Carrying A Gun-Shaped iPhone 'Makes It Much Less Likely You'll Catch Your Plane' (cnet.com)

HughPickens.com writes: A passenger at London Stansted Airport seemed to think it was a good idea to have a gun-shaped iPhone case in his back pocket as he prepared to board a plane... [T]he police speculated on Twitter that they could proceed with charges against him for either a public order offense or for possession of an imitation firearm in a public place tweeting with the hashtag #dontbedaft that "Bringing this to an airport makes it much less likely you'll catch your plane."

[In 2015] the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office in New Jersey offered this warning on Facebook to potential users: "Please folks -- this cell phone case is not a cool product or a good idea. A police officer's job is hard enough, without having to make a split second decision in the dark of night when someone decides without thinking to pull this out while stopped for a motor vehicle violation..." One Twitter user responded, "On what planet is this a smart thing to do?" But the New Jersey prosecutor has asked their followers on social media to share their own opinions.

Comments

He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ihtoit]

That is all.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[seoras]

He was in London, not Texas.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[beelsebob]

Nah, British police aren't anywhere close to that trigger happy. The only ones who are allowed to carry firearms are specifically trained firearms officers who deal only with people with weapons. Maybe if he'd been in the US he would have had that issue.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ihtoit]

there are armed police at all UK commercial airports now, have been since 9/11.

(source: asked an armed police officer at Nottingham East Midlands Airport last month as I was passing through).

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[JustOK]

Are their bullets still dipped in pork AND beef fat?

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ihtoit]

put a firearm in the hands of a British cop, he thinks he's John Wayne. I shit you not.

Even when they're not carrying, they're still cunts.

https://www.facebook.com/susie... (filmed on Thursday)

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't shoot people who aren't threatening. Having a gun and not waving it around? Sure, they may arrest him on the suspicion of having a gun - they may even approach him with guns drawn. But shoot him? Nope - it doesn't work that way. They have plenty of time to fire if he tries to draw his "gun".

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[whoever57]

there are armed police at all UK commercial airports now, have been since 9/11.

Armed police were are at the airports in the UK long before 9/11 (or even 11/9, in the UK)

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ihtoit]

lol I have no idea on that, what I do know from training firearms authorised police officers in range marksmanship is that the "normal" armed response (airport cops aren't armed response, they're armed transport police) carry Glock 17s, Heckler & Koch MP5SF carbines, custom H&K G3 DSR (designated sniper rifles), Sig SG 516 AR-15 rifles, HK417 marksmen rifles, and Remington 870 shotguns.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

That is all.

And the rest of us are unlucky that he didn't get shot.

Re: He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol wtf is that? A video without context is useless. For all I know the guy getting hit deserved it just because the colour of their skin is different doesn't make it an issue.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ihtoit]

only at the larger ones such as the London 4, Birmingham International, Edinburgh and Cardiff. Maybe a couple more. The rest used to rely on APOs from local forces.

Re: He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ihtoit]

he was a: cuffed and b: subdued. The cop kicked him, walked away, came back then kicked him some more.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[fustakrakich]

And obviously they are far better trained on when NOT to shoot! American cops are taught differently

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[MichaelSmith]

Yeah but police who don't actually expect get shot by members of the public, during every shift they work.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[queazocotal]

However. In the USA, there may be reasons for wearing a gun - for example if you have the right carry permit and are simply confused as to what state/... you are in, or if you can wear it in the airport.
In the UK, merely carrying an imitation weapon, never mind a real one, is illegal. (in some cases, carrying a rifle or shotgun may be legal).
This rather changes things.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[haruchai]

I'm sure there are flaming assholes in every country, profession, demographic but UK cops, compared to America's Finest, have shown phenomal restraint under some dangerous situations.

For example, when 2 Nigerian terrorist knocked down offduty soldier Lee Rigby with a car then beheaded him with a cleaver, the unarmed cops didn't shit themselves but set up a cordon and guided passerbys away until the armed unit showed up and took both assailants alive, only shooting to wound, despite being rushed by both assailants with weapons in hand, performing 1st aid on one and getting them medical aid.

By contrast , Officer Brelo of the Cleveland PD fired 49 shots ( his fellow cops fired a total of 90 more ) into the car, windshield and bodies of 2 African-Americans. His final 15 bullets were discharged WHILE HE WAS STANDING ON THE HOOD - but he claimed to be afraid for his life???

