Re: Why weren't they shot ?
You said they completely ignored a security breach that was in progress not me. The media were not there so it's nothing more than a report of an event not a statement of the police ignoring the breach. Also Where did I say the protestors didn't reach the aircraft?
I never said they only patrol a few designated areas, I said they patrol designated areas, just so you know this means that the officers are designated a patrol area so that the entire airport has a partrol. There would be more officers per square foot in public areas and less on areas not not open to the public and less on the vast amount of open ground airside.
I'm unable to figure out (apart from your love of strawman argument) what it is that you feel should be done. Unless it's put one armed officer with an itchy trigger finger every ten square feet, or you want to do away with armed response officers altogether and let everyone take their chances.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
devilsadvocate
You said they completely ignored a security breach that was in progress not me. The media were not there so it's nothing more than a report of an event not a statement of the police ignoring the breach. Also Where did I say the protestors didn't reach the aircraft?
I never said they only patrol a few designated areas, I said they patrol designated areas, just so you know this means that the officers are designated a patrol area so that the entire airport has a partrol. There would be more officers per square foot in public areas and less on areas not not open to the public and less on the vast amount of open ground airside.
I'm unable to figure out (apart from your love of strawman argument) what it is that you feel should be done. Unless it's put one armed officer with an itchy trigger finger every ten square feet, or you want to do away with armed response officers altogether and let everyone take their chances.
No you implied it, when you stated that the professionals had chosen the correct action, in not intervening and stopping these four individuals.
Where did I say you said the protesters didn't reach the aircraft ?
Ah! So you're now admitting that there were officers designated to patrol that area and that they failed to prevent a security breach, that's a different story to the one you were saying earlier when you were saying that it isn't possible to cover the entire area because of resources. So which is it ? Were there officers designated to cover that area ? If so they failed in their assignment didn't they ? If not then they can't protect the public because they're not able to cover the ground are they ? You need to make your mind up, you can't use contradictory arguments and expect them both to hold up!
Ooo there's that phrase again "strawman argument" I've seen that crap posted at me before, it was crap then and it's crap now.
What chances do you think everyone would be taking then ? The chance that an armed officer wouldn't be able to intervene... like they didn't today ? The chance that a 'professional' would make a decision (using your earlier statement about them making the right decisions, and assuming they knew, just as it seems you did) to not intervene ? The chance that the police would even know anything about it until it was too late ?
What position is it that you are struggling with ? My position is simple why do we have armed officers wandering around airports when they are unable to protect the public or enforce security ? As they have proved so well today!
Now were you at some point going to answer the question that I have been asking from the beginning, and that I have actually posted directly to you, or do you intend to keep avoiding it ?
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
I fly fairly frequently on a work basis and while there are armed police in the terminals I have never seen one on the tarmac when I have been boarding a plane. Leaving the crocodile line while walking to ones own plane and going to another would not be hard - usually there are about two ground staff directing people (often young women). The general view being that by the time one gets on to the tarmac you don't have anything more dangerous than a toothbrush (and then only one with medium bristles not the scratchy firm ones).
So they stuck a banner on a plane. By the time the police arrived at the scene from the terminal the banner would be up and the hippies having a love in. It is not hard to see that they would have decided a shooting might be unnecessary. No big deal. Now if they had got on the tarmac with dummy Stinger missile launchers that would have been a security breach to talk about.
Actually having bullets flying around parked planes would not be a desperately good idea.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Biggles
I fly fairly frequently on a work basis and while there are armed police in the terminals I have never seen one on the tarmac when I have been boarding a plane. Leaving the crocidile line while walking to ones own plane and going to another would not be hard - usually there are about two ground staff directing people (often young women). The general view being that by the time one gets on to the tarmac you don't have anything more dangerous than a toothbrush (and then only one with medium bristles not the scratchy firm ones).
So they stuck a banner on a plane. By the time the police arrived at the scene from the terminal the banner would be up and the hippies having a love in. It is not hard to see that they would have decided a shooting might be unnecessary. No big deal. Now if they had got on the tarmac with dummy Stinger missile launchers that would have been a security breach to talk about.
Actually having bullets fling around parked planes would not be a desperately good idea.
