CLEAVER ATTACK IN LONDON

[Pedronicus]

Are there any two locations in the whole UK that are more than 10 minutes drive from each other? We can only speculate on the timeline ...

(1) multiple 999 calls saying the most horrible violence seen in London in the last week is occurring

(2) Constable Basil finishes his tea, walks to the locker and picks-up his swagger stick and begins smartly marching to the scene of the crime.

(3) attackers continue hacking at felled man

(4) Inspector-Constable Alistair stops Basil him and sternly remands him for the scuff-marks on his shoes.

(5) attackers continue hacking at felled man

(6) Basil attends to his dress code violation; realizing it's been five minutes at this point, he marches at double-time to Woolwich

(7) attackers finish man off

(8) Basil arrives in Woolwich and blows his traffic whistle three times and states loudly and clearly "Here then - what's all this commotion about?"

(9) Basil notices attackers have an antique gun and runs away leaving bystanders alone with attackers.

(10) attackers and bystanders have a pleasant conversation for ten minutes

(11) Basil returns with the Band of the Coldstream Guards, a mounted colour party of the Royal Welch Fusiliers, three c. 1880s saluting cannons and 5 Royal Navy admirals in full court dress ... everyone begins firing wildly, hundreds of rounds ... two manage to hit the attackers in the foot

(12) the Viscount of Woolwich - whom no one knew existed until now - arrives and awards 17 Victoria Crosses; a 3-hour parade is staged over the crime scene

(13) once the parade is over, evidence technicians try to recover whatever hasn't been trampled underfoot

Top notch stuff Saxi. Loved reading this!

[thegreekdog]

This whole thing is kind of making me shake my head.

2 nutters killed 1 bloke and it is now a terrorist attack? That people are supposed to be worried about? Seriously? More people probably get knifed to death than that an hour on a Friday night in London.

That was my reaction as well. I have had similar reactions to similar incidents in the past.

Sorry to quote myself (well, kinda sorry), but I meant to offer this as a point of contrast.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ma ... v-brothers

The gist? 5 or more law enforcement agents manage to lose control of a witness and shoot him dead.

.

I think you missed the point of my post. I am generally fine with what the UK police did (once they go to the scene). I was just commenting on what other circumstantial evidence was needed; based on the articles I've read, it seemed pretty clear what happened and who did it when the police arrived. Shooting to incapacitate is certainly better than shooting to kill.

[Dukasaur]

I think you missed the point of my post. I am generally fine with what the UK police did (once they go to the scene). I was just commenting on what other circumstantial evidence was needed; based on the articles I've read, it seemed pretty clear what happened and who did it when the police arrived. Shooting to incapacitate is certainly better than shooting to kill.

I don't know about Britain, but here in Canada it's illegal for a police officer to shoot to wound. The rationale is that if he's going to draw his weapon at all, he'd better be sure that the suspect is enough of a danger to justify killing.

Allowing officers to shoot to wound is seen as starting on a slippery slope to gunplay for all kinds of trivial reason. "Hey remember that robber last week that I shot in the ankle? This guy's only a shoplifter so I'll just shoot him in his baby toe!" While at first glance shooting to incapacitate may seem more humane, thinking it through all the possibilities reveals a lot of very bad unintended consequences.

I'll reiterate that I don't know what the law is in Britain, but there are often similarities to Canadian law, so I'm suspicious of the shooting to wound story. I have a sneaking suspicion that saxi is closer to the truth -- they were shooting to kill, and just not very good at it.

[Ray Rider]

how's that a religion of peace?

Fixed for symmetrical purposes.

Hold on a second, you're comparing a children's processional song from the 1800s which was written for kids on their hike from one village to another up a steep hill, the basis of which is clearly symbolic in nature (see below); you're comparing that to a couple guys walking around the streets of London in 2013 chopping off people's heads with meat cleavers?? I just want to be sure I'm understanding your correctly. With your knowledge of history and literature, I don't think it's wrong to assume you know the history of the song.

Ephesians 6:10-20 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore, take up the full armor of God, so that you will be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; [f]in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

[g]With all prayer and petition [h]pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, [i]be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in [j]chains; that [k]in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

[Nordik]

I'll reiterate that I don't know what the law is in Britain, but there are often similarities to Canadian law, so I'm suspicious of the shooting to wound story. I have a sneaking suspicion that saxi is closer to the truth -- they were shooting to kill, and just not very good at it.

I don't know for sure, but given that police in the UK have only recently been allowed to be armed at all, I would suspect that Canadian laws are quite different. It is mostly the older laws that the Canadians have "copied" (for lack of a better word).