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[jopsen]

there are armed police at all UK commercial airports now, have been since 9/11.

But officers in the UK are better trained and less trigger happy.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? You can't bring a gun or even an assault rifle to the airport it seems. It's almost like living in East Germany.
I had to listen to my 7 year old crying for an hour because they confiscated his H&K MP5. Ridiculous.
You people are a bunch of boot lickers.

Re: He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps you meant to link another video, the one you link showed someone violently resisting arrest and police struggle to disable and detain him??

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ShanghaiBill]

Nah, British police aren't anywhere close to that trigger happy.

Jean Charles de Menezes might disagree.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

American cops are taught differently [theguardian.com]

Actually, American cops are taught differently. They are taught to shoot before there is any threat. We saw it happening last week in Baton Rouge and Minnesota.

Meet Dr William J Lewinski. He is a "researcher" and expert witness for police departments, and he's getting police officers killed by teaching them to execute Americans.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015...

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

Yeah but police who don't actually expect get shot by members of the public, during every shift they work.

Police don't expect to get shot by members of the public during every shift they work. Being a police officer isn't even in the top 10 deadliest jobs. Garbage collectors and truck drivers are much more likely to get killed on the job than police.

The 10 Deadliest Jobs: Deaths per 100,000

1. Logging workers: 128.8
2. Fishers and related fishing workers: 117
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers: 53.4
4. Roofers: 40.5
5. Structural iron and steel workers: 37
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors: 27.1
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers: 23
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers: 22.1
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers: 21.3
10. Construction laborers: 17.4

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

However. In the USA, there may be reasons for wearing a gun - for example if you have the right carry permit and are simply confused as to what state/... you are in, or if you can wear it in the airport.

If you are confused as to which state you're in, or don't know that you don't pack heat in an airport, you are too dumb to own a gun.

Show of hands: How many people here don't know that you don't pack heat when you're going to an airport? You have to be NFL defensive lineman stupid to think you can bring your gat to LaGuardia or O'Hare.

Question 2: How many here have ever been confused as to which state they're in? I drive all over the country, and I've never found myself thinking, "Am I in Texas or Oregon? I can't tell."

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ColdWetDog]

Question 2: How many here have ever been confused as to which state they're in? I drive all over the country, and I've never found myself thinking, "Am I in Texas or Oregon? I can't tell."

Come on. It's easy in the American NE. You can sneeze twice and go entirely through Rhode Island.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't shit themselves? They hid! While Lee Rigby was having his head chopped off, they were staying on the other side of the crowd. While the murderers were haranguing and threatening the crowd, they were waiting for someone who had some courage to do show up and do something.

They were lucky that those two terrorists weren't set off by someone looking at them wrong, or maybe using portrait instead of landscape to film their ranting. If those two had decided to act, how many other people would have been injured or killed while your darling police hid themselves away?

A gun gives even a pussy some courage. Real police would have at least tried to save Rigby, using at least the meager armaments they had.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[rfengr]

I call BS on professional airline pilot. Pilot in general, sure, due to general aviation. But no way on commercial aviation.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many of those occupations involve getting shot at, stabbed or beaten as a matter of course? Getting called to a location specifically so you can be ambushed and killed because of numerous different reasons why someone wants revenge against you or simply bears a grudge against anybody who wears the same uniform? And how many of those occupations involve wearing bulletproof armor, and being armed at all times, and having an armed partner, simply as a *precaution* against the very real risk of death? Never mind, you're just another rancid moron who latches onto any dumb argument to "prove" a preconceived notion that happens to be dear to his world view. Logging is dangerous, therefore police don't risk getting shot. Enjoy your slashmod points, trash.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

lol I have no idea on that, what I do know from training firearms authorised police officers in range marksmanship is that the "normal" armed response (airport cops aren't armed response, they're armed transport police) carry Glock 17s, Heckler & Koch MP5SF carbines, custom H&K G3 DSR (designated sniper rifles), Sig SG 516 AR-15 rifles, HK417 marksmen rifles, and Remington 870 shotguns.

They must be very muscular and strong to carry around all those guns!

