Firearms, knives, police and fellons

[IAN 2411]

There was a full (and much publicised) enquiry into the tube shooting and it was found that the police did not act appropriately and were therefore culpable. As for the table leg, I am not sure I agree with Ian on this so much. If the police are pointing guns at me, my response would be to drop everything (no matter what it is) and do what they say.

Bullshit, it was a police whitewash, i knew right from day one what the verdict would be and like so many others in the country are dismayed at how they came to a verdict of blatent stupidity. The persons that were that were supposed to be watching the flat had not been doing their job correct, in the fact that they openly stated at the inquest, they had no idea who the armed police were following. So just as a [i better save my ass atitude] they said it could be the suspect, and were told by the dumb bitch in charge of the operation, that they had permission to open fire if need be. That was brought out in the inquest that i did follow closely, unlike you fetishdj. A UK gun toting cop is just as dangerous as a bomb throwing terrorist.

I will give you example of knowing when and when not to fire. While in Belfast in Lieson street just off the Falls road, there was a riot taking place with all sorts of things being thrown. I was sitting in the back of a landrover working a radio, and a young boy of about ten years old walked up to the back of the open vehicle, and he had a molitov cocktail in his hand with the wick already alight. He pulled his hand back and said, "British soldier i am going to throw this and kill you,". I flicked of the safety catch on my Belgian FN rifle, and with my finger on the trigger put the barrel on his forehead saying, "Then let's see who will die first." We both looked at each other for a short time that felt like half my life, and then he smiled and after putting his arm down ran off. That is restraint and knowledge of the power that a fire arm gives the person carrying it, i would hate to think what would have happened if he had thrown the bomb, because i would have shot him and make no mistake about it, but i gave him the choice. Children on the Belfast streets were not only street wise but just as dangerous as the IRA. I still have dreams but not nightmares about it, but i feel that i still did the right thing, you could say that we saved each others lives.

[fetishdj]

I was not aware of disagreeing with you in any way - what I said was in support of what you said, that the police had been wrong and been found out to be wrong in that case, that there was a need for better training and procedures in police work involving firearms and that without these the police are more of a danger because a firearm in the hands of an untrained user is a liability rather than an asset.

I also think that the level of paranoia created by terrorism the past few years is excessive (and may be fuelled somewhat by government agendas such as pursuing an ID card scheme which would not stop terrorism because terrorists can easily get ID and suicide bombers will, by definition, never have 'previous' on their records) and is what is leading to incidents like the tube shooting. It is too easy to create a situation where terror and panic leads to accidents and if we allow the situation with the various middle eastern terrorists to let this to happen then they have won because they have done what they set out to do - created terror.

[Thorne]

I also think that the level of paranoia created by terrorism the past few years is excessive (and may be fuelled somewhat by government agendas such as pursuing an ID card scheme which would not stop terrorism because terrorists can easily get ID and suicide bombers will, by definition, never have 'previous' on their records) and is what is leading to incidents like the tube shooting. It is too easy to create a situation where terror and panic leads to accidents and if we allow the situation with the various middle eastern terrorists to let this to happen then they have won because they have done what they set out to do - created terror.

Don't leave out the media. They sensationalize every little threat to increase sales, never considering the effect this has on some people. And this also allows government agents to clamp down on peoples rights in the name of "safety".

[IAN 2411]

My apology fetishdj you are correct, i missread your statement, but the table leg incedent was over the top. The police were also prooved wrong in that case and paid a large sum of money to the man's imiedeate family, but the money will never bring him back. I am also lead to believe from a friend of mine, the the person with the chair leg had also been drinking, which we all know dulles the sences and slows reaction.

Regards ian 2411

[Thorne]

I am also lead to believe from a friend of mine, the the person with the chair leg had also been drinking, which we all know dulles the sences and slows reaction.

