"Kinsella was killed on May 5, 2018, by a masked gunman on a bicycle wearing a high-visibility vest."
I guess the bright orange/yellow bike drew some attention too.
Avid runner and hitman Mark Fellows was this week found guilty of murder after being grassed up by his Garmin watch. Fellows, 38, was convicted of the murder of two men by Liverpool Crown Court in England. His accomplice, Steven Boyle, 36, said to have served as a spotter in one of the killings, was also convicted of murder. …
Has just been written!
The "cop" (it's always just one) will be a cross between Jason Bourne and Hercule Poirot. After a short but violent fight he will notice the Garmin watch from the glow of it's screen, hidden behind a book about Liverpool football club.
Back at the "station" he will put the watch on some sort of "connected desk" and watch as the entire room fills with "data" from the watch much like one of those "star maps" that R2-D2 and BB-8 go beaming around in Star Wars.
Using arm gestures much like those in Minority Report he will sweep his way through all sorts of "in depth" fitness data before narrowing his gaze on one specific set of maps.
Cut to a scene of the guilty party being led into a cell by the hero cop screaming and cursing the name Garmin at the top of his lungs.
After said advert has gone viral, been claimed to be anti-police, anti-male, anti-fitness, anti-privacy, pro-police, pro-life, pro-grassing-up-people, been vilified by by 4-Chan and the so called "incel" community for reasons not recognisable by any sane person, Garmin will be sued by some crazed loon of a lawyer in New York Supreme Court on behalf of "removal men" all over the world (but not women, oh no, they want nothing to do with it, mainly because they aren't stupid enough to wear/carry anything that can track them when they are working) and all that will happen is that Garmin get the case dismissed and the loony lawyer disappears. Only to turn up in Russia as a "guest of the FSB" and becomes a reluctant, but repeated, guest "legal expert" on RT every time they want someone to moan about the British/American/German (add or delete as needed) legal system.
If you actually have something to hide, like your whereabouts as a professional killer, having something on you that can link you to a crime scene is exactly the thing you should avoid.
So, to all professional hitmen out there : when you're on the job, take nothing electronic with you. Have a normal watch, without any Internet connection. Lose the phone, it is literally a legal snitch. If you are into physical fitness, by all means use your Fitbit, but not when going anywhere near a potential target. On the contrary, give it to a friend who'll run for you while you take out a target, giving you a potential alibi.
And use a GPS that cannot talk to anything. Erase all location history when you're done with your surveillance. When you go on the hit, you should know the area well enough to not need it because if something goes wrong and you're on the run, you won't have time to look at a screen to know where to go.
Think, people, think.
>Think, people, think.
What happens when they do - if the fitness tracker you always wear is elsewhere jogging, it can't be you. If ANPR is picking up your car in Timbuktu and you're texting your mum a picture of an aardvark - you're off the hook. Alibis have never been so easy.
Maybe the idea was to use a stolen or otherwise disposable bike / hi-vis vest so any witnesses would focus on the disposable identifying marks (that could then be rapidly disposed of) rather than the more permanent ones?
Using ones' own highly noticeable bicycle would be rather stupid, even before we get to the stupidity of having his GPS tracker on and with him...
Actually the best way is to leave your devices at home and if are going to use a phone, use a burner phone paid for in cash and thrown away after the job. Also, do not carry anything with you when you buy the burner phone. Also, remember surveillance cameras are everywhere and the flatfeet often only have to ask to get the video as the owners will often give a copy to help them. Also have an alibi ready that will fit the footage and GPS evidence.
No, a super grass is the person who made the phone call to the coppers ...
"Good afternoon officer. One is speaking to one. A gentleman called Phileeep, who I do not know at all, has just taken one's Range Rover for a jolly jaunt on one's highway and the silly oaf has failed to put one's seat belt on. One is making this report anonymously on the telephonic apparatus such that one's crown will not cause one to be recognised by a member of one's Police Force as one does not wish to be known for the rest of one's life as a grass. Charles - of whom I have no knowledge - would never let it lie, unless of course one abdicated.'