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[wonkey_monkey]

Not that it wasn't a tragedy, but you had to go more than a decade back to find that example.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[mark-t]

What difference does that make? They are still more deadly than police work. The fact that police might have to put themselves in the aforementioned situations and *still* their job is less deadly than the others mentioned above would be a reflect of the quality of the safety measures that are employed by the police.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is, the above comment which was being responded to, "Police don't expect to get shot by members of the public during every shift they work", is idiotic, unless the poster thinks the cops can single out *specific shifts* where they might get shot at, in which case they could simply call in sick for those shifts and cops would never get shot at all. TLDR, police work is deadly and cops risk death by gunshot at all times even if they're not on the SWAT team. One of the 5 sniper victims on Friday was a transit cop.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ScentCone]

They are taught to shoot before there is any threat

They wouldn't even have BEEN at the scene in Baton Rouge if the guy in question hadn't been waving a gun around and threatening. That's why they were called. When the arrived, he refused to do as asked. Likewise after being tased, and again after another attempt to subdue him that way. And all 6'-4" and 300 pounds of him, with a gun on him, was not giving up his fighting as they tried doing it the old fashioned way, trying to pin him down. Yeah, there should have been four people on a guy that big who didn't want to go back to jail where he'd spent so much time for his other crimes. But you're really going with "no threat" at all before they had to resort to their fourth way of trying to deal with him?

Re: He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

London is in Texas. So is Paris.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[harperska]

Mythbusters proved that it is at least plausible to carry around all your weapons DOOM style, as long as you are in very good shape.

http://nerdist.com/what-we-lea...

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[haruchai]

"They hid! While Lee Rigby was having his head chopped off, they were staying on the other side of the crowd"
Bullshit.
Unarmed officers showed up 9 minutes after the emerg call at 14:20h by which point Rigby was already dead and been dragged into the road.
Armed unit took another 5 minutes to arrive.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Guspaz]

Drive 350 miles between Montreal and Providence, and you'll pass through four states and one province. An extra 60 miles and you could add another two states to that. 7 states/provinces in 410 miles. Damn straight I've said aloud "What state are we in?" while driving in New England.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[FatdogHaiku]

Are their bullets still dipped in pork AND beef fat?

You know... If you added some cheese grease to that you could have the fastest bacon cheeseburger death EVER!

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

So what happens if he carries a dildo-shaped phone?

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind, you're just another rancid moron who latches onto any dumb argument to "prove" a preconceived notion that happens to be dear to his world view.

Are you sure you aren't just looking into a mirror?

He gave facts with a reference. You give ... your angry hand-waving. You haven't refuted a single fact. You did use a silly strawman because he never claimed they don't risk getting shot. He claimed they don't expect it to happen every day.

My opinion, if I were a police officer I would be more concerned about getting injured in a car accident while driving my cruiser because that's more likely than getting shot.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

If there are police who "expect to get shot by members of the public every shift they work", they need to be taken off the force or at least put on desk duty.

It's as if every Macbook user expected to have his battery burst into flames every time they turn the laptop on.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I don't know how many of those occupations involve getting shot at, stabbed or beaten as a matter of course, but at least none of them involves killing ten times as many other people every year. Apparently the public is still at a greater risk from the US police than the US police is from the US public.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

Drive 350 miles between Montreal and Providence, and you'll pass through four states and one province. An extra 60 miles and you could add another two states to that. 7 states/provinces in 410 miles. Damn straight I've said aloud "What state are we in?" while driving in New England.

I'm in Connecticut right now. I often find myself in Massachusetts, New York, Vermont, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, while just looking for a slice of pizza or a sandwich.

But I still manage to notice those gigantic "WELCOME TO MOTHERFUCKING NEW JERSEY, DOUCHEBAG" signs they have at every single border. Maybe if you stop texting while you drive, you'll notice them, too.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

Come on. It's easy in the American NE. You can sneeze twice and go entirely through Rhode Island.

I'm in Connecticut and I sneeze a lot. I still manage to see those big signs at the border (NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR CHRIS CHRISTIE WELCOMES YOU, MOTHERFUCKER. YOU BETTER HAVE BROUGHT SOME DONUTS).

But since the gun laws around here are pretty much all the same, you got nothing to worry about unless you're running shine in your big-block Dodge out on the back roads.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

They wouldn't even have BEEN at the scene in Baton Rouge if the guy in question hadn't been waving a gun around and threatening.

They took the guy's gun out of his pocket after they shot and killed him.

I don't know if you've seen the videos, but the tazers had done their job. The guy had one arm laying useless and the other in a "Please don't shoot me!" gesture. He was nowhere near pulling a gun.

