Reality is just a crutch for people who can't cope with drugs
There was a small sign up in my local town centre which was for a clairvoyancy type reading type thing. The thing which made me laugh is that it very clearly said "By appointment only". Insert joke about a clairvoyant needing to have people book first *here*. On a side note I can see my home and everything on google maps now, which is pretty cool. No sign of a car out front though, so I’ve got no idea when the pic was taken or how old it is. On another sidenote, if someone you are being interviewed by says "spot on" in relation to a load of responses you give, is that a good thing or an indication of something he says often? Also should I take his complimenting of my CV layout seriously? I've just often thought it was the cause of my lack of a job, although the reason he is bigging it up could be because he is actually the first person to see my new look CV. Darn this pessimism. Speaking of which, one possible definition of pessimism I just saw (when making sure I spelt the word right) mentions it could mean "the doctrine of the ultimate triumph of evil over good." Blimey that's cheery.
Today I went up to jjb sports in orpington. Probably never again. I was just looking for running gear and I never felt out of the gaze of the two security guys, one of whom followed me pretty closely. I'm really not the kind of person who would steal from a place like jjb, nor do I think I look like one. Actually I find it quite annoying that anyone thinks I do. I did however get the humour in people stealing running shoes and such things, especially if they get caught. Anyway I probably won’t be going back because the service sucked. Everyone was probably out back stoned off their faces or something. I was standing around for ages waiting for some service and bugger all came. Plus the store layout is rubbish. On my way there I was witness to a police car not bothering to indicate when overtaking someone. That really does piss me off, people not indicating. And now that a police car hasn't done it, well that pretty much makes it optional. Twats.
And now to my main thought. A few weeks ago in sevenoaks there was a shooting. A woman was shot dead by police because she was believed to be waving a gun around and apparently refused to put it down. The responses to the local newspaper have been astonishing. One is accusing the media of not sticking around because the woman who got shot wasn't upper-class enough for them. I'd say there are more important things going on nationally and internationally than a shooting of a poor woman and that class has nowt to do with it. Woman waves possible gun around. Woman gets shot. Woman dies of wound. All there is left to mention is what the police say with regards to the shooting. The bbc doesn’t need to hang around the car park for days. I seriously doubt they'd do it for someone of slightly higher status.
Another person seemed to suggest a baton round would have been enough to take her down, similar to how riots were dealt with in Northern Ireland apparently. Now I’m going to take a guess here and say that if the police believe someone is waving a gun (or gun type thing) in a frantic manner and isn't putting it down, they will most likely not be willing to risk their lives by creeping up and baton charging the person. Could you imagine that happening in america in a school? "Okay lads, someone has a gun on campus so let’s go in with batons raised." Not exactly a good example based on situations, but I think I got my point across. Basically YOU DO NOT BATON CHARGE SOMEONE YOU BELIEVE TO BE CARRYING A FRIGGING GUN!
Someone else bemoaned the fact that the police appeared to plan this operation at the local fire station. I did actually find this odd, only because I’m sure there are closer large spaces to plan such a thing, such as the car park behind the post office. Anyway yes, the police shouldn't be allowed to plan for anything which puts people’s lives at stake. They should just go in gung-ho and act on instinct rather than procedure (the writer of the letter states the police had been watching too many american films by planning this operation, whereas I think if they hadn't planned it they'd be like John McClane going to the airport to pick up his wife.) This is also one of the few (the local paper only published around 10 over two weeks) letters which bemoan the fact that they took such an action against a woman, given the last woman to be shot by police in the UK was shot by accident years ago. Sorry people, but bullets and guns don't discriminate based upon gender. They will be in the hands/body of whoever wants one.
Then there is the whole "aim at a limb, not the main body" discussion. Now I’ve recently gone paintballing, and I must admit it is a heck of a lot easier to shoot at the head and body of someone than their arms. Now, assuming the police were able to successfully hit a limb, for example the limb holding the gun, what then? Is there any guarantee the person will drop the weapon, or could they possibly still carry on waving the gun, perhaps shooting wildly into the darkness which surrounds them? Yeah, great idea.