Not only that, but the way the police "attack" these situations generally involves a lot of yelling, contradictory commands from different officers, all designed to confuse and disorient perpetrators, to slow their reaction times. This also tends to ramp up the adrenaline of the officers, leading to the potential for serious problems when they lose control. Only through training can these effects be minimized, though not eliminated completely.

[MMI]

Bullshit, it was a police whitewash, i knew right from day one what the verdict would be ...

Just think of how much public money would have been saved if only the Government had thought of asking you first ...

I agree with your sentiment that the police, generally, are not adequately trained to handle firearms, but isn't that why individual policemen who do carry weapons have to pass a fairly rigorous training programme? I wouldn't expect it to be as thorough as the training given to members of the Special Forces, because they wouldn't be likely to have to use guns with the power you described your own weapon as having: most British constables have never been to Ulster and would have no need for such arms, even in a shoot-out with a bunch of bank robbers. Besides, I seem to remember the RUC was routinely armed as it had to deal with various republican movements from tme to time, and I imagine their firearm skills were as good as any.

I think the comparison between the gun handling skills of the British police with the standards expected from the Special Forces is not at all enlightening. There is a world of difference between dealing with a junkie threatening to blow out the brains of a hostage, and a hardened terrorist with 30 years' experience of ambushing and bombing British soldiers. Perhaps our American friends can tell us if they would expect a member of the NYPD to be able to handle some of the US Army's most powerful weapons as proficiently as someone in Delta Force.

I was reminded of something I was told about the Isle of Man's police force. It may be true; it's probably not, but it's amusing anyway. It seems the IoM's gun laws are pretty lax, and as a result, the police force there decided it needed an arsenal in case of need. Because the island is extremely wealthy, it was able to lash out an enormous sum of money to buy the weapons it wanted, and it duly took delivery of a mind-boggling array of weaponry. It was then realised that there was no-one on the whole force who was capable of using the weapons, or who was authorised to do so, and so, if it is necessary to ever issue weapons to deal with an "incident" they have to call a policeman from Manchester over to supervise the issue and use of the guns!!!!

[MMI]

I don't know anything about the circumstances of the person killed by a bullet fired into the air some 3 km away, but in this country I think the coroner would have to return a verdict of accidental death.

I don't think he could say the man was unlawfully killed because there was no intention to kill, nor was it reasonably foreseeable that someone would be killed. I don't even think you could say that the shooter fired recklessly, without caring whether or not someone would be killed, because it would not be within anyone's reasonable contemplation that there could be someone standing precisely where the bullet would land, so far away.

[IAN 2411]

MMI,
You are correct of course there were some police with fire arms in Ulster. The Belfast Specials or the B Specials as they came to be known, but they were disbanded, and probably a good thing it was too. Most of us thought that they were more dangerous than the , conflicting paramilitary organisations, they were like a law unto themselves.

Regards ian 2411

[Thorne]

I don't know anything about the circumstances of the person killed by a bullet fired into the air some 3 km away, but in this country I think the coroner would have to return a verdict of accidental death.

I don't think he could say the man was unlawfully killed because there was no intention to kill, nor was it reasonably foreseeable that someone would be killed. I don't even think you could say that the shooter fired recklessly, without caring whether or not someone would be killed, because it would not be within anyone's reasonable contemplation that there could be someone standing precisely where the bullet would land, so far away.

I'm not so sure about that. Regardless of his intent, his actions were reckless at best. An example can be taken from automobile accidents. A person driving responsibly, obeying the traffic laws and showing due care, would not be held responsible for someone stepping out in front of his car and being killed. A person driving at excessive speed and weaving in and out of traffic probably would. By violating the rules of safe driving he puts others at risk.

The same should apply here. If the shooter had been practicing at a range, for example, and a stray bullet killed someone, chances are it's a tragic accident. But firing a bullet into the air is reckless and a danger to the public. The person responsible should be charged with involuntary manslaughter, at least, and reckless endangerment. And there's a good chance that, even if he manages to avoid jail time, he'll be the subject of a civil suit by the victim's family.