As I said (and as you can learn from my citation), the police are taught to shoot and kill before they see a threat.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

I call BS on professional airline pilot. Pilot in general, sure, due to general aviation. But no way on commercial aviation.

You can call BS all you want.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://time.com/4326676/danger...

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/09/12...

These are statistics from three different years. And being a police officer is still less dangerous than being a taxi driver or janitor.

If you don't like the statistics, you can call and complain to the Washington Post, Time Magazine, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and CNBC.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

I call BS on professional airline pilot.

By the way, the list doesn't say, "professional airline pilot".

It says "aircraft pilot".

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

For people who don't know.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[geoskd]

The difference is, the above comment which was being responded to, "Police don't expect to get shot by members of the public during every shift they work", is idiotic, unless the poster thinks the cops can single out *specific shifts* where they might get shot at, in which case they could simply call in sick for those shifts and cops would never get shot at all. TLDR, police work is deadly and cops risk death by gunshot at all times even if they're not on the SWAT team. One of the 5 sniper victims on Friday was a transit cop.

Cops in this country are increasingly at risk of being shot specifically *because* of the shoot first ask questions later mentality. When one side of a conflict is perceived as being trigger happy, the other side has to up their game in self defense. The only solution is to DE-escalate, and the criminals are not the ones who are supposed to be the professionals. If you want to reduce the number of police involved shootings, disarm the police completely, and make killing and unarmed officer an automatic capitol offense, with mandatory death penalty. Then the police will actually be safer since shooting a cop will effectively mean a death sentence for the shooter. How often do British police get shot? How often do they shoot anyone, innocent or otherwise? British cops are a hell of a lot safer than US cops specifically *because* they are not armed. There have been more than a dozen cops shot in the line of duty in the US just this year so far. Thats is about the same number of PCs in Britain that have ever been shot in the last century. The number of people who have been shot by British cops is zero because they don't have anything to shoot people with. Compare that to the US where cops have killed an average of 500 people per year. Its high time we disarmed the front line police in this country: For their protection and ours.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[sumdumass]

I think his point is more to the order of the difference between a strict gun law country verses a liberal gun law country. Kind of in regards to the comment about it being London not Texas. The shift was ancillary.

However, I think if cops are actually scared that they will get shot on any shift, they need to find another profession. There are tactics and procedures you can take to avoid being shot at and if you are not called to a live fire incident and are still scared, the training didn't stick and they are a danger to society. They will be ineffective when really needed and probably use their firearms when there is no need.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[JoeMerchant]

The armed police and paranoid security have been going on at LHR for quite some time before the 9/11 events, I think Lockerbie was all it took to put them on edge permanently.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[sumdumass]

A really good phone sex session?

I'm surprised that still happens with the internet and all. I would like to know the ring tone used.

Re: He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't you ever see Commando? Totally possible!

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[sribe]

there are armed police at all UK commercial airports now, have been since 9/11.

There were armed police or army, carrying actual assault rifles, in Heathrow in 1986...

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Tesen]

... and, "You can't say bomb at the airport."

"Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb,... BOMB!"

Seriously though, what a lack of common sense. "Honey, I am going to airport with my cellphone case that looks like a gun... i'll be back in 5 - 10 years..."

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[alzoron]

Believe it or not roads aren't the only way to travel from one state to the next. I've been camping near a state border before and there was no indication of where one state ended and the other one began. Hunting/Camping trips are a very good example of situation where someone might have a firearm and end up unknowingly cross a state line. Sure you should try to be aware of your surroundings but when the only thing around you for miles are nondescript trees and rocks shit happens.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[dbIII]

The amount of training they go through and how well co-ordinated the UK police system is would utterly astound officers of the tens of thousands of distinct police forces in the USA.
Police training not gun training I mean - it's very different, far more professional than in nearly every US police force giving them a lot of options other than drawing and shooting at a suspect.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[jrumney]

You include London City, Edinburgh and Cardiff amongst the larger airports of the UK, but not Manchester, which actually has long-haul flights out of it?

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Roger W Moore]

I call BS on professional airline pilot.