I remember reading Stephenson's book 'Zodiac" (an amusing 'eco-thriller' -
“I had to ride slow because I was taking my guerrilla route, the one I follow when I assume that everyone in a car is out to get me. My nighttime attitude is, anyone can run you down and get away with it. Why give some drunk the chance to plaster me against a car? That's why I don't even own a bike light, or one of those godawful reflective suits. Because if you've put yourself in a position where someone has to see you in order for you to be safe--to see you, and to give a fuck--you've already blown it... We had a nice ride through the darkness. On those bikes we were weak and vulnerable, but invisible, elusive, aware of everything within a two-block radius.”
@TrumpSlurp the Troll
..."all this "safety" gear doesn't make you safer. It just makes you feel invulnerable and encourages you to do stupid things!"
That applies to people in vehicles as well. The safer cars are made, the more reckless people seem to become, as they assume that they will not be hurt/killed should they be involved in an accident. Hence the argument against wearing seatbelts, for instance, as the belief is that the airbag will protect you against harm.
Ditto for people in cars that are close to self-drive (like Teslas) - a seemingly utter belief that the car will sort itself out.
as the belief is that the airbag will protect you against harm.
Too true. There's even a formal medical term for the pattern of fractures across face, ribs and arms that are the common result of having your life saved by an airbag. It's better than being dead but you're still looking at weeks in hospital.
(Hey, El Reg, can we have a Crash Test Dummy icon, please?)
@TrumpSlurp the Troll "safety" gear doesn't make you safer. It just makes you feel invulnerable"
I don't like wearing a snowboard helmet, and last time I went snowboarding, my lack of helmet was remarked upon by my fellow board chums,.... they were rather surprised to hear that despite the prevalence of helmet wearing on the slopes these days, the incidence of serious head injury hasn't really changed. Research backs up your claim, with too many noobs hitting the board park and trying jumps when they haven't got the skill.
Now, I do have a helmet, and I will wear it when I deem it necessary, but for the most part, I value peripheral vision and unencumbered head movement more.
A staff member of ours came off her bike on her way home, a few years back. (Pothole). Only a week before I'd seen her riding without her helmet during the day and instructed her that if she was travelling in work time she had to wear a helmet. ( I think I'd pointed out how much paperwork she'd cause me if she got badly injured).
This time she had her helmet on. She actually came and thanked me.
"Dawinism"? Never heard of it. Though apparently...
"Dawin Polanco (born 12 December 1990), who records under the mononym Dawin, is an American singer, songwriter, and record producer from Brooklyn, New York. He is best known for the song "Dessert", which reached number 68 on the Billboard Hot 100."
I'm sorry, but I just don't see the relevance here. Unless that was the guy's number 68 hit. Or are you saying he got his just desserts?
"Whilst the UK has stabbings virtually every (other) day and acid attacks. So I'm not entirely sure what your point drives home."
(I'm not the original poster)
The point is that whilst violent crime still occurs (as there are still violent people), it happens at the individual level not to a whole crowd in one go.
Why do people not get it? We all agree that guns don't kill, people do, but that's just a huge straw man. If someone intends to kill, give them the least effective/indiscriminate weapon possible. Gun control is not about stopping violence, but about reducing the scale when it occurs.
Also the temptation, or dare I say it, the convenience. Most people don't have ready access to acid, you have to actually go and get the stuff with intent. And kitchen knives are pretty lethal but most people don't routinely carry them (though it seems as if too many do - the police have had knife arches at Finchley Central station) and you have to get up close to use them on someone.
"Why do people not get it? We all agree that guns don't kill, people do, but that's just a huge straw man. If someone intends to kill, give them the least effective/indiscriminate weapon possible. Gun control is not about stopping violence, but about reducing the scale when it occurs."
How odd. It would seem that they result will be to encourage the use of more effective, deadlier, and less discriminate methods like flammable liquids and matches, or vehicles, which have proved far deadlier than guns, save in the hands of the most methodical and skilled shooters.
