Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Considering that police can only open fire if they believe that either their own life or the lives of the public are in danger (and even then I believe it's shoot to incapacitate, not shoot to kill), the fact that powell didn't kill lucy when she was banging on the car windows should've instantly alerted any police in the area (assuming that there was at least one officer there, because there actually wasn't) to the fact that it wasn't real if the charade looked real enough when they were running up to the car.

"I'm an axe maniac! But i'm just gunna tap your windscreen a bit and ignore the woman covered in ketchup I was just chasing."

Then there's always the use of a tazer instead, which would've been more likely than a gun (which given the proximity between powell, lucy and the kids in the car would've been a risky last resort).

But all we can do is speculate. UK policing is very different from USA policing; there wasn't an officer in the area at the time and nobody was actually in any real danger.

Deadshane1 wrote:
....because any cop that would've shot him dead wouldnt care about the life he took after realising it was just a prank.

If you're taking someone's life, then you should be emotionally ready for the proposition that you're making a mistake in doing so. If you cannot handle that, then you shouldn't be taking someone's life.

Deadshane1 wrote:
Wake up. Irresponsible actions such as what this guy (and girl) performed have the ability to disrupt people's lives. That's a right you DONT have, and IS ABSOLUTELY worth a jail sentence.

Performing in public like you're an axe weilding maniac about to kill someone can be traumatic to people. Perhaps those people are pussies or old, young, stupid or whatever, but they have rights just the same.

What about the 90 year old woman that witnesses this, has a heart attack and dies out of fear?

What about the 5 year old looking out the window that doesnt understand and has nightmares for weeks waking up screaming about the "bloody axe-man"?

What about the cop that just took the guys life trying to "protect the innocent". Killing someone has an effect on the protector, or it can.

What about the traffic accident that could've been caused by this prank?

The list goes on, all of which could be avoided by some guy and girl not acting like immature idiots. Sure anything else can potentially cause heart attacks, nightmares or traffic accidents...but why add this act of idiocy into the mix? It's something that's easily avoided by people acting the way they should.

It's why there are laws against this sort of thing.

The 90-year-old was likely going to die soon anyway, so why should we be bothered by her issues? It isn't as though she was going to contribute a significant amount to my social comfort.

The 5-year-old will cope. Everyone has nightmares when they are children, and often they are not significant.

I've already mentioned why the cop is irrelevant.

More broadly, I'm not aware of anyone possessing a right to be free from fear. If that were the case, one would expect a sort of Communist state in which all futures were sustained by state guarantee.

dogma wrote:

The 90-year-old was likely going to die soon anyway, so why should we be bothered by her issues? It isn't as though she was going to contribute a significant amount to my social comfort.

The 5-year-old will cope. Everyone has nightmares when they are children, and often they are not significant.

.

So because someone is older and more frail, or younger, they dont have a right to peaceful existance.

That's brilliant.

Interesting to know you'd not care much if a grandmother died or your child wakes up screaming in the middle of the night.

"Grandma was going to die soon anyway."

"Go back to sleep baby, little Johnny can cry himself to sleep, he'll be fine."

Dissmissive? Uncaring? Ignorant of other people's rights? I'd say so.

The 90-year-old was likely going to die soon anyway,

This little tidbit deserves it's own response. This is the dumbest statement I've seen anyone post in a long time. Congratulations, you've won the award for most moronic post online this month. I'm sure the family and friends of the deceased would be comforted when you point this out to them. You sir, are amazing, and not in a good way.

...also, AS an LEO that carries a gun. I'm ready to protect the public with it. That doesnt mean I WANT to take a life, but if the situation presents itself I can.

As an emotionly healthy HUMAN BEING, I would not be able to detach myself entirely from the emotional trauma of taking a life by mistake. Simply saying "the police officer should be able to handle taking a life" is ignorant and dismissive of the situation when considering the LEO in the extreme.

Taking a life is not something one does then walk off willy-nilly and go on about business as usual. It's a traumatic experience if you're emotionally well developed. It's part of the reason that after a clean shoot, many police must see a psychologist and take some time off after the event. That's common practice.

It's not "BANG! Pass the corned beef and cabbage." as you seem to think it is.

In the hypothetical situation that an LEO could've killed this guy, your statement is once again uninformed, ignorant, and dismissive of people's rights in a lawful society.