If you include all commercial pilots this seems plausible by the time you have included private business jets, cargo transports, crop dusters etc. It's also not clear whether this is just for the US or worldwide. If the later that would include non-western countries where pilot deaths may be higher and non-US countries where police deaths may be far be lower.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[hackwrench]

I have no clear perspective on police expectations. However, I call foul on your assertion that people's expectations are shaped solely by statistics.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[pete6677]

Police should shoot to kill once it becomes clear they are dealing with a violent shithead who is intent on harming them. If someone is willing to violently attack police officers, imagine what they will do to regular civilians. Violent savages don't belong in free society.

Save the taxpayers the cost of a trial and subsequent incarceration. Also, save future victims from being harmed by the shithead who would otherwise be early-released from prison by some liberal parole board.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Dog-Cow]

If you're seeing "WELCOME TO MOTHERFUCKING NEW JERSEY, DOUCHEBAG" at every border, while visiting NY, VT, and Pennsylvania, you might be a little confused as to which state you're in. I know I would be.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[publiclurker]

no, he is using the word in the normal sense that people who are not interested in justifying murder use.

Re: He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

However. In the USA, there may be reasons for wearing a gun - for example if you have the right carry permit and are simply confused as to what state

I'm not sure "reason" means what you think it means. I don't walk around in fear for my life, so I don't carry a gun. Circumstances may be different for others -- women, for example, or people who live in dangerous areas. I don't agree with carrying in known safe areas because then the only threat is yourself to anyone else.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[arglebargle_xiv]

It's OK, he wasn't black.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ThatsMyNick]

How many of those deaths are accidental, how many of them are from being murdered by someone else?

You can be careful, follow safety standards and not die as a logger. Can the same be said of cops?

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ThatsMyNick]

How many unarmed cops were there? Would the result be the same if there just two unarmed cops or if the Nigerians were carrying guns?

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[mark-t]

My point is that despite any argument that police work is deadly, it is still statistically *LESS* deadly than the aforementioned professions. The fact that the workers in these other professions don't routinely have to put themselves in the same kinds of deadly situations as police does not magically make those jobs any less deadly, nor elevate the level of deadliness of police work relative to them.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[mark-t]

Actually,. my point was that the argument that police might somehow be required as part of their duties to engage in activities that are commonly recognized as life threatening to even a layperson does not somehow cause police work to actually be any more life threatening than it actually is relative to those other professions listed, which are actually statistically *MORE* deadly. The fact that police may have to do such things is entirely irrelevant to the issue of how deadly it actually is compared to the deadlier professions that do not require such activities. Hence: "what difference does it make"? Answer: none.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

> And being a police officer is still less dangerous than being a taxi driver or janitor.

Yeah, well, they don't deal with the same kind of threats, either. The police officer is threatening someone's freedom every time they enforce the law. If they were getting shot as much as unarmed people, they wouldn't be very good at their jobs, would they?

I'm amazed at how you admit that you want to see more cops getting shot, though. But I think that's becoming a bit obvious these days, no? The part that baffles me is that you don't expect them to shoot back... and you don't expect people to acquit cops who shoot a violent felon who pulls a gun.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

When they list airline pilot, they are talking about small charter planes and bush pilots. Commercial jet liners and their pilots are very safe.

Take a Norwegian Cruise Line to Alaska and meet a few Alaskan bush pilots in some of the ports. Those are the high-risk pilots.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Zontar The Mindless]

So, you're saying that The Police all kill people before they see any threats...

No, just the black ones.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

What You seem to misunderstand is that the police are the level of violent savagery that society is able to accept.
Asking for police to become more savage does not decrease the amount of violence in society -- in only moves it to an organization that is considered to be able to control it for the benefit of the society. But this control holds only until a point. After the point is passed, the police force becomes just another gang, with no control or oversight over them.
Yes, the police should act with minimal possible violence, and not maxial possible overkill. Yes, some policemen and policewomen will die because of it -- that is a hazard of their occupation and they should be protected as much as possible and compensated monetarily for their bravery. But they should not become violent savages they work so hard to erase from society. Just as firemen shouldn't set houses of arsonists on fire, the police shouldn't erase violence with more violence. Their job is to protect order, not to kill suspects. Whereas sometimes it seems necessary to kill to protect order, such a thing should be the exception, not the ordinary.

Not only that, You misunderstand the word "freedom" as well. Violent savages belong in a free society. They cannot belong only in a society that is bound by rules and regulations.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[stephanruby]

I call BS on professional airline pilot.

Good, because it didn't say "professional airline pilot", it actually said "aircraft pilot and flight engineers".

