Mulling over George Pope to Steve Asher 23 Oct 2005

Hi George,

 SA> The police would be able to act if they believed a suspect's non-co-
 SA> operation could cause serious injury or death to others.

 GP> The police, as far as I knew, have always had the ability to react
 GP> with lethal force, if necessary to revent serious injury or death
 GP> to others, so what are they doing here except inciting a more
 GP> lethal violence-minded police force?

Exactly - police can already use lethal force (and do, on rare occasions).

 GP> Watch for the black Muslim shot 36 times because he was eating a
 GP> pear! 

Or the Brazilian electrician shot 8 times on the London tube because
he was (a) running away (b) wearing a heavy coat in warm weather, or
(c) doing nothing out of the ordinary.

 GP> (or maybe you'll never see that story, because the cops, upon
 GP> discovering the guy was only eating lunch, will plant a "throwaway"
 GP> to justify their use of lethal violence!)

"White powder" found in two small paper sachets with "CSR
Sugar" on
the labels?

 SA> "The police will then know what their rights are in that
situation,"
 SA> one senior government source said.
 SA>
 SA> "At present the police are not sure what their rights are.

 GP> Bullspit!
 GP> They are armed(& trained in the use of such arms) expressly for the
 GP> purpose of protecting themselves and/or the general public from
 GP> serious harm or death by miscreants!

And it is unlikely to be your average cop on the beat, unless by chance.

 SA> "The problem is leaving it (the offence) undefined. Codifying the
 SA> circumstances in which police could use shoot-to-kill or reasonable
 SA> force provisions would give certainty and clarity to them u and also
 SA> to any potential victim," the source said.

 GP> So what codifications or policies have been in effect since the
 GP> police were armed in the first place?

 GP> "Hey, here's a mondo powerful deadly weapon -- have fun!"?

 GP> But, yeah, they didn't previously exactly IMPRESS UPON the police
 GP> how very acceptable it NOW is to shoot-to-kill Muslims!

 GP> (yes, I'm translating into how things will likely manifest)

Yes, and while it might initially be used against Muslims, my guess
is that "mission creep" will ensure that it expands to cover any
sort of "seditious" activity, such as refusing to take the mark or
telling others not to take the mark.

 GP> This is Australia, the article you posted?

Yes, following a conference of Federal & State leaders recently.

Cheers, Steve..

---