[MMI]

That's fair comment. Is it your contention that if a gun is fired without being aimed at a specific target, and someone is killed or injured by the bullet, it is involuntary manslaughter/assault, but if it is aimed at a target and misses, it is accidental? Perhaps you are right - I'm not so sure, however.

Is your postion different where the victim is within normal range, or where, due to the weather and/or other physical conditions the bullet is carried far beyond its normal range.

Likewise, is your postion different if the victim was known by the shooter to be in the line of fire, or was not known to be there, or where the shooter couldn't have cared less whether the victim was there or not?

Another thought: where police or soldiers fire into the air to deter a crowd or to prevent a riot, are they behaving recklessly? Someone could easily be killed who was taking no part in the public disorder.

[IAN 2411]

Another thought: where police or soldiers fire into the air to deter a crowd or to prevent a riot, are they behaving recklessly? Someone could easily be killed who was taking no part in the public disorder.

Very few Police or soldiers fire their weapons over the heads od rioting crowds or other disorder. All police and soldiers that are armed are tested, and irispective of how much training they have, it is a no go area, all know the consequencies of a lose round. I am not saying that it would not happen in a third world country, but it would never happen in the Western free world, i dont think any police force or army would be that stupid. While in the army my orders were if fired on, shoot to kill, public order even in Ulster only battons were used by the army.

Regards ian 2411

[Thorne]

That's fair comment. Is it your contention that if a gun is fired without being aimed at a specific target, and someone is killed or injured by the bullet, it is involuntary manslaughter/assault, but if it is aimed at a target and misses, it is accidental?

No, I'm saying that if the gun owner is using his weapon properly, obeying all the safety requirements, and something unexpected causes a bullet to injure someone it is an accident. Firing your weapon into the air is not following safety requirements, and is therefore reckless by nature.

As another example, several years ago a young girl was tragically killed by a hockey puck when the shot was deflected into the crowd. Is the player who shot the puck responsible? What about the player who deflected the puck? Legally, as determined in the case, neither was held legally responsible. They were participating in the sport and doing what they were supposed to be doing. If, however, a player for some reason should deliberately shoot the puck into the stands and kills someone, even if he claimed to be aiming at empty seats, he would be held responsible because he was not conforming to the rules of safety or of the game.

Is your postion different where the victim is within normal range, or where, due to the weather and/or other physical conditions the bullet is carried far beyond its normal range.

Again, the question is whether or not the firearm was discharged in a reasonably safe manner following legal guidelines. Under any conditions, firing one's weapon into the air is unsafe.

Likewise, is your postion different if the victim was known by the shooter to be in the line of fire, or was not known to be there, or where the shooter couldn't have cared less whether the victim was there or not?

This is more to the point. If, for example, the shooter was on a legal firing range and knew that the victim was in the line of fire then yes, he would be responsible for discharging his weapon in an unsafe manner. The fact that someone is in the line of fire makes it an unsafe condition. If he did not, and could not, know that the victim were there, say the victim was hiding behind some targets, then he could not be held liable, though the range owner might be for allowing such a situation to occur.

Another thought: where police or soldiers fire into the air to deter a crowd or to prevent a riot, are they behaving recklessly? Someone could easily be killed who was taking no part in the public disorder.

Yes, I would consider this to be reckless and unsafe. I am not aware of any police departments which would condone such an action, though, certainly not in the US. I would presume that most police officers would not discharge their weapons in such a manner. Those that would should probably not be police officers.

Soldiers, on the other hand, might not be trained to avoid this kind of behavior, especially when they are being used as an auxiliary to the police, such as in a riot. It's still unsafe, however, and the soldiers should be held accountable.