If you want a lot of casualties, burn down a crowded building, preferably where people have been drinking, or find a crowded street and use a vehicle. The smart thing to do is encourage people to use guns, and keep the kill count way down, in comparison. Don't set them looking at the alternatives because guns are too hard to get.
In Canada, at least, the police support gun control... not because it will disarm drug dealers and other real criminals, they know better... but because it will make it safer for the police when they do other tasks, like answering domestic violence complaints.
This isn't a bad thing, because making the police hesitant about addressing domestic violence complaints is bad for women... and making it necessary for them to respond like police in the U.S. to encounters could also be bad, even lethal, for women.
>And if I've read the figures right you are more likely to be shot by a toddler in the US than by anyone with a gun in the UK.
That's ok though leftpondians, Secret service rules mean that a protectee cannot go packing. At least you're safe from Trump.
@AC : "Whilst the UK has stabbings virtually every (other) day and acid attacks."
Country Region Subregion Rate Count Year listed Source
United Kingdom Europe Northern Europe 1.20 791 2016 CTS
United States Americas Northern America 5.35 17,250 2016 NP/UNSDC/CTS
Giving the USA over four times the overall homicide rate, compared to the UK. That's _rate_ before anyone says anything about the larger population. So, Kleck et al came up with some BS 'gun defense' stats, so why aren't your guns preventing these homicides via 'defensive gun use' hmmm?
"Giving the USA over four times the overall homicide rate, compared to the UK. That's _rate_ before anyone says anything about the larger population. So, Kleck et al came up with some BS 'gun defense' stats, so why aren't your guns preventing these homicides via 'defensive gun use' hmmm?"
It is entirely possible that they are - there is no way for you to tell from such superficial data.
A look at comparative gun laws, availability of guns, and murder rates by country makes it clear that murder rates are not tightly coupled to gun availability, and do not drop reliably in response to stringent or even draconian gun laws. Culture and circumstance are critical drivers.
Fully automatic weapons are far more common in Switzerland and Israel than the United States (though not recorded in gun ownership data because they are not 'owned' but are on loan from the government) - something to remember when looking at statistics, but this does not seem to increase the rate of gun related homicides.
On the other hand, both Mexico and Haiti have very restrictive gun laws - in the case of Haiti, quite draconian - but high levels of firearms homicides.
Furthermore, for cultural reasons, British criminals seldom armed with guns, whereas for American criminals it is extremely common. Note that many of those guns are owned in defiance of gun laws, and some of the areas with the strictest gun laws also have the highest rates of gang violence and armed crime (look at the numbers for Chicago, or Washington, DC).
In contrast, New Hampshire allows purchase and possession of any firearm without licence, permit, or registration... and NH comes in 39th out of 50 states for rate of firearms deaths... the lowest quartile. Concealed carry of a loaded handgun requires applying for a permit from the local chief of police, which must be issued within 14 days unless a specific reason such as insanity or severe addiction is cited. While this is not totally unregulated, it is definitely on the less restrictive side, with no apparent ill effects.
I will note that in the absence of state laws, US federal law still restricts ownership of machine guns, and requires them to be licensed.
So many fallacies in your post, it's almost like you've never discussed this before and had them debunked. Here we go again.
Go look at the Kleck stats. Then look at FBI crime rates, See if the numbers add up. If Kleck's stats are anywhere near accurate, the modern USA is a crime pit. Oddly, if you take the Kleck stats as being real, gun owners are crime magnets, reporting attempted muggings etc many more times than unarmed citizens. Or they are paranoid, and draw if someone looks at them funny.
Murder rates by country and gun laws,.. here you are wrong. The UK has strict gun laws and very low murder rates by firearm. Since firearms were restricted post Dunblane we've had zero, that's zero, mass shootings. Our laws were in response to firearms crime, with trophy weapons being brought to the UK after the World Wars, Australia has restricted firearms similarly, guess what? Same result.
