paranoid ?
in [ASM]
|
From: Robert Redelmeier on 14 Jan 2008 19:32 Rod Pemberton <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote in part: > "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm(a)ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message >> Rod Pemberton <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote in part: > > Sigh, an entirely rational response to a paranoid post.... > That ended quick. Did you not read the Subject line? Certainly. I pride myself on being a killjoy as required. People cannot help the emotions they feel. However, they can decide whether to nurture or indulge them. > I don't believe there was an expectation of privacy, just > an expectation of short-lived availability... Some might. Others knew retention could be long. No-one has much control of what others expect. However, they might have some idea of what might reasonably and legally be possible, hence ought to be expected. > "I was told I was paranoid." Emphasis on told - for what > I saw. What I saw was what I saw... A very different matter. Thank you for the distinction. Of course observations and other data cannot be paranoid or anything value-based. Data is data. > against the police. It's one of a few examples were I was > told I was paranoid when I told someone else what I saw... Very odd. The events you recount are striking and unusual. It would be unobservant or even panglossian to ignore them. > Although I do firmly believe that both police and criminals > must be kept in balance or innocent civilians get hurt. > I.e., predators (cops and crooks) prey upon civilians when > the other "food" source dries up... There is not much > difference between them. Well, that is a point of view: criminals prey upon civilians. Police prey upon criminals. Very important to have clear lines. Some laws in the past century have done some blurring, and that may be malicious: there is no control power in doing something. The control power is in being able to exercise "discretion". > Both are predators looking for prey. Not always, but there is a serious risk. > Both have performance targets to meet. Police quotas are highly illegal and grounds for dismissal as "adverse, biased or prejudicial prosecution" > Nice quip... But, you clearly mistake acting suspicious > around others for being suspicious of others. While there is a clear motivational different, this isn't always clear in observable actions. More or less like preparing for defense versus offensive strikes. > But, I view it as a form of illegal search - a violation of > the prohibition on unlawful searches. IMO, without cause, > they have no right to follow or to accumulate information > by following. Sorry, that doesn't meet the standard of invasiveness prohibited by the 4th Am. FWIW, the British would occasionally toss a house just for spite. In those days, everyone was watching everyone else. Outside of NY and maybe Boston, there was no anonymity of the big cities we have today. > I was followed almost everywhere for at least six months. This sounds odd. What could possibly justify such a waste of police resources. Do you have any idea of how much surveillance costs? At some point, paranoia becomes nothing more than a manifestation of egotism. > That's not just. There was cause for him to be followed > due to his criminality, but there wasn't any cause for them > to follow me... Ordinary crooks never attract such resources. >> Do NOT draw on a drawn gun. You won't make it. > Really? The news reported guy (civilian) about a month ago > who had bought his gun just a few days earlier just did that. Certainly. A few will win. There's maybe a 20% chance of survival. Do you like those odds? > just a question of whether they did so intentionally or Intentionally, to woo voters. > realize that Americans were so timid that four (4) full > large airplanes were controlled by a couple people with No they chose very empty flights. > What happens if you're on a hijacked plane where the > hijackers have some serious weapons without an air marshal No, the pilots bounce or roll the plane. Most of the hostiles will be unseatbelted. Then the pilot ask able-bodied PAX to assist. The hostiles will be liquified. Identification will be difficult. > Bible belt, after the slaughter of Christians in Waco by How Janet Reno survived without resigning in disgrace is a mystery to me. -- Robert
From: Rod Pemberton on 14 Jan 2008 22:32 "Robert Redelmeier" <redelm(a)ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message news:SaTij.4524$El5.2943(a)newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > This sounds odd. What could possibly justify such a waste > of police resources. Do you have any idea of how much > surveillance costs? At some point, paranoia becomes nothing > more than a manifestation of egotism. > About a year later, they arrested a large group of individuals, including him, for supplying illegal drugs to numerous bars, restaurants, other small struggling social businesses, etc. I.e., "behind the counter"... like adult material was in many communitites. > >> Do NOT draw on a drawn gun. You won't make it. > > > Really? The news reported guy (civilian) about a month ago > > who had bought his gun just a few days earlier just did that. > > Certainly. A few will win. There's maybe a 20% chance > of survival. Is that with or without the gun? I can see it being only 20% with the gun if the attacker drew first, but without the gun it could easily be 0%... should the attacker decide to shoot. Their are numerous examples of this. > Do you like those odds? Of course not, but 20% is better than 0%. If a man attacked by one man without a gun, there's maybe a 80% chance of survival. A man attacked by two men without guns, there's maybe a 20% chance survival, but there is a chance. There's no chance for a women attacked by two unarmed men. A gun is best used when the odds are really against you, e.g., crowd control or armed attackers. When being attacked by more than one person, the odds of survival dramatically