That's precisely my point, thanks Les :)
They should all be sacked because they are obviously not up to the job, and we should do away with armed police officers in airports.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
I say you love the strawman because you projecting arguments onto others that they are not making. I have answered the question. "Why were they not shot" Because they didn't have to be shot. I have also explained that to give anything close to 100% infailibilty there would need to be an armed offecier every 10 square feet. But I will add that there should be four officers stood together facing the four main compass directions without turning their gaze away for one moment. Or better still one armed guard walking behind each person with his gun trained on their head "just in case". Of course that is riduculous
You said they ignored the breach, So I have to assume you were there to see these officers being told of or noticing the breach and just shrugging it off. Perhaps the situtation had ended by the time they were made aware and the ordinary security had dealt with it. Either way no shooting was needed.
Why do we have police at all? they don't prevent crime. Why do we have doctors? people still die from treatable illnesses, which brings me to what I can't figure out about your point.
I said I can't figure out what you feel should be done. You want to remove armed police because they weren't on the scene as it happened so didn't shoot the protesters before they got to the aircraft. How would that solve the problem?
The armed police are there to patrol and deal with anything the see and respond to incidents they are called to. In the UK BAA supplies security to check for bombs etc. and to escort the public around their premisses not the police.
@ Biggles. You may not have seen them, but they are about.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Biggles
Leaving the crocodile line while walking to ones own plane and going to another would not be hard
An excellent idea. If they got crocodiles to patrol the tarmac between the terminal building and the planes then this sort of thing wouldn't be a problem :smilie4:
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
manicgeek
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Skizo
Did you even read the article? :unsure:
"It said two women and two men crossed the tarmac at the airport after the passengers had disembarked."
"BAA said operations at the airport were not affected and described the protest as "unlawful and irresponsible"."
Why would officials shoot 4 civilians who were taping a sign to an empty plane? :unsure:
'civilians' ? Really ? How do you think the police knew they were civilians ? I mean what do suicide bombers look like do you think ? Do they have flashing signs over their heads that say "I'm a suicide bomber" or something ?
Greenpeace is dedicated to saving the planet, not blowing it up with bombs.
And not to be stereotypical, but all suicide bombers I've ever heard of were and are in the Middle East, which means they are Muslim and Muslims are tan. I'm pretty sure that Greenpeace is almost completely made up of whites.
Not to be racist and bring race into this though.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SenorBubbz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
manicgeek
'civilians' ? Really ? How do you think the police knew they were civilians ? I mean what do suicide bombers look like do you think ? Do they have flashing signs over their heads that say "I'm a suicide bomber" or something ?
Greenpeace is dedicated to saving the planet, not blowing it up with bombs.
And not to be stereotypical, but all suicide bombers I've ever heard of were and are in the Middle East, which means they are Muslim and Muslims are tan. I'm pretty sure that Greenpeace is almost completely made up of whites.
Not to be racist and bring race into this though.
There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.
Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.
Cartesian logic ftw.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
I sort of like the idea of always having a gun pushing into the back of your head.
It would ensure that i make more precise decisions in life.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chalice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SenorBubbz
Greenpeace is dedicated to saving the planet, not blowing it up with bombs.
And not to be stereotypical, but all suicide bombers I've ever heard of were and are in the Middle East, which means they are Muslim and Muslims are tan. I'm pretty sure that Greenpeace is almost completely made up of whites.
Not to be racist and bring race into this though.
There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.
Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.
Cartesian logic ftw.
Probly a good thing that none of them were hypocrites then.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ilw
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chalice
There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.
Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.
Cartesian logic ftw.
Probly a good thing that none of them were hypocrites then.
As opposed to whom, Ian?
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
they were protesting about cheap flights and stuff, but if any of them had been to sunnier climes recently, then they might not have been so pasty white and the armed police would naturally have thought they were terrorists and blammo...
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ilw
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chalice
There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.
Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.
Cartesian logic ftw.
Probly a good thing that none of them were hypocrites then.
Now you are just complicating matters :shifty:
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chalice
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SenorBubbz
Greenpeace is dedicated to saving the planet, not blowing it up with bombs.