That said, I don't know for sure if they are allowed to shoot to would either, but I suspect they are. When that Brazilian kid with the backpack was shot just after 7/7 I remember people saying that he should have just been incapacitated rather than killed.

[Woodruff]

I think you missed the point of my post. I am generally fine with what the UK police did (once they go to the scene). I was just commenting on what other circumstantial evidence was needed; based on the articles I've read, it seemed pretty clear what happened and who did it when the police arrived. Shooting to incapacitate is certainly better than shooting to kill.

I don't know about Britain, but here in Canada it's illegal for a police officer to shoot to wound. The rationale is that if he's going to draw his weapon at all, he'd better be sure that the suspect is enough of a danger to justify killing.

This makes sense to me.

[Woodruff]

how's that a religion of peace?

Fixed for symmetrical purposes.

Hold on a second, you're comparing a children's processional song from the 1800s which was written for kids on their hike from one village to another up a steep hill, the basis of which is clearly symbolic in nature (see below); you're comparing that to a couple guys walking around the streets of London in 2013 chopping off people's heads with meat cleavers?? I just want to be sure I'm understanding your correctly.

You didn't, I don't think. He was comparing it to some specific passages from the Quran and "How's that a religion of peace?".

As for "written for kids"...that particular song's lyrics being written for kids isn't exactly something I'd want to wave around if I were wanting to look peaceful...

[saxitoxin]

I'll reiterate that I don't know what the law is in Britain, but there are often similarities to Canadian law, so I'm suspicious of the shooting to wound story. I have a sneaking suspicion that saxi is closer to the truth -- they were shooting to kill, and just not very good at it.

I don't know for sure, but given that police in the UK have only recently been allowed to be armed at all

The PSNI/RUC have been armed to the teeth for decades; according to WP, they're routinely equipped with sub-machine guns to use against the Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSNI).

I think the notion British police have done Just the Tip when it comes to firearms is more of a Camelot fantasy than something real.

[Nordik]

The PSNI/RUC have been armed to the teeth for decades; according to WP, they're routinely equipped with sub-machine guns to use against the Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSNI).

I think the notion British police have done Just the Tip when it comes to firearms is more of a Camelot fantasy than something real.

"Mainland" Britain =/= Northern Ireland.

Some reading for you regarding police in England, Scotland and Wales:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

Tourists and visitors regularly express surprise at the absence of firearms from the waists of officers patrolling the streets.

But to most inhabitants of the UK - with the notable exception of Northern Ireland - it is a normal, unremarkable state of affairs that most front-line officers do not carry guns.

[saxitoxin]

I don't know for sure, but given that police in the UK have only recently been allowed to be armed at all

The PSNI/RUC have been armed to the teeth for decades; according to WP, they're routinely equipped with sub-machine guns to use against the Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSNI).

I think the notion British police have done Just the Tip when it comes to firearms is more of a Camelot fantasy than something real.

"Mainland" Britain =/= Northern Ireland.

got it

"United States" does not include "New York"

[Nordik]

got it

"United States" does not include "New York"

Actually I'd say that the US doesn't include some of the worse ghettos in e.g. LA if you were going to make the comparison. Guns just aren't needed for the most part in the UK other than in N. Ireland.

[Symmetry]

"United States" does not include "New York"

Who knew?

[saxitoxin]

Actually I'd say that the US doesn't include some of the worse ghettos in e.g. LA

I acknowledge that is a strange and unusual understanding of geography.

Guns just aren't needed for the most part in the UK other than in N. Ireland.

Guns just aren't needed for the most part in Canada other than in the parts they're needed.

[BigBallinStalin]

The PSNI/RUC have been armed to the teeth for decades; according to WP, they're routinely equipped with sub-machine guns to use against the Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSNI).

I think the notion British police have done Just the Tip when it comes to firearms is more of a Camelot fantasy than something real.

"Mainland" Britain =/= Northern Ireland.

Some reading for you regarding police in England, Scotland and Wales:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

Tourists and visitors regularly express surprise at the absence of firearms from the waists of officers patrolling the streets.

But to most inhabitants of the UK - with the notable exception of Northern Ireland - it is a normal, unremarkable state of affairs that most front-line officers do not carry guns.

You just provided a source which doesn't support your position.

I don't know for sure, but given that police in the UK have only recently been allowed to be armed at all

Your source says:

most front-line officers do not carry guns.

herpderpderp.