[IAN 2411]

[QUOTE=MMI;

Another thought: where police or soldiers fire into the air to deter a crowd or to prevent a riot, are they behaving recklessly? Someone could easily be killed who was taking no part in the public disorder.[/QUOTE]

Very few Police or soldiers fire their weapons over the heads of rioting crowds or other disorder. All police and soldiers that are armed are tested, and irrespective of how much training they have, it is a no go area, all know the consequences of a loose round. I am not saying that it would not happen in a third world country, but it would never happen in the Western free world, I don’t think any police force or army would be that stupid. While in the army my orders were if fired on, shoot to kill, public order even in Ulster only batons were used by the army.

Regards ian 2411

Soldiers, on the other hand, might not be trained to avoid this kind of behavior, especially when they are being used as an auxiliary to the police, such as in a riot. It's still unsafe, however, and the soldiers should be held accountable.

I have quoted myself in this post, because I don’t think that it was read by you Thorn before you wrote the paragraph above. Have you been in the forces? If you have then you have never done United Nations duty? All soldiers of the NATO alliance are trained in home security, IE : - rioting, looting and disorder. I would think that even your own Marines would have been taught the basics of policing, and to make that remark is insulting to your own forces and that of the UKs from where this discussion started. Firing into the air has nothing to do with not being trained to avoid this behaviour, because that order would never be given, as it is pure stupidity and is done through ignorance. Soldiers would not be accountable in the western world because it would never happen, and just to make a point. In Ulster where the British army was policing, all shots fired by the troops were at legitimate targets, but in a riot or disorders a firearm was never used because of harming innocent bystanders.

Regards ian 2411

[DuncanONeil]

I would like to point out that two times that were talked about afterwards the supposed terrorist shot three times on the train in London, by the Met Police. They gave him no chance, and all because the idiots hadn't seen him leave the flat, they had not done their homework. The people in the train spoke against the police saying that there was no warning. Please for god sake dont come back and say well he could have been, it was safer to be sure than sorry. It is like hanging someone for murder, and then finding out the man had the right name but it was a different man with that name that carried out the crime.

Entirely possible. Never said mistakes do not happen. But at the same time you can not extrapolate on the basis of the exception. And the previous message was posulating generalities based on a very small sample.

The man on the station with the wrapped up table leg, the police shouted out, [now listen carefully] put the rifel on the floor and step away, second warning if you dont put the rifel doown i will open fire, Bang, one man dead carrying a wrapped up table leg. Now the reason for this is, if you are not carrying a rifle then there is not a lot of chance that you know what trigger happy plod is talking about. The police were only there because a member of the public said they thought he had a rifle.

Regardless of what the inquest said I will fault the citizen in this case. If he was so obtuse as to believe that his package could not be perceived as something other than what it was. If, perchance, the citizen thought the reference was to someone else to just stand there was also foolish. Either responding to the officer, or getting out of the line of fire of the "rifleman" by going prone would have altered the outcome.

The army over in Northern Ireland were on security roll and that of policing the province, at no time were the army on a war footing with them, we were nothing more than armed police.

Regards ian2411

Security role or not they still have rules of engagement. Military does not go live ammo with out a briefing on what they can do when. Even snipers in Iraq are not on free fire. They must call up chain for permission.

[DuncanONeil]

I understand, all to well, about appropriate reactions to cops. Well in the past I had a female dog in heat that I was walking. A bit before restrictive leash laws. As she was in heat I took my personal nightstick out just in case some randy male dog showed up.
Playing with the dog I was hiding alongside a building when a squad drove down the street, stopped, backed-up, officer got out and proceeded around the back of the car. I noted that his weapon, not readily visible, was no longer in his holster. My reaction I dropped the nightstick.

Hard to convince him I was walking a dog and the reason for the stick until I was able to whistle up the dog.

Being stupid with a cop is not a reasonable course of action!

There was a full (and much publicised) enquiry into the tube shooting and it was found that the police did not act appropriately and were therefore culpable. As for the table leg, I am not sure I agree with Ian on this so much. If the police are pointing guns at me, my response would be to drop everything (no matter what it is) and do what they say. You can discuss the specifics later and even take the police to court for mental anguish or similar but at least you CAN do that rather than having to rely on your bereaved family to do it.