There is one I really love though, which was published in yesterdays Sevenoaks Chronicle. The person (from a lane with a pretty druggy name) says "Why is it possible for vets to tranquillise a dangerous animal and the police are unable to deal with a disturbed person, or possible criminal, in the same way?" Now I’m no vet, maybe Mr/Ms Druggy Lane is or has more experience with vets or dangerous animals than I, but assuming we are all on the same level of uselessness when it comes to this field, let me put a few thoughts across. Firstly, vets probably wont handle any dangerous animals, that would be down to professionals (I’m thinking dangerous as in lions and stuff, rather than randy dogs, rabbits prone to biting and aggressive gerbils) in zoos and stuff. However I think I’ve seen enough Rolf Harris/ Other Aussie Bloke to believe that the method lies in getting the animal's attention elsewhere so it doesn't see the needle or whatever. Or of course, they could just shoot it with a dart. Now with the attention drawing, it is usually through the use of something like food or a handler doing stuff. I'm not sure food would have been very tempting to Ms crazy possibly armed person.
That would leave the diversion. Like what? Someone jumping around in a clown outfit? Cliff Richard singing about summer holidays? Now let’s assume that either one of those works and the person is successfully drugged up, or that they have been shot with a tranquiliser dart. Now you've got a drowsy person waving a gun around. Do handlers go straight to crocodiles once tranq has been administered? No, they let it take effect. Unfortunately while it is yet to take effect the animal can be prone to still be quite angry and snarly. It may bash into the walls of its cage if it is in one. Basically it won’t go as nicely as a little kitten that will look really cute as it slowly drops off. A possibly armed person is not a kitten. Do you know what separates us (humans) and them (other animals)? Opposable thumbs. If a lion had opposable thumbs, would you give it a gun? No. Do not compare treatment of a dangerous animal with how a possibly dangerous human should be treated.
Now yes, I know, it probably wasn't a firearm and it is tragic that this woman who has suffered from mental illness in the past has died like this, but it doesn't not mean you can accuse the media of discriminating against classes or bemoaning the fact that the police wouldn't let someone who may have had a gun wonder around until she fell asleep or whatever. They did a horrible job, made a very tough decision, the sort I’d rather not make, and did their best to keep us safe. Sure, go and compare it to the time police shot a bloke carrying a table leg, or the time police shot a bloke using the tube because those are all tragedies, but realise that just because you don't hear of all the times when they are in the right doesn't mean there haven't been anyway. And please don't scream "public inquiry" when things go awry. No one ever comes out bad from them. Guns shouldn't be on our streets at all, but they are, so let's be glad some people actually know how to use them and are using them to protect us. Oh and for yours and your relative's/friends' sakes, when someone says put the gun down, drop whatever you've got, whether it may be mistaken for a gun or not. The police aren't mind readers, nor can they see the future. Well, not yet anyway.
Please note that these letters may have been edited by the editors of the paper, they may not accurately represent the opinions and mindsets of the people of sevenoaks. If these letters aren't accurate representations of what the person intended to say then I apologise for talking about it as if it was fact.
Today I went up to jjb sports in orpington. Probably never again. I was just looking for running gear and I never felt out of the gaze of the two security guys, one of whom followed me pretty closely. I'm really not the kind of person who would steal from a place like jjb, nor do I think I look like one. Actually I find it quite annoying that anyone thinks I do. I did however get the humour in people stealing running shoes and such things, especially if they get caught. Anyway I probably won’t be going back because the service sucked. Everyone was probably out back stoned off their faces or something. I was standing around for ages waiting for some service and bugger all came. Plus the store layout is rubbish. On my way there I was witness to a police car not bothering to indicate when overtaking someone. That really does piss me off, people not indicating. And now that a police car hasn't done it, well that pretty much makes it optional. Twats.
And now to my main thought. A few weeks ago in sevenoaks there was a shooting. A woman was shot dead by police because she was believed to be waving a gun around and apparently refused to put it down. The responses to the local newspaper have been astonishing. One is accusing the media of not sticking around because the woman who got shot wasn't upper-class enough for them. I'd say there are more important things going on nationally and internationally than a shooting of a poor woman and that class has nowt to do with it. Woman waves possible gun around. Woman gets shot. Woman dies of wound. All there is left to mention is what the police say with regards to the shooting. The bbc doesn’t need to hang around the car park for days. I seriously doubt they'd do it for someone of slightly higher status.
Another person seemed to suggest a baton round would have been enough to take her down, similar to how riots were dealt with in Northern Ireland apparently. Now I’m going to take a guess here and say that if the police believe someone is waving a gun (or gun type thing) in a frantic manner and isn't putting it down, they will most likely not be willing to risk their lives by creeping up and baton charging the person. Could you imagine that happening in america in a school? "Okay lads, someone has a gun on campus so let’s go in with batons raised." Not exactly a good example based on situations, but I think I got my point across. Basically YOU DO NOT BATON CHARGE SOMEONE YOU BELIEVE TO BE CARRYING A FRIGGING GUN!