And not to be stereotypical, but all suicide bombers I've ever heard of were and are in the Middle East, which means they are Muslim and Muslims are tan. I'm pretty sure that Greenpeace is almost completely made up of whites.
Not to be racist and bring race into this though.
There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.
Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.
Cartesian logic ftw.
Proved, by the gift of the Venn Diagram...
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6062/vennso0.jpg
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Five people have now scaled the roof of the Houses of Parliament and unfurled banners protesting about the Heathrow Airport expansion plans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7266512.stm
They probably should have shot them too, eh. :dabs:
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barbarossa
Yep they definitely should have.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barbarossa
Quote:
Originally Posted by
chalice
There you go boys...encapsulated perfectly there.
Suicide bombers are tan. And tan people are Muslim. So tan people are Muslim suicide bombers. Q.E.D.
Cartesian logic ftw.
Proved, by the gift of the Venn Diagram...
http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/6062/vennso0.jpg
Gee, wouldn't it be great if someone educated the Tan Middle-Eastern Muslim Suicide Bombers about Greenpeace?
I'm sure they'd join in droves, considering how effective (and legitimate!) Greenpeace is.
Problem solved.
As to the trespassers who are the subject of this thread:
What if they were terrorists, intent on hijacking an airliner (and benefiting from the absence of a bunch of annoying and potentially problematic passengers) in order to reprise a 911-style attack?
To the best of my knowledge, the airport tarmac is generally considered to be restricted-access.
You see where I'm going with this, of course...:whistling
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Barbarossa
Gee, wouldn't it be great if someone educated the Tan Middle-Eastern Muslim Suicide Bombers about Greenpeace?
I'm sure they'd join in droves, considering how effective (and legitimate!) Greenpeace is.
Problem solved.
As to the trespassers who are the subject of this thread:
What if they
were terrorists, intent on hijacking an airliner (and benefiting from the absence of a bunch of annoying and potentially problematic passengers) in order to reprise a 911-style attack?
To the best of my knowledge, the airport tarmac is generally considered to be restricted-access.
You see where I'm going with this, of course...:whistling
eerrrr... we shouldn't let them put planes on the tarmac as that is where terrorists would be most likely to get on board? :unsure:
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Biggles
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
Gee, wouldn't it be great if someone educated the Tan Middle-Eastern Muslim Suicide Bombers about Greenpeace?
I'm sure they'd join in droves, considering how effective (and legitimate!) Greenpeace is.
Problem solved.
As to the trespassers who are the subject of this thread:
What if they were terrorists, intent on hijacking an airliner (and benefiting from the absence of a bunch of annoying and potentially problematic passengers) in order to reprise a 911-style attack?
To the best of my knowledge, the airport tarmac is generally considered to be restricted-access.
You see where I'm going with this, of course...:whistling
eerrrr... we shouldn't let them put planes on the tarmac as that is where terrorists would be most likely to get on board? :unsure:
No, no.
They were not authorized to be on the tarmac, and the wearing of safety colors doesn't mitigate their trespass.
Had they actually been shot (which could have very easily happened) before their intent became clear, I doubt negligence could be proven...given today's atmosphere.
Do we then blame Al Qaeda for causing undue paranoia.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
j2k4
No, no.
They were not authorized to be on the tarmac, and the wearing of safety colors doesn't mitigate their trespass.
Had they actually been shot (which could have very easily happened) before their intent became clear, I doubt negligence could be proven...given today's atmosphere.
Do we then blame Al Qaeda for causing undue paranoia.
Rather difficult to blame people you can't find, for anything really. Let alone blaming some elusive organisation for something.
No I think we should just accept that we are a paranoid species, and that we should attempt our best to live with that... by shooting all the odd people, starting with those who volunteer to be shot by doing stupid things like these volunteers did.
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Unlike Al Qaeda, we know who these Greenpeace people are. We can go and shoot them any time we want. :shifty:
Re: Why weren't they shot ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
lynx
Unlike Al Qaeda, we know who these Greenpeace people are. We can go and shoot them any time we want. :shifty:
Yes; that circumstance goes hand-in-hand with legitimacy, however idiotic it may be.
Perhaps we should pursue Al Qaeda for operating without proper license. :whistling