Though there is always the panic... I did a personality test recently which said that I have the sort of personality which reacts well to crisis (thinking rationally rather than irrationally) so I am more likely to think clearly unlike some who may do something stupid and maybe the police need to think about those who react that way and take that into account.

[DuncanONeil]

Bullshit, it was a police whitewash, i knew right from day one what the verdict would be and like so many others in the country are dismayed at how they came to a verdict of blatent stupidity. The persons that were that were supposed to be watching the flat had not been doing their job correct, in the fact that they openly stated at the inquest, they had no idea who the armed police were following. So just as a [i better save my ass atitude] they said it could be the suspect, and were told by the dumb bitch in charge of the operation, that they had permission to open fire if need be. That was brought out in the inquest that i did follow closely, unlike you fetishdj. A UK gun toting cop is just as dangerous as a bomb throwing terrorist.

I think ian is a bit confused here. Fetish, I believe, indicated that the inquest found the police culpable in the tube shooting and Ian claims that he knew from the start it would be a whitewash? Ian, you do know that culpable means responsible. Or to be more blunt "meriting condemnation or blame especially as wrong or harmful"

I will give you example of knowing when and when not to fire. While in Belfast in Lieson street just off the Falls road, there was a riot taking place with all sorts of things being thrown. I was sitting in the back of a landrover working a radio, and a young boy of about ten years old walked up to the back of the open vehicle, and he had a molitov cocktail in his hand with the wick already alight. He pulled his hand back and said, "British soldier i am going to throw this and kill you,". I flicked of the safety catch on my Belgian FN rifle, and with my finger on the trigger put the barrel on his forehead saying, "Then let's see who will die first." We both looked at each other for a short time that felt like half my life, and then he smiled and after putting his arm down ran off. That is restraint and knowledge of the power that a fire arm gives the person carrying it, i would hate to think what would have happened if he had thrown the bomb, because i would have shot him and make no mistake about it, but i gave him the choice. Children on the Belfast streets were not only street wise but just as dangerous as the IRA. I still have dreams but not nightmares about it, but i feel that i still did the right thing, you could say that we saved each others lives.

And what would have done were he 30 feet away, said and done the same thing?

[DuncanONeil]

Getting a little pendantic I know but.

"Reckless homicide is the killing of another person by a reckless act. In some states, involuntary manslaughter committed by use of a motor vehicle is called reckless homicide. Laws governing reckless homicide vary by jurisdiction.

In general, "recklessly" means that a person acts recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding the conduct or the result of the conduct when the person is aware of, but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person's standpoint."

It would not be hard, in my opinion, to conclude that firing a weapon in the air is a reckless act.

I don't know anything about the circumstances of the person killed by a bullet fired into the air some 3 km away, but in this country I think the coroner would have to return a verdict of accidental death.

I don't think he could say the man was unlawfully killed because there was no intention to kill, nor was it reasonably foreseeable that someone would be killed. I don't even think you could say that the shooter fired recklessly, without caring whether or not someone would be killed, because it would not be within anyone's reasonable contemplation that there could be someone standing precisely where the bullet would land, so far away.

[DuncanONeil]

I would think that even your own Marines would have been taught the basics of policing, and to make that remark is insulting to your own forces

Regards ian 2411

US troops are not taught the skills and techniques of policing, unless that happens to be their specialty, i.e. MPs and SPs. Even in the Air Force even that job is subdivided into "security" and "law enforcement"
To put it in the simplest terms possible the job of the military is to blow things up and kill people. Neither of those is the role of the police.

Peacekeeping missions are a different animal altogether!