change to your favor if you're the only one with a gun. In both cases, the odds are near 100% for survival with a gun. But, that isn't how lawmakers think. They think: ask the police about problems = police say groups and crowds difficult enough to control without drunks = innocents and drunks and guns is dangerous = take guns away to make everyone safer. Then, you read about innocent man beaten to death by drunk or a crowd. A good man who might've survived with a gun. The intent may have been to reduce violent crime, and the intent probably succeeded. But, it did so at the cost of the innocent man's legacy ending in death and the bad guy(s) legacy continuing in life... The laws have distorted the odds the wrong way. > > What happens if you're on a hijacked plane where the > > hijackers have some serious weapons without an air marshal > > No, the pilots bounce or roll the plane. Most of > the hostiles will be unseatbelted. IMO, worthless... Turbulence and vibration (i.e., excessive use) is known to cause severe damage to the rudder. The rudder being ripped off (literally) was the cause of a number of crashes (e.g., AA 587, UA 585, USAir 427, numerous others...). It's also likely to cause an accidental weapon discharge if they've got a gun. It'd also prevent passengers or air marhals from leaving their seats to become involved in and gaining control of the situation, i.e., the situation is only under control while the pilot can maintain nausea... "In case of emergency, break glass. Alarm will sound." A school will have a fire extinquisher behind the glass. A skycraper will have an ax. A courthouse might have a shotgun... The point is to provide emergency resources to the people who need them while preventing abuses, e.g., ax murder. There's no reason why an airplane couldn't have 20 of them on random isles (to prevent control of them) with a mix non-lethal weapons: single discharge taser, mace or pepper spray, billy club, beanbag gun: a single shot, pistol sized, short-barrelled shotgun. All you need are a couple of passengers to say, "I or we can end this with this or these weapons." Rod Pemberton
From: Robert Redelmeier on 15 Jan 2008 08:41 Evenbit <nbaker2328(a)charter.net> wrote in part: > If you want to lead a large group of people to accomplish > something really big, then every member of that group must > "pull" in the same direction. This is why authoritarian regimes > strengthen nations while democratic ones destroy them. While it might be true that authoritarian regimes can direct efforts towards one goal more single-mindedly, it is very uncertain they can build the industrial-economic cabability to have efforts to direct! -- Robert
From: Robert Redelmeier on 15 Jan 2008 09:01 Rod Pemberton <do_not_have(a)nohavenot.cmm> wrote in part: > About a year later, they arrested a large group of individuals, > including him, for supplying illegal drugs to numerous bars, Well, there you go. The police were conducting a fairly long-term\ "sweep", and you were being watched (probably only part-time) as a potential part of it. The cost of associating with a known felon. >> >> Do NOT draw on a drawn gun. You won't make it. >> >> Certainly. A few will win. There's maybe a 20% chance >> of survival. > Is that with or without the gun? I can see it being only > 20% with the gun if the attacker drew first, but without > the gun it could easily be 0%... That is what I was saying. > Of course not, but 20% is better than 0%. Naturally. But that 0% only applies once you are convinced the attacker intends to kill you in any case. This only applies for a very small percentage of attackers because they know the police will be after them far more persistantly. > The laws have distorted the odds the wrong way. Of course they do. The purpose is order, not justice. > IMO, worthless... Turbulence and vibration (i.e., excessive > use) is known to cause severe damage to the rudder. > The rudder being ripped off (literally) was the cause of a > number of crashes (e.g., AA 587, UA 585, USAir 427, numerous Yes, but those tend to be from vibratory fatigue. A simple roll does not introduce enough. Furthermore, bouncing (pitching) the aircraft does not require rudder. > ax murder. There's no reason why an airplane couldn't have > 20 of them on random isles (to prevent control of them) Sure there is: accidents would certainly out-number legit uses and deterrences. Do you think you can control kids? Furthermore, weapons require training. Especially pistols. -- Robert
From: Rod Pemberton on 16 Jan 2008 04:27
"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm(a)ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message news:o13jj.7783$pA7.2720(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net... > The cost of associating > with a known felon. Known, he was not. Potential he was, and probably a felon he did become. But, it's about as far off base from the original point as a programmer who has "seen inside many government operations." > > IMO, worthless... Turbulence and vibration (i.e., excessive > > use) is known to cause severe damage to the rudder. > > The rudder being ripped off (literally) was the cause of a > > number of crashes (e.g., AA 587, UA 585, USAir 427, numerous > > Yes, but those tend to be from vibratory fatigue. Two cited were, one wasn't. But, the FAA has stated that turbulence was the cause of similar accidents. IIRC, one plane took off took too close to another and the turbulence resulted in the same problem. Now, imagine the turbulence on the rudder of an over 9 million miles 737 going through a "bump and roll"... The pilot is taking a risk of killing everyone outright, when there is a chance that some or all will survive the hijacking. > A > simple roll does not introduce enough. I can see that being true for a new aircraft but not an old one. The older the plane the higher the risk of basic movements overstressing the fatigued areas. You have to realize that 737's _average_ 10 million miles each. That means that some of them have upto or over 30 