The Swiss fallacy! Alive and well on the Internet! The Swiss have National Service, so a vastly larger proportion of the populace have basic training, and are actually taught how to use, and respect a firearm. While it's true reservists keep a rifle at home (skewing the figures) they didn't really have access to ammunition, it was kept sealed, and was inspected, with stringent penalties. Now this is not the case, ammunition is not stored at home and will be issued in case of National emergency.
Mexico has high rate of gun crime, and restrictive gun laws, well, can you work out why? Why do you assume that laws are the cause, and not the reaction? If there is a strict law, it's a reaction to crime, if there are relaxed laws, it's a reaction to low crime, you have to take your blinkers off here.
No, British criminals not using firearms is not 'cultural', culturally, Highwaymen would stick a pistol in your face and take your goods. We have low gun crime because guns are hard to obtain, it really is that simple.
Blah blah New Hampshire,... low crime makes them feel safe to be able to legislate that way. If the crime rate changes significantly, expect the law to follow.
"Fusillade" is a synonym for gunfight. It is already not very appropriate here because there was no fight. It was an execution.
On top of that,we are asked to contemplate a "fusillade of bullets". Killers rarely go out of their way to make their guns shoot something else than bullet. Using a paintball rifle as a murder weapon is quite unpractical.
El Reg used to be tightly edited and proof-read. What's going on?
" a fusillade is a simultaneous and continuous firing from multiple firearms at a target or group of targets"
Correct, it doesn't require multiple parties exchanging fire. Even the 'continuous' condition isn't necessary, one round of simultaneous fire also counts as a fusillade. I believe it evolved from a battlefield term restricted to rifles (fusil) being simultaneously fired, to being most commonly associated with a firing squad. In Italian, the term 'fucilata' can also be used for a single shot from a single rifle.
"El Reg used to be tightly edited and proof-read. What's going on?"
I don't know, but can I have some of whatever it is you've been smoking?
The editor has always been down the pub, and proof reading amounts to checking the ABV of the various drinks consumed (occasionally)
It’s true, on every corner, danger lurks, stabbers, acid fiends and associated n’er do wells. The only strawman however, is the democide on the US population in the last century, through lack of gun-control that equals, the total loss of life in all wars worldwide in history. #factscombined
I found myself driving past a major police operation years ago & wondered what it was all about, three days later I found it was my ex-boss being arrested.
His brother went into the cop shop with his gf on a unrelated matter around the same time & found themselves swiftly detained for a number of hours on suspicions of being accessories.
My folks live in a "bad area" so bad its even in a report on "defective housing development designs" or something along those lines. Not to mention about 70% of the residents are on something or dealing something, yet my mum refuses to move saying "same folk all over" "be the same in any street" (I gave up with her a long time ago)
I went to turn their car around (cars parked everywhere so a 3 point turn not on the books), came to a junction, police coming the other way so went the long way around, kept bumping into the same cops for whatever reason. Result I get pulled over and some intense questioning as why I was trying to avoid them, along with them checking my background, if the car was insured etc....
Couldn't seem to get that I was simply turning my parents car around and through coincedence kept encountering them at various junctions etc.
Yet when I lived in that street, and someone vandialised my car the response was "I could do something but they'd just come back again and do worse so shut up" Pretty damned sure that cop was crooked (then again many in the local area, one had a rep for asssaulting suspects, was allowed to "retire" and through union legal support somehow got off with ABH on a cuffed suspect)
Then turned out they had been turning a blind eye to a family down the street dealing heroin for years on end, probably for "information" i.e. removing the competition.
Father still works for the local authority, despite his wife and son both being convicted for drug dealing (though funny enough he was the one driving around in the early hours and stopping at various drug dens)
Making a throat-cutting gesture and mouthing the word 'grass' - that's witness tampering, and making death threats. He should be facing additional charges, and given a lengthy consecutive sentence for them, so that at least his first parole eligibility will be further delayed.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022