I'm sorry, Gorby, if I touched a nerve mentioning the consequences of European Aristocracy - the Sommes, Ypres, the Auschwitz extermination camps and the Gulag System. Chin up, I could have mentioned the British concentration camps for Boer families, the firebombing of German Civilians by the RAF or how the British officer Corps pushed "Tommy Atkins" over the top so many damned times that entire villages vanished in Great Britain.
I could really be a pisser and mention the Commonwealth landings at Gallipolli but that would be "dirty pool" wouldn't it?
Shapecharge wrote:Gorby, you don't have to be adversarial all the time do you? Blade does have a point. If you are a suspect regardless of your innocence, you may be well served to say nary a word upon arrest. It's been posted here some years back a video from a law school classroom where both a seasoned attorney/law professor and a veteran police officer advises against saying anything if arrested. Accessory and conspiracy charges carry less of a burden of proof and you could find yourself on a legal journey you want no part of for something you never ever saw coming.
I accept very little that I hear without questioning, Shape. You might not be aware of it, but there's a current at IGx on most topics. I refuse to be carried automatically. One such current is that we should never trust cops or talk to them. Another IGx "meme" is that gun carrying and ownership is cool. Another is that porn is fine. Another is that climate change is bullshit. There are exceptions but there are general IGx echo chamber beliefs. I took a lot of shit when I joined and was followed from thread to thread and labelled "Rant". I could piss off but why should I?
Back on topic. There are times when talking to cops - even if you think theyre looking incorrectly at something - is the right thing to do.
The absolutist nature of personal rights trumping collective good yet again impoverishes the American experience. Pissing in your own spring.
If you are unconcerned for yourself or those who rely on you for love, support, and affection, and don't mind that people who control the system punish you while letting the guilty party run free, feel free to talk and help all you possibly can. Richard Jewell is a prime example. While the system focused on him like a laser, the guilty went free. His helpful good citizenship did no one any good at all individually or collectively - except the guilty of coarse.
Also, I was one of the people who accused you of being Rant and I want to apologise (notice the Britannic spelling). You are the quintessential EuroTwat of the highest order and that is infinitely superior to being a Rant. Please accept my olive branch of friendship.
Fuck you very much, Donky.
Yet again Americu's fatal obsession with individuality, its visceral distrust of authority (even when it's a collective appointment of police officers from your own communities) results in a fucked up situation. The gulf between police roles and perceived malevolent performance and intent is galactic but tolerated. Why? Why aren't US citizens up in arms? Oh. It's individual v collective. Which explains the attitude to healthcare. And climate change.
From this distance, you're living in a hall of mirrors where the big bad government, police, climate conspiracists, socialists and people who hate your freedoms are played up, exaggerated, feared beyond reason and ultimately used as a prop for some fucked up decisions and world views.
Dirt McGirt wrote:
You might not be aware of it, but there's a current at IGx on most topics. I refuse to be carried automatically. One such current is that we should never trust cops or talk to them. Another IGx "meme" is that gun carrying and ownership is cool. Another is that porn is fine. Another is that climate change is bullshit. There are exceptions but there are general IGx echo chamber beliefs.
And another is that if you disagree with any of the above, you are a homo. Particularly the guns one; carrying a gun is both decidedly American and exceedingly manly. *IF* instead you carry a knife, not because you think it is 'safer' or you will 'get in less trouble,' but because you actually believe that you are just as lethal with a knife as most dudes are with a gun, then we can look past it.
It all explains the avatar, anyway...
How can u b as lethally with a blade as with a gun? Does not compute and sounds gay.
"Gentle in what you do, Firm in how you do it"
- Buck Brannaman
Get a warrant , and I want my attorney. Its their job to nail you to the cross. They can and will use ANYTHING you say against you . So shut the fuck up .You can always elvaluate later if anything you have to say is of use in finding you inocence or a help to anyone else.
not to put too fine point on it but I thought there were some po-lice actual data type shit that indicated most people under pressure in within close contact are terrible at drawing and firing a handgun whereas a knife is extremely quick and intuitive. Given the alacrity with which the po po shoot people with knives, wallets and cellphone type objects, it would seem they are cautious of the possibility.
Last edited by Blaidd Drwg on Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Most officers are taught that the effective range of a knife is @ 20'. At that distance the person with a knife can usually get to the cop before the cop can draw and shoot. Its not BS, its tried and true and the only thing that makes a difference is obstacles in the way usually.
"I am the author of my own misfortune, I don't need a ghost writer" - Ian Dury
tough old man wrote:Most officers are taught that the effective range of a knife is @ 20'. At that distance the person with a knife can usually get to the cop before the cop can draw and shoot. Its not BS, its tried and true and the only thing that makes a difference is obstacles in the way usually.