[Nordik]

The PSNI/RUC have been armed to the teeth for decades; according to WP, they're routinely equipped with sub-machine guns to use against the Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSNI).

I think the notion British police have done Just the Tip when it comes to firearms is more of a Camelot fantasy than something real.

"Mainland" Britain =/= Northern Ireland.

Some reading for you regarding police in England, Scotland and Wales:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

Tourists and visitors regularly express surprise at the absence of firearms from the waists of officers patrolling the streets.

But to most inhabitants of the UK - with the notable exception of Northern Ireland - it is a normal, unremarkable state of affairs that most front-line officers do not carry guns.

You just provided a source which doesn't support your position.

I don't know for sure, but given that police in the UK have only recently been allowed to be armed at all

Your source says:

most front-line officers do not carry guns.

herpderpderp.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear. Bobbies on the beat cannot carry guns. It is only recently (in the last 20 years or so) that ANY police can carry guns. Before then they had to call in the army.

[Symmetry]

The PSNI/RUC have been armed to the teeth for decades; according to WP, they're routinely equipped with sub-machine guns to use against the Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSNI).

I think the notion British police have done Just the Tip when it comes to firearms is more of a Camelot fantasy than something real.

"Mainland" Britain =/= Northern Ireland.

Some reading for you regarding police in England, Scotland and Wales:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19641398

Tourists and visitors regularly express surprise at the absence of firearms from the waists of officers patrolling the streets.

But to most inhabitants of the UK - with the notable exception of Northern Ireland - it is a normal, unremarkable state of affairs that most front-line officers do not carry guns.

You just provided a source which doesn't support your position.

I don't know for sure, but given that police in the UK have only recently been allowed to be armed at all

Your source says:

most front-line officers do not carry guns.

herpderpderp.

That's not really a contradiction. I don't think you've found...

*Puts on sunglasses*









... a smoking gun.

[saxitoxin]

It is only recently (in the last 20 years or so) that ANY police can carry guns.

Don't take this personally, but I don't think maths are your strong area.

Armed police timeline: from truncheons to submachine guns

1829 - The Metropolitan Police Act establishes the country's first formal police force under Sir Robert Peel. The officers patrolled with 20in wooden truncheons, but had access to 50 flintlock pistols for use in "exceptional circumstances".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -guns.html

[BigBallinStalin]

@ Nordik, thanks for clarifying, but based on saxi's source, that's not correct.

@ Sym, although we may be ships sailing past each other in the dark, some day...

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, here's what happened:

Woolwich attack: Watch shocking video of terrorists charging at police car to try to kill WPC (official title, which is incorrect since he's not a terrorist).

Looks like the cops shot "the machete charger" in the face,

and as the second one was running away, they shot at him several times, he fell down (was hit?), and then they shot at him several times (and missed?)

[Qwert]

well i dont see surprise here . Unfortunately this its risk what Britain take, when send troops in Iraq,Afghanistan.
One day when they stop kill civilians in Afghanistan and send troops back to home, maybe then this not going to happened?

[saxitoxin]

Oh, here's what happened:

Woolwich attack: Watch shocking video of terrorists charging at police car to try to kill WPC (official title, which is incorrect since he's not a terrorist).

Looks like the cops shot "the machete charger" in the face,

and as the second one was running away, they shot at him several times, he fell down (was hit?), and then they shot at him several times (and missed?)

Interesting - so they shot one guy in the face, another guy in the back as he was fleeing and then - when he was on the ground wounded - they freaked out and opened up on him in a hysterical volley with high-powered weapons, pumping his legs full of lead.

Symmetry's description of the tactical finesse of the Met makes up with style what it apparently lacks in accuracy.

[Symmetry]

well i dont see surprise here . Unfortunately this its risk what Britain take, when send troops in Iraq,Afghanistan.
One day when they stop kill civilians in Afghanistan and send troops back to home, maybe then this not going to happened?

Interesting logic. You presumably think that 9/11 occurred because we invaded Iraq?

[AndyDufresne]

Qwert just wishes he didn't live in Europe. Also, civilians are never harmed by his homeland too.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

well i dont see surprise here . Unfortunately this its risk what Britain take, when send troops in Iraq,Afghanistan.
One day when they stop kill civilians in Afghanistan and send troops back to home, maybe then this not going to happened?

Interesting logic. You presumably think that 9/11 occurred because we invaded Iraq?

5/5 for the trolling.

[saxitoxin]

So how do you "shoot to wound" when you're aiming at a guy's face?

"But Chief Constable, I was just trying to tickle his nose with a bullet!"