RS> Sure, but clearly a boong being used as a speed hump would have
RS> made the news. The reason it didnt wasnt because the media chose
RS> not to run it, it was because they never found out about it.

JT> And even if they did, I think they would change and twist it
JT> around like they usually do to make it look like something else.

RS> Dunno, I've never been into conspiracy theorys myself.
RS> They certainly do manage to comprehensively mangle what
RS> did happen into something else quite a bit of the time tho.

JT> The papers are supposed to provide an unbiased view of the news in question

Crap, most of them, particularly Ruperts rags, are supposed to make money.
Part of the way they do that is by providing a very superficial commentary
that the stupids will buy coz it doesnt strain their tiny little 'brains'

JT> In some stories that I happened to know about and what
JT> really happened, the paper story is worded so the literal
JT> message is just an unbiased view, but is worded so that it may
JT> imply other things, or neglect to mention other points, or change
JT> the importance of some of the points to imply something else.

Sure, no argument that whenever they do cover a story that you
do know quite a bit about, they have very obviously mangled the
story, often obscenely mangled it. BUT its an entirely separate
issue whether they have mangled it ON PURPOSE or the exigencys
of how things have to be done produce that result.

At the ultimate it just aint possible to have a totally
'unbiased' view anyway. We work from the implicit assumption
that raping children is beyond the pale for example.

JT> They also tend to stretch the story somewhat
JT> to make for a more interesting read.

Corse they do. You only have to look at the current obscession
with what Jackboot forgot to see that. Its nothing like as
important as the media coverage its currently getting.

JT> Not in all cases mind you, but still.

Sure, but thats still not proven any conspiracy. Just
incompetence. When every other industry has its incompetents,
whats so surprising about the fact that the media does too ?
It would be a HELL of a lot more surprising if it DIDNT.

JT> What weapon did the boongs have?  A half-brick? That is not a
JT> weapon, therefor the taxi driver automatically becomes the guilty.

RS> Unfortunately thats more the current state of the law than the media.
RS> The law is just plain fucked on that sort of thing. The short story
RS> is that you aint supposed to end up with a dead boong in that case.

JT> Possibly dead boong or possibly dead taxi driver, it was his choice.

RS> Come on John, you dont know that the taxi driver was gunna end up dead.

JT> What I think is not going to change what
JT> the taxi driver believes would have happened.

You were however hyperventilating about his circumstances.
Currently the law works on reality, not neurotic fears John.

JT> We don't know exactly what was going through his mind at the time,
JT> also remember taxi drivers meet all sorts of weirdos all the time.

Sure, but currently the law doesnt allow them to just kill
those. Only the cops can get away with doing that at the moment.

JT> And he chose to leave.

RS> Sure. And the law currently doesnt allow you to just drive over people
RS> in the process of doing that. I'm not saying that that makes sense.

RS> I think the law should be changed so that the only thing that
RS> matters is if they were actually attempting an assault etc.

JT> Wrong planet Rod,

RS> Crap, there are places on THIS planet where that *IS* the law John.

JT> And which place on this planet are we in now Rod?

You were the one rabbiting on about planets John.

JT> I know some things that are very illegal here are
JT> part of the culture of other countries, and vice versa.

And some have chosen to change their law on that particular
point, and we are perfectly free to change ours too.

JT> Point being, we are here, not there.

Point being, we can change our law to whatever we like on that any time we want

JT> The law won't change to have an exception to the rule on who gets killed.

RS> We can change it to anything we like John.

JT> And how may that happen?

Have a look at how laws get changed.

JT> Vote?  Doesn't that mean that you get to agree or
JT> disagree on points that have already been made?

It ALSO means that if enough people want the law changed to that, it can be
changed to that. I think thats called democracy or something funky like that.

JT> They say that no-one should get killed for any reason.

RS> Thats complete crap too. The CURRENT law says that if you have
RS> reasonable fear for your life, you are entitled to kill the assailant
RS> if there is no other reasonable course of action available to you.

RS> And there is considerable latitude on reasonable fear too. If the
RS> assailant turns out to have a fake gun, its still reasonable to assume
RS> that its real, you dont have to wait for bullets to come out of it.

JT> But first you have to stop to evaluate the situation and see
JT> if you can prove that you really believed you were in danger.

Crap. Your original claim on 'They say that no-one should get killed
for any reason' is a complete dud, and this later claim is even worse.
Its up to THEM to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that you DIDNT John.

JT> There are some situations where you can't do that.

You've fucked up the story on proof utterly.

Clearly if you just blow someone away when they come and knock
on the door, it aint reasonable to fear for your life in that
situation. There have been plenty of situations where people have
blown someone away, and have had a reasonable fear for their life.

JT> There have been many cases where the thief sues the innocent just
JT> because the innocent have tried to stop the thief in the first place.

RS> Oh crap, you have mangled that utterly. What HAS
RS> happened is that the crim has sued when EXCESSIVE
RS> force has been used. An ENTIRELY different matter.

JT> How does one define excessive force?

You could try using your common sense John. Clearly if someone
is verbally abusing you, killing them is excessive force.

JT> Remember the crim won't stop just because you voice your disapproval.

You dont say ?

RS> And I'm talking about changing the law so that if the say burglar
RS> you find in your home gets badly injured, thats just too bad for
RS> the burglar. We can change the law to that any time we like.

JT> Cool idea, why hasn't it been changed already?

Basically because not enough want that.

JT> Even a friend who was a security guard, was told during
JT> training, if they EVER take out their firearm for ANY reason,
JT> it will be to shoot to kill, not maim or scare, but shoot to kill.

RS> Pity thats just the usual utterly mindless bullshit
RS> you often see in that particular situation. Bears
RS> absolutely no resemblance to the law whatsoever.

JT> Just repeating what I was told.

And I was pointing out that its tripe.

RS> Its actually just an approach which removes the possibility of the
RS> crim being able to make his claims about what actually happened and is
RS> totally and irretrievably outside the law. Tho proving that is obviously
RS> gunna be hard with just a dead crim. If there happens to be a credible
RS> witness tho, or say video footage, that security guard is fucked.

JT> I did not mean to imply that they are able to whip
JT> the pistols out whenever they feel like it, they have
JT> to be in a situation where the crim fires first and then
JT> if they missed, THEN the guard can return the fire.

Sure, but the law doesnt allow them to kill the crims dead in that situation.
One of the obvious examples is where the crim puts his hands up when the
security guard pulls a gun on him. The guard aint allowed to kill the crim.

What was claimed in that security guard course is FLOUTING the law.

JT> There has been some real blunders, but as far as I can see, most
JT> of the time, the guilty party gets off lightly, no real incentive
JT> to not do the crime again.  Crime does pay, and bloody well too.

RS> True, but thats almost entirely the
RS> current state of the law, not the media

JT> The media doesn't help the situation BTW.

RS> Its not THERE to 'help the situation' John.

JT> You got that right.

I got all the rest right too |-)
@EOT:

---