A lot of men tried that and a lot of men died. OF just might know what the knifer knows and the knifer lays dead on the floor with a bullet between the eyes.
Obama's narcissism and arrogance is only superseded by his naivete and stupidity.
Gorbachev wrote:Well that settles it. I'm going to carry a knife, not a gun. Much superior. Thanks everyone.
Be careful mate, we don't want you getting in trouble with the constables.
The CJA 1988 mainly relates to carrying knives in public places, Section 139 being the most important.
"It is an offence for any person, without lawful authority or good reason, to have with him in a public place, any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except for a folding pocket-knife which has a cutting edge to its blade not exceeding 3 inches." [CJA 1988 section 139(1)]
The phrase "good reason" is intended to allow for "common sense" possession of knives, so that it is legal to carry a knife if there is a bona fide reason to do so. Examples of bona fide reasons which have been accepted include: a knife required for ones trade (e.g. a chefs knife), as part of a national costume (e.g. a sgian dubh), or for religious reasons (e.g. a Sikh Kirpan).
In this case, public place is meant as anywhere accessible to the public, so for example a private campsite, which members of the public must book to use, is a public place. Also, knives should only be carried to and from and used at the location where they are needed. For example, leaving a knife in a car for use when you go fishing would be illegal. It should be taken back into the house each time you use the car (other than to go fishing). [1]
The special exception which exists in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (s139) for folding knives (pocket knives) is another "common sense" measure accepting that some small knives are carried for general utility however even a folding pocket knife of less than 3" (76mm) may still be considered an offensive weapon if carried or used for that purpose. It was a long held common belief that a folding knife must be non-locking for this provision to apply.
A Crown Court case (Harris v DPP), ruled (case law). A lock knife for all legal purposes, is the same as a fixed blade knife. A folding pocket knife must be readily foldable at all times. If it has a mechanism that prevents folding, it's a lock knife (or for legal purposes, a fixed blade) The Court of Appeal (REGINA - v - DESMOND GARCIA DEEGAN 1998) upheld the Harris ruling stating that "folding was held to mean non-locking". No leave to appeal was granted.
Mao wrote:Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party
Serious question...How are they treated in the UK? I know Sikhs are deadly serious about them as religious symbols. Are the given some dispensation to where them?
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Gorbachev wrote: Why aren't US citizens up in arms? Oh. It's individual v collective. Which explains the attitude to climate change.
We don't have Aristocracies in the US, Gorby. So when when a "high priest" of Science pronounces that "the planet has a fever" quite a few of us don't mindlessly say "Yes M'Lord" or "Yes, M'Lady".
Serious question...How are they treated in the UK? I know Sikhs are deadly serious about them as religious symbols. Are the given some dispensation to where them?
Yes. In fact, during the London riots, they stood guard protecting their temples armed with those bad boys. Guns for show. Knives for a pro.
Serious question...How are they treated in the UK? I know Sikhs are deadly serious about them as religious symbols. Are the given some dispensation to where them?
Yes. In fact, during the London riots, they stood guard protecting their temples armed with those bad boys. Guns for show. Knives for a pro.
Multi- culturalism in all it's glory!
i know that general citizens of the Sikh variety also got a pass in the london olympics for carrying
we like them over here for protecting nuclear power plants and such truck but it seems like the rest of the US Sikh population drives cabs.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Serious question...How are they treated in the UK? I know Sikhs are deadly serious about them as religious symbols. Are the given some dispensation to where them?
Yes. In fact, during the London riots, they stood guard protecting their temples armed with those bad boys. Guns for show. Knives for a pro.
Multi- culturalism in all it's glory!
i know that general citizens of the Sikh variety also got a pass in the london olympics for carrying
we like them over here for protecting nuclear power plants and such truck but it seems like the rest of the US Sikh population drives cabs.
Sikhs are fucking spooky to live next to when you haven't gotten to know them at all.
I've always had good experiences and found them to be rather friendly. I would be happy to replace Officer Friendly with a pack (gaggle, gang, hoard, brood?) of Sikhs patrolling the suburbs with swords and beards and shit.
"Gentle in what you do, Firm in how you do it"
- Buck Brannaman
baffled wrote:Sikhs are fucking spooky to live next to when you haven't gotten to know them at all.
I've always had good experiences and found them to be rather friendly. I would be happy to replace Officer Friendly with a pack (gaggle, gang, hoard, brood?) of Sikhs patrolling the suburbs with swords and beards and shit.
My local corner grocery has changed hands four times in the ten years I've lived here, first a Sikh family. Then a Coptic Xtian, then a Catholic Vietnamese family now back to Sikh. Seems to take a lot of faith to operate a small shop.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