million miles on them. > Furthermore, > bouncing (pitching) the aircraft does not require rudder. One issue is how much force must be applied to unsettle the hijackers position. Can a pilot generate enough force without snapping the necks of elderly, especially women or babies? I seriously doubt it... Anyway, it still prevents air marshals, flight attendents, pilots, or passengers from involving themselves, obtaining weapons, making a plan... If it doesn't physically "close the gap" or "change the odds" between opposing forces, does it accomplish something? I'd say, "No." When one group is in control, only a fight can potentially change control. Bouncing or pitching the aircraft just delays the initial steps required to resolve the issue, and physically taxes both good and bad. Unless you tell me air marshals have some special system to walk while the pilot is "bumping the plane," I see zero advantage. And, you still have the problem that an air marshal might not be on that flight, and civilians will have to defend themselves. > > ax murder. There's no reason why an airplane couldn't have > > 20 of them on random isles (to prevent control of them) > > Sure there is: accidents would certainly out-number legit > uses and deterrences. So, we should take away fire extinguishers, axes, flare guns, etc.? According to you, they cause more accidents than helping in legitimate emergency uses... You'd have to provide statistics to convince me of that. > Do you think you can control kids? "Alarm will sound." So, now kids can't read or understand consequences? Besides, it's not difficult to make the glass strong enough to prevent a child from breaking but allowing men, women, and teens. How many kids die in misused fire extinguisher accidents? How many kids die in misused fire ax accidents? Do you recall any incidents of abuse to emergency boxes during your schooling? What about adults at work? I think you'll be hard-pressed to find such incidents. > Furthermore, weapons require training. Especially pistols. Now you sound more like someone in law enforcement. You just classified useful emergency tools as dangerous weapons which require training, instead of as tools, in order to deny honest and trustworthy citizens from having access to them, even in a controlled and limited situation... From your perspective, these items haven't even been given the chance to prove themselves as valuable tools. Take the hammer or chainsaw. They proved thenselves as a tool long before some started using them as weapons. If they came out today for the first time, it'd be classified by you and others like you as a weapon. Imagine if gasoline was just coming out today. Whoa! An incindiary, one that's an explosive with moisture, that's an explosive under pressure, that's an explosive in an oxygen rich environment, that people can use for bombs and arson, let's ban it outright! How many baseballs does it take a 12 year old to dunk someone at a dunk tank at the fair? How many of those 12 year olds dunk the first time? 1 in 5? 1 in 10? It's much harder to throw a baseball than use the weapons I suggested. No one over 10 or 12 needs training for any of the items I listed. They are far more accurate. Mostly straight line shooting. The mace and pepper spray even indicate where they are hitting. The beanbag gun requires only modest aim. If you doubt me, hand them to some kids (rural, urban, suburban) and have them use them against some dummies. Setup an isle between some chairs... There might be one or two items that takes a few attempt to figure out. Then, you don't put those on airplanes. There might be a few that are too powerful. Then, you reduce the power. But, I think you'll see that 80-90% of kids use them just fine. I came from an almost hundred percent weaponless environment, low sports, with vision problems, and I doubt I would've had any problem using any of them as a pre-teen in a short range environment like an airplane. That's why I didn't list a single shot .45 ACP, or an incidiary, etc. because of difficulty of use, required aim, richochet, overpenetration. Take the beanbag gun, it's likely to be too powerful using a standard 12Ga cartridge. But, it can have lower power shells designed for it. But, I notice that you didn't provide any possible safety enhancing alternatives. Even if you disagree with the idea of providing civilians with non-lethal weapons on airplanes, you could've suggested other safety ideas: a gun that fires nets, a pull cord that drops nets from the ceiling, a pull cord that fills the entire plane with sticky foam, a low-impact air gun that fires basketballs or racquetballs. The idea might be useful on other forms of transport: buses, trains, etc. > weapons require training Are you saying the simple items I listed require training? More than a fire extinguisher? More than a frisbee? More than a baseball dunk tank at the amusement park? More than flare gun? More than a BB gun? More than a pellet gun at the amusement park? More than a .22 rifle? More than sling shot? More than a "spit-wad" through a straw? More than a basketball? At 12, was your environment devoid of all sports, all physical activity? Do you think people get training for mace, pepper spray, club, or flare gun? I'd say a large percentage of the US population (urban and rural, not really suburban) learns how to shoot before they learn how to drive... and they learn to drive before they can get a license. Although my immediate family didn't use guns, I'm pretty sure all of my relatives, and I've got thousands of them - maybe tens of, learned to shoot between 8 and 15. Many relatives on one side were trained with 12 Ga's at that age. Man, I thought I had a pretty low assessment of other human beings capabilities... But, I never would've imagined that someone would suggest basic tools that a 12 year old could use should be banned. Maybe that's why law enforcement unions always politics to deny citizens their rights: fear of loss of control, or empower them: fear of loss of their jobs. Rod Pemberton |