[MMI]

OK - I accept it is reckless to fire a gun into the air, and that a person should pay the consequences for whatever reasonably foreseeable harm results from shooting into the sky. I confess I am utterly ignorant about guns and their handling. I can see that it is quite possible that injury or death might result from firing over the heads of rioters (rather than upwards). But is it a reasonably foreseeable consequence that someone three kilometres away and at right angles to the line of fire is going to be hit by a bullet shot into the sky? Wouldn't the shooter be more concerned by those directly underneath the point in the sky the shot was pointed towards?

Is your postion different where the victim is within normal range, or where, due to the weather and/or other physical conditions the bullet is carried far beyond its normal range.

Again, the question is whether or not the firearm was discharged in a reasonably safe manner following legal guidelines. Under any conditions, firing one's weapon into the air is unsafe.

I have accepted that firing into the air is unsafe and potentially culpable. However, are you saying that, because I have fired it, I must accept the consequences even if the death could not have resulted but for the effect of additional factors. Let us imagine that I fire tha gun into the air where conditions are apparently normal for the location. However, higher in the atmosphere, winds are unusually strong. In ascending, the bullet I have fired is deflected from the vertical to some extent, and in descending the bullet, its power spent, is deflected a bit more. Just as it is about to hit the ground, the victim moves into its path and is killed by the energy the bullet has gathered in its fall. Now I, as the shooter, must be aware that some "drift" will occur, but where the bullet lands far beyond the normal range of "drift", can I not defend myself by saying that, but for the effect of the strong winds at altitude and the extra energy gathered by the falling bullet, the death could not have occurred? Perhaps there is a mathematician here who could calculate the area around the point of firing within which it would be reasonable to expect the bullet to land.

Otherwise, you seem to be saying that, even if the bullet was carried by freak winds to Australia and killed someone there, I would be wholly responsible.

(I suppose I should state that I am assuming that for a person to be killed by a bullet 3 km from the shooter is an extraordinary occurrence and beyond the gun's normal range.)

[IAN 2411]

Do you know Duncan i will take your posts as the ramblings of a fool, because if you had read all the posts, instead of the ones you want to comment on, you would have realised that in the forth post from the top i apologised to fetishdj for my mistake, dont call me confused at least i can read.

2/ The Man was found at the inquest to be three times over the limit for alcohol, he hadn't a clue what the police were talking about, and if you had read the forth post you would have seen that in there also.

3/ If you had read one of my earlier posts, you would also have seen where i explained the rules of engagement in Ulster. I wont duplicate the post i will let you use your eyes and read it yourself.

4/ If that boy had been thirty feet away he would have been shot dead by my mates on the main street, the British army do not put their comunications in the line of fire, this boy came out of a house in the blocked street were my vehicle was. Because at the same time the riot was going on, there was a tompson machine gun being fired at the British troops. In answer to your question; would i have said and done the same thing if he had been thirty feet away? Don't take the piss out of me, i am not in this thread to be insulted and made to look stupid by you. If you can do no better than come into a thread, and ridicule people, then i think it best if you stay out.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

As Northern Ireland does not reflect the British Army's most glorious period, I do not think it is appropriate to compare police ineptitude or incompetence in killing innocent individuals with the reprehensible behaviour of the British Army in Ulster, where it not only took part in incidents like Bloody Sunday, but colluded with Loyalist paramilitaries to create, train and arm murder squads, and then gave them the freedom to operate and escape. It's hard for me to criticise the USA's Republican supporters, or Colonel Gadaffi for financing the PIRA when the British Army itself sponsored Loyalist terrorism.

The British police do not sponsor crime or arrange for dangerous criminals to be murdered. They just fuck up now and then.

If a child holding a lit petrol bomb appeared likely to toss it towards a British soldier back in those days, I'm quite sure he would have been shot before the bomb left his hand, and I think ian confirms this. Fortunately, in ian's case, he managed to talk the child out of it. But I doubt he was following standard procedure and I commend him for his action. (Soldiers are not the same as the Army.)