Someone else bemoaned the fact that the police appeared to plan this operation at the local fire station. I did actually find this odd, only because I’m sure there are closer large spaces to plan such a thing, such as the car park behind the post office. Anyway yes, the police shouldn't be allowed to plan for anything which puts people’s lives at stake. They should just go in gung-ho and act on instinct rather than procedure (the writer of the letter states the police had been watching too many american films by planning this operation, whereas I think if they hadn't planned it they'd be like John McClane going to the airport to pick up his wife.) This is also one of the few (the local paper only published around 10 over two weeks) letters which bemoan the fact that they took such an action against a woman, given the last woman to be shot by police in the UK was shot by accident years ago. Sorry people, but bullets and guns don't discriminate based upon gender. They will be in the hands/body of whoever wants one.
Then there is the whole "aim at a limb, not the main body" discussion. Now I’ve recently gone paintballing, and I must admit it is a heck of a lot easier to shoot at the head and body of someone than their arms. Now, assuming the police were able to successfully hit a limb, for example the limb holding the gun, what then? Is there any guarantee the person will drop the weapon, or could they possibly still carry on waving the gun, perhaps shooting wildly into the darkness which surrounds them? Yeah, great idea.
There is one I really love though, which was published in yesterdays Sevenoaks Chronicle. The person (from a lane with a pretty druggy name) says "Why is it possible for vets to tranquillise a dangerous animal and the police are unable to deal with a disturbed person, or possible criminal, in the same way?" Now I’m no vet, maybe Mr/Ms Druggy Lane is or has more experience with vets or dangerous animals than I, but assuming we are all on the same level of uselessness when it comes to this field, let me put a few thoughts across. Firstly, vets probably wont handle any dangerous animals, that would be down to professionals (I’m thinking dangerous as in lions and stuff, rather than randy dogs, rabbits prone to biting and aggressive gerbils) in zoos and stuff. However I think I’ve seen enough Rolf Harris/ Other Aussie Bloke to believe that the method lies in getting the animal's attention elsewhere so it doesn't see the needle or whatever. Or of course, they could just shoot it with a dart. Now with the attention drawing, it is usually through the use of something like food or a handler doing stuff. I'm not sure food would have been very tempting to Ms crazy possibly armed person.
That would leave the diversion. Like what? Someone jumping around in a clown outfit? Cliff Richard singing about summer holidays? Now let’s assume that either one of those works and the person is successfully drugged up, or that they have been shot with a tranquiliser dart. Now you've got a drowsy person waving a gun around. Do handlers go straight to crocodiles once tranq has been administered? No, they let it take effect. Unfortunately while it is yet to take effect the animal can be prone to still be quite angry and snarly. It may bash into the walls of its cage if it is in one. Basically it won’t go as nicely as a little kitten that will look really cute as it slowly drops off. A possibly armed person is not a kitten. Do you know what separates us (humans) and them (other animals)? Opposable thumbs. If a lion had opposable thumbs, would you give it a gun? No. Do not compare treatment of a dangerous animal with how a possibly dangerous human should be treated.
Now yes, I know, it probably wasn't a firearm and it is tragic that this woman who has suffered from mental illness in the past has died like this, but it doesn't not mean you can accuse the media of discriminating against classes or bemoaning the fact that the police wouldn't let someone who may have had a gun wonder around until she fell asleep or whatever. They did a horrible job, made a very tough decision, the sort I’d rather not make, and did their best to keep us safe. Sure, go and compare it to the time police shot a bloke carrying a table leg, or the time police shot a bloke using the tube because those are all tragedies, but realise that just because you don't hear of all the times when they are in the right doesn't mean there haven't been anyway. And please don't scream "public inquiry" when things go awry. No one ever comes out bad from them. Guns shouldn't be on our streets at all, but they are, so let's be glad some people actually know how to use them and are using them to protect us. Oh and for yours and your relative's/friends' sakes, when someone says put the gun down, drop whatever you've got, whether it may be mistaken for a gun or not. The police aren't mind readers, nor can they see the future. Well, not yet anyway.
Please note that these letters may have been edited by the editors of the paper, they may not accurately represent the opinions and mindsets of the people of sevenoaks. If these letters aren't accurate representations of what the person intended to say then I apologise for talking about it as if it was fact.