On (23 Oct 05) Steve Asher wrote to All...
 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.

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

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

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

 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.

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

 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.

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

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

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

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

This is Australia, the article you posted?

Because I care,
<+]::-{)}  (Cyberpope(the Bishop of ROM!))


--- PPoint 1.76