[DuncanONeil]

MMI;

Even if a person were to fire directly up at a 90 degree angle the bullet will still fall to the east of where fired. But few people actuall take such foolish action at a precise 90% vertical angle!

[DuncanONeil]

I apologise but you assumption is incorrect. I deal with each message as it comes across the screen. And since I usually try to measure my time here it is in my best interests to respond to material as it comes across my desk.

Do you know Duncan i will take your posts as the ramblings of a fool, because if you had read all the posts, instead of the ones you want to comment on, you would have realised that in the forth post from the top i apologised to fetishdj for my mistake, dont call me confused at least i can read.

2/ The Man was found at the inquest to be three times over the limit for alcohol, he hadn't a clue what the police were talking about, and if you had read the forth post you would have seen that in there also.

3/ If you had read one of my earlier posts, you would also have seen where i explained the rules of engagement in Ulster. I wont duplicate the post i will let you use your eyes and read it yourself.

4/ If that boy had been thirty feet away he would have been shot dead by my mates on the main street, the British army do not put their comunications in the line of fire, this boy came out of a house in the blocked street were my vehicle was. Because at the same time the riot was going on, there was a tompson machine gun being fired at the British troops. In answer to your question; would i have said and done the same thing if he had been thirty feet away? Don't take the piss out of me, i am not in this thread to be insulted and made to look stupid by you. If you can do no better than come into a thread, and ridicule people, then i think it best if you stay out.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

... Under any conditions, firing one's weapon into the air is unsafe.

I would suggest that under any conditions, firing one's weapon at all is unsafe. But it happens. Doing unsafe things is neither illegal nor punishable in itself.

Does anyone know how and why the bullet in the case we are discussing managed to travel 3 km before landing?

[IAN 2411]

MMI,

In no way was i gloryfying Northern Ireland, and what you say about the British sponsering the Loyalists, well that is debateable, a few things have come up in the press about it, there were questions in parliment, but there have been no admissions. This all started with refference to the responsabilities of the police with weapons, and the army doing police duties, and untill it is second nature for a policeman to have a firearm, there will always be unlawfull killings in the UK. In answer to your point, no i wasn't following procedure, i am afraid if any of my mates had come around the corner, while his arm was in the air, he would not have been alive now.

I believe it was the police experts that said it was that distance, it was an AK47, and that was the max range at 45 degrees.

Duncan,

The round falling in the east, i would never have thought of that.

Regards ian 2411

[Thorne]

I have quoted myself in this post, because I don’t think that it was read by you Thorn before you wrote the paragraph above. Have you been in the forces?

No, I have never served in the military, though two of my brothers have. They were never trained for police-type duties, only for military duties. But I did say that they might not have that type of training, because we are talking about more than just the USA or UK armed forces, aren't we? I'm including National Guard troops in this category, which are much more extensively used for policing duties, and they do not receive the same kind of training as police. So, while I'm sure that SOME military forces may be trained for these kinds of situations, not ALL would be.

[IAN 2411]

I would like to point out that i remember a lecture before i went to the province of Northern Ireland, firing over the heads of a crowd is a misguided way of putting fear into the crowd. It is however normally the military or police that are in fear of the crown getting worse. I believe it does happen when there is rioting in some South American countries, but i think that is also misguided because the rioters are their own brothers and sisters or the like, and it useually accurs when they have been ordered to fire on the crowd.

Regards ian 2411

[TantricSoul]

Gentlemen and Ladies,

A reminder from your friendly neighborhood moderator:

KEEP YOUR POSTS ON TOPIC, AND CEASE ATTACKING EACH OTHER. YOU ARE ALL INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO STATE YOUR OPINIONS AND FACTS WITHOUT RESORTING TO INSULTING EACH OTHER. IF YOU CAN"T PLAY NICELY YOU WONT BE PLAYING.

Seriously by attacking others you only harm your own interests and image.

Running out of patience,
TS