Posts by Michael

Brits 'a bunch of yellow bastards', says irate Yank

LOL

While I agree that the man pictured in the story gives off a bad impression, and I'm not sure of the background to the story, I'm utterly amazed that folk s in the UK actually embrace the loss of the right to defend yourself, forcefully if necessary, against either criminally engaged civilians or... wait for it... oppressive government. Did you not see the utility in personal arms when the United States broke away from the mother country? Do you feel your government will never need to be persuaded, again forcefully if necessary, to do something against the will of the citizens? 'Military Firearms' are indeed meant to kill people. The 2nd Amendment in the US does not protect hunting, although, guess what? Hunting and 'military firearms' perform the exact same task, regardless of how much plastic, wood, black anodizing, or pink pastel paint you throw on it. It protects the right of the people to personally and individually own a tool which may be used to overturn an oppressive regime. I guarantee this post will get flamed, but really people. Just open your eyes a bit.

Snipers - Cowardly assassins, or surgical soldiers?

Thanks

At first, I was irate at the introduction to this article. To consider calling a military sniper a 'coward' is not only short sighted and misinformed, but downright insulting. These men and women put themselves, alone, in the worst environments for days at a time with no backup, and return with little to no fanfare when their mission is complete. To call any members of the armed forces 'cowardly' when they are doing their part to ensure YOUR protection, while you can sit down and write an article when your biggest threat is spilling your chai tea mint latte and ruining your pleatless khakis, is itself cowardly.

Thankfully, the introduction alluded to the exact opposite of the rest of the article. Thanks for that.

Student taser victim spared electric chair

Appropriate force, indeed

I know much of the Reg's comment appear to be from the UK, so I'll take this opportunity to provide the standard operating procedure of a taser by an LEO (Law Enforcement Officer).

1. To control a dangerous or violent subject when deadly force does not appear to be justified and/or necessary;

(The subject was deemed NOT ARMED, and the officer who had his firearm drawn quickly holstered it after acknowledging this fact. Deadly force was not required. Proceed.)

2. If attempts to subdue the subject by other conventional tactics have been, or will likely be, ineffective in the situation at hand; or

(The subject continued to resist arrest after first refusing to leave the premises under his own power and then escalating the situation by belligerently continuing to make a scene. This is considered 'disturbing the peace' and is an arrestable offense.)

3. If there is reasonable expectation that it will be unsafe for officers to approach within contact range of the subject, see also the Use of Force continuum, Attachment A..

(The subjects hands were not visible during this entire fiasco, and while it was unlikely he was carrying a weapon, an LEO will not assume that risk. Additionally, he was attempting to kick and otherwise strike the officers while being escorted out. This is considered an unsafe situation.)

The LEOs were within their rights to apply the use of taser equipment in this situation. LEOs equipped with tasers are required (by federal law) to be tased themselves during training, for a better understanding of what the effects will be.

Many of our counterparts are quick to call 'police state' when something like this happens, but I make the suggestion that you are misinformed or refuse to be informed, therefore jumping to conclusions that are false.

Dawn on its way to the asteroid belt

200,000 miles of rock

Since when is a 'mile' a standard for measuring mass or volume?