What the gak? They are really going to send them to jail? Because it was on their property! For god sakes If a police officer saw kids playing with paintball guns and fighting each other, he wouldn't arrest them because he knows they are playing. Damn this world is getting dumber.

I had some (white, for what it's worth) friends who were sparring in the park with wooden weapons. They had done this several times before. On this particular occasion they heard a car approaching and noticed it was a patrol car, and was shortly followed by a few more. They said once the first cop had gotten out and saw what was happening he noticeably rolled his eyes and face-palmed. Someone had called in a "gang fight"

Deadshane1 wrote:In the hypothetical situation that an LEO could've killed this guy...

Yeah, but they don't allow our beat bobbies to carry guns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpb8PiLW25Y&feature=related

So if Bobbie doesn't have a gun, what does he do in the actual event that someone has an axe and means to do him harm?

He blows his whistle to summon help.

It is a system that has worked reliably since the British invented police in the 18th century.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The last time an armed gang -- they had sledgehammers -- took on a jewellers in London, passers-by were so annoyed that they beat two of the miscreants to the ground and sat on them until the police arrived.

The other two only escaped because they were on motorcycles and the members of the public couldn't run fast enough to catch them.

Deadshane1 wrote:
So because someone is older and more frail, or younger, they dont have a right to peaceful existance.

That's brilliant.

No one has the right to a peaceful existence where "peace" is defined as "that which is not offensive".

Deadshane1 wrote:
Interesting to know you'd not care much if a grandmother died or your child wakes up screaming in the middle of the night.

"Grandma was going to die soon anyway."

"Go back to sleep baby, little Johnny can cry himself to sleep, he'll be fine."

Dissmissive? Uncaring? Ignorant of other people's rights? I'd say so.

Yes, it is uncaring. I don't care about other people n the sense that is often described by the statement you've made.

As far as the rights of others, or anyone for that matter, are concerned; that's up for debate.

If nothing else, I don't believe that I have a right to peace. Indeed, I believe that a peaceful world would be terribly boring.

Deadshane1 wrote:
This little tidbit deserves it's own response. This is the dumbest statement I've seen anyone post in a long time. Congratulations, you've won the award for most moronic post online this month. I'm sure the family and friends of the deceased would be comforted when you point this out to them. You sir, are amazing, and not in a good way.

Who cares what they think or feel? They aren't me, and even if I were placed in the same situation the truth of impending death would remain the same.

Deadshane1 wrote:
...also, AS an LEO that carries a gun. I'm ready to protect the public with it. That doesnt mean I WANT to take a life, but if the situation presents itself I can.

As an emotionly healthy HUMAN BEING, I would not be able to detach myself entirely from the emotional trauma of taking a life by mistake. Simply saying "the police officer should be able to handle taking a life" is ignorant and dismissive of the situation when considering the LEO in the extreme.

No, you're ready to do what you feel is consistent with protecting the public. If you were actually ready to "protect" the "public" you wouldn't be imposing your will on others by expressing your willingness to open fire.

Deadshane1 wrote:
Taking a life is not something one does then walk off willy-nilly and go on about business as usual. It's a traumatic experience if you're emotionally well developed. It's part of the reason that after a clean shoot, many police must see a psychologist and take some time off after the event. That's common practice.

I said none of those things.

LordofHats wrote:You know you're a geek when you read the title of this thread and think he'd finally done in Batman XD.

Doesn't help I just got done watching The Dark Knight, lol.

And, this whole story is ridiculous. It was a prank.

If he gets jail time, that judge/jury are a bunch of humorless scumbags.

Deadshane1 wrote:

dogma wrote:Yeah, placing your own life at risk is absolutely worth a jail sentence.

....because any cop that would've shot him dead wouldnt care about the life he took after realising it was just a prank.


Wake up. Irresponsible actions such as what this guy (and girl) performed have the ability to disrupt people's lives. That's a right you DONT have, and IS ABSOLUTELY worth a jail sentence.

Performing in public like you're an axe weilding maniac about to kill someone can be traumatic to people. Perhaps those people are pussies or old, young, stupid or whatever, but they have rights just the same.

What about the 90 year old woman that witnesses this, has a heart attack and dies out of fear?

What about the 5 year old looking out the window that doesnt understand and has nightmares for weeks waking up screaming about the "bloody axe-man"?

What about the cop that just took the guys life trying to "protect the innocent". Killing someone has an effect on the protector, or it can.

