the
positive ID arrived at by two (or more) people in order to tell the
shooters they had the right guy - when they didn't have the right guy?

-=jd=-

That's a 20 minutes-into-the-future horror scenario.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...
On Thu 18 Aug 2005 09:49:12p, "Honus"
wrote in message news:sUaNe.12405$Xw5.8566@trnddc02:


"-=jd=-" wrote in message
8...

I think the people with guns were the least panicked involved as they
seemed, so far, to be *quite* efficient at their tasks.

Come on, jd...-seven- rounds to the head, from about as close as you can
get? At the very least, it's wasteful. IMO somebody had trouble with
their nerve.


**warning - don't read if you are easily squeamish**

I have a rule - if I'm not down to my last mag and I have to shoot
someone
in order to stop them from doing something: I'm going to start shooting at
the earliest opportunity, and I'm going to keep shooting until they quit
doing whatever it was that made me shoot them in the first place. Plus one
or two extra rounds.

Take the case of a hostage-taker holding a gun to a hostage's head. LA Co.
Sheriffs SWAT has found that when head-shot by a sniper (typically a
..308),
there's hopeful-news and bad-news... Bad-News: The hostage taker *will*
most likely still fire his gun at least once. Hopeful-News: The hostage
taker's gun most likely *will not* still be pointed at the hostage's head
when it goes off.

Believe it or not, I always wondered about that.

If I was one of the guys told to go stop that suicide bomber from
detonating, In order to be sure, I think I would fire at least four
rounds,
if not six, seven or ten. Figure *at least* three per second.

At least. I don't rapid fire, especially since it's frowned on in every gun
range I've ever been to, but I can double that estimate. Accuracy is a
different question. g

I don't think
I would have the luxury of shooting someone "just a little bit".

I agree.

Personal experience: At about 2 pm in upstate New York, a guy shoots
someone else, then himself (straight through over the ears), with a
charter
arms .44 bulldog. He's still breathing on his own. After transporting to
the nearest hospital, they take a CAT/MRI/something scan, and reveal the
biggest cigar-shaped wound channel you could fit through his brain. He
didn't die until after 7pm that evening. The guy he shot survived, but
still has a chunk of lead in him.

So, is seven rounds excessive? Well, it depends on how badly you want to
make sure he can't push a button, and you only get one chance. Either way,
you are rolling a mighty big pair of dice...

That's admittedly true. But I think four would have sufficed. And what about
the cop that grabbed the guy? I get the feeling (and that's all it is) that
he didn't expect his partner to be squeezing off rounds. I wonder how his
ears are doing right about now.

If you are talking about cops being armed in the first place, or a
policy of disabling a suicide bomber by speedily boring a large,
violent hole through their medulla-oblongata, then that's a different
(though related) issue.

Is there really anyone here who doesn't support that? (That's not
directed at jd...that's a serious query.)


If faced with a suicide bomber (in close proximity) that is about to
detonate, there is no other option if you want the best chance at stopping
him (and staying alive yourself). Anybody else is welcome to try and
negotiate, wrestle, bribe, whatever. Though I think that after you
identify
yourself, there may be a big BOOM before you could form the "k" sound in
"Let's Talk"...

I entirely agree. I'm just wondering if anyone else -doesn't-.

Is it possible for the media to make a traqic event even worse?


Actually yes, and just to clarify, it's tragic.

-Brian

"David" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:10:48 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:




You heard there were 10 rounds fired? I heard there were 8 rounds total,
only 7 of which perforated the victim. Discrepancies abound with this
story... Was it an invisible bomb? Doubtful. Perhaps the bomb was already
on-board & he was supposed to detonate it or be transported to allah by
it
- heck if *I* know. We'll know when the rest of the information comes
out.
The "scoot & shoot" team was apparently told that this was "positively
the
guy" and they believed he was in the process of, or intending to,
detonate
a bomb. So, they did what they were *supposed* to do based on the
information they were given. The question I'm asking is how was the
positive ID arrived at by two (or more) people in order to tell the
shooters they had the right guy - when they didn't have the right guy?

-=jd=-

That's a 20 minutes-into-the-future horror scenario.


You've seen Max Headroom..

"-=jd=-" wrote in message news. The question I'm
asking is how was the
positive ID arrived at by two (or more) people in order to tell the
shooters they had the right guy - when they didn't have the right guy?

-=jd=-

How indeed. Let's see, Arabic Muslim Terrorist with bulky jacket, jumping
turnstiles and running onto the train = Brazilian Catholic Electrician with
lightweight denim jacket, with a travelpass, collecting a free newspaper and
sitting on the train.
Yup, they ****ed up from the very beginning and then they lied about it.
Call that Intelligence?
And the guy in charge was out taking a ****. Who called the shots eh?
I think the journalist who started the whole "suicide by cop" thing needs to
start apologising for talking a load of crap too.

Brad.

wrote in message
...
Mostly,it is decent Citizens of U.S.A.who own Guns.More Guns,Less crime.
www.jacksoncrime.org Now Drop and gimme me fifthy!
cuhulin

Bull****. your homicide rate is more than 3 times higher than ours.
Brad
Australia

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:50:52 GMT, "-=jd=-"
wrote:


No, that's just one of the commuters. I've found plenty of references to
"initial eye witnesses". What's missing is where the "Running, Heavy Coat,
Acting Suspicious, Eluding" was confirmed or attributed to some "Official".

Absent that, then it would appear to me that the *media* took commuter
interviews and have morphed those unofficial descriptions into the official
"Scotland Yard Initial Brief". When in fact, I can't find where a named
official with *any* law enforcement agency involved provided that
information. Now that investigation details have been leaked, it's being
drummed as if S.Y. was attempting a cover-up, when there's really *zero*
indication they had any intention of covering anything up. In fact, by
breifing the victim's family *during* the investigation, it looks like S.Y.
is trying to be completely straight with the facts, as they are verified.
Perhaps the media *has* been duped and is perpetuating non-factual
information that is aggravating an already tragic situation - again, not
through malice, just through shoddy, journalism. And no-one's calling them
on it (except me, of course).

-=jd=-
The ''Guardian'' article above says that Scotland Yard provided those
erroneous details. Scotland Yard is the HQ of the Municipal Police,
ain't it?