What about the traffic accident that could've been caused by this prank?

The list goes on, all of which could be avoided by some guy and girl not acting like immature idiots. Sure anything else can potentially cause heart attacks, nightmares or traffic accidents...but why add this act of idiocy into the mix? It's something that's easily avoided by people acting the way they should.

It's why there are laws against this sort of thing.

What about what didn't happen?

There's a difference between what happened and didn't. He doesn't deserve jail time when nothing happened.

They scared the people in the car (as intended) and they drove off. It was a joke, I've done something very similar to this before.

I think "jail time" is being thrown around too lightly here. Its not like the two are going to sit in the corner.

Kilkrazy wrote:He blows his whistle to summon help.

It is a system that has worked reliably since the British invented police in the 18th century.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The last time an armed gang -- they had sledgehammers -- took on a jewellers in London, passers-by were so annoyed that they beat two of the miscreants to the ground and sat on them until the police arrived.

The other two only escaped because they were on motorcycles and the members of the public couldn't run fast enough to catch them.

That's funny, i thought the Romans invented police. but then again, i probably shouldn't think...

Guys, let's all calm down and review the case.

NB: Running around the streets with a large axe is a criminal offence in the UK.

It comes under going armed in a public place, and putting people in fear of violence. On a guilty verdict, prison is a valid option.

Let's be honest, it may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was a stupid thing to do. You have to admit that, even though most of us have probably done equally stupid things on occasion.

Halloween, blah blah blah; this wasn't Halloween, and anyway in the UK adults don't normally dress up for Halloween. In a situation like this, it is not a basic obligation on the onlookers to understand that it is all just a high-spirited prank.

However, the guy probably won't do time.

What the magistrates want is for the perps to realise they did a stupid thing, and decide not to do it again.

So they'll leave him sweating bullets for a week or two, so he can understand his foolishness, then call him back for sentencing and he will probably get community service or something.

The only thing is if he really did say he couldn't believe he was in court for something so stupid, the court may take exception and give him a short stay inside for contempt. That would be a separate matter, though.

dude rocks.

Fifty wrote:I have a similar problem with "lads" sitting in their car outside my place. It is always Muslims though, which means they are not drinking, so they rarely get too rowdy. I've spoken to them twice and politely asked them to keep it down, and they have done so. Not silent, but down to an acceptable level. I often hear them policing each other. There is normally at least one pillock being lairy, but his mates will remind him that people live here and get them hushed. They do, however, often leave litter. Not even in a tidy pile - just scattered around.

Far more annoying are the couples who park up and shag in the back of their cars. Only seen it happening twice. As I was walking home one time, fairly early in the evening (8-9pm-ish), I saw it going on. The guy could see me coming, so I made sure I gave him a good stare, in the hope he would get the message. Another time, I looked out of my window and saw them at it. It was about 3am, and I couldn't sleep, so I normally wouldn't have been awake at that time. It was more amusing than annoying, in some ways. At that time of the night, I saw less harm in it. Far more annoying are the 4-5 times I have seen condoms left there.

1. Buy a spotlight/floodlight
2. Shine said spotlight on car when shagging is occuring
3. ????
4. No more shagging!

Goliath wrote:

Fifty wrote:I have a similar problem with "lads" sitting in their car outside my place. It is always Muslims though, which means they are not drinking, so they rarely get too rowdy. I've spoken to them twice and politely asked them to keep it down, and they have done so. Not silent, but down to an acceptable level. I often hear them policing each other. There is normally at least one pillock being lairy, but his mates will remind him that people live here and get them hushed. They do, however, often leave litter. Not even in a tidy pile - just scattered around.

Far more annoying are the couples who park up and shag in the back of their cars. Only seen it happening twice. As I was walking home one time, fairly early in the evening (8-9pm-ish), I saw it going on. The guy could see me coming, so I made sure I gave him a good stare, in the hope he would get the message. Another time, I looked out of my window and saw them at it. It was about 3am, and I couldn't sleep, so I normally wouldn't have been awake at that time. It was more amusing than annoying, in some ways. At that time of the night, I saw less harm in it. Far more annoying are the 4-5 times I have seen condoms left there.

1. Buy a spotlight/floodlight
2. Shine said spotlight on car when shagging is occuring
3. ????
4. No more shagging!

No more shagging? But what if I can't see properly?