Which could possibly include the thousands of little planes in Alaska delivering supplies and passengers, search and rescue aircrafts in areas like the mountains/the sea/the forest, firefighting airplanes and helicopters, oil rig aircrafts, UPS/FedEx/cargo planes, new aircrafts currently being tested, tourist/safari/hunting helicopters, little planes used for advertising, crop spraying airplanes, surveying/meteorological aircrafts, news/traffic/police/ambulance helicopters, possibly military aircrafts, private jets/planes/helicopters which the owners themselves don't know how to fly (so they hire someone else to pilot for them), etc.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

You can be careful, follow safety standards and not die as a logger. Can the same be said of cops?

Yes.

There are extreme situations like the recent Dallas shootings but since it is clear that they were targeting a specific group of people rather than police officers in a particular situation it is more comparable to the Orlando mass shooting.

Police officers getting shot at or ending up in dangerous situations in the regular line of work typically doesn't follow proper procedure and escalates situations to a point where they become dangerous for everyone involved.
Some people are just not very skilled a dealing with other people and creates problem where there were none before. If you are a logger that isn't a big problem, at most someone gets a punch in the face.
Unfortunately people like that can also become cops. Suddenly you have that situation between two strangers where at least one of them have a gun.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[thegarbz]

It doesn't help just saying believe the statistics. To convince someone it helps to provide background.

Deaths are a rate. There is an incidence number across the top, and there is a divisor across how many people there are. The absolute number of police fatalities may actually be considerably higher than airline pilots, however how many of each profession exist around the world? That can move the rate quite considerably.

There are an estimated 130000 airline pilots around the world.
There are an estimated 300 police officers per 100000 people as estimated by the UN. That's 21 million police officers around the world.

So we can knock off 160 police officers for every pilot we kill and the statistics would still hole true.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[allo]

Yeah, but i europe you only shoot if there are immediate danger, not just because you saw something which might be a gun. Has something to do with people not carrying guns usually, so a immitation is much more likely than a real gun. Unlike texas.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Police training not gun training I mean

Sadly that appears to be the case for most professions.
My basic training in the military made me more apt at deescalating situations involving possibly armed civilians than the US police force appears to be.
Shooting someone isn't something that should just happen, you should have decided exactly at what point you will shot before you even meet the person.
Once you have made that decision you can put your entire focus on not having to do it, from that point on you can work to save the other persons life.
Speak you intentions clearly. Shoot a warning shot if possible.

The way some US police officers behave is just mind boggling. Whoever allowed them to have a gun without proper training should be fired.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the first thing to make me laugh in days. I enjoyed marksmanship training at school in the cadets and I expect I'm better trained with firearms than the average person, but fuck me do I find gun nuts funny.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

faggot

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

1) If someone's aim is to attack police officers, they'll probably do nothing to regular civilians.

2) "Save the taxpayers the cost of a trial" is every fascist's dream for every crime. Let's make the police judge, jury and executioner and see how long society lasts. Better hope YOU don't end up on the wrong side of some policeman's grudge, buddy.

None of this excuses violence against the police. But your view is far more dangerous to far more people than one mad bastard with a gun.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[SJ]

Drive 350 miles in Western Australia and guess what... You're still in god-damned Western Australia. :-)

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

Believe it or not roads aren't the only way to travel from one state to the next. I've been camping near a state border before and there was no indication of where one state ended and the other one began.

I hadn't thought of that. I wonder if park wardens are more understanding of gun owners in those situations than highway patrol or state police would be of a driver on an interstate. I'd hope so.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

There are an estimated 130000 airline pilots around the world.

These statistics are for jobs in the US.

There are an estimated 300 police officers per 100000 people as estimated by the UN. That's 21 million police officers around the world.

So we can knock off 160 police officers for every pilot we kill and the statistics would still hole true.

Again, we're not talking about "around the world", we're talking about the US.

To measure the danger of a job (or the incidence of brown eyes in a population), the .rate of occurrence per population is the best way. If you can suggest a better one, scientists, public policy researchers, statisticians and actuaries the world over would love to hear about it.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[dknj]

Was he though? Or did this anonymous homeless gentleman say something to get this man who wouldn't give him $1 in trouble? Was there even an anonymous homeless gentleman? Finally, in what free American state can anonymous homeless gentlemen simply place an anonymous phone call to have police violate your rights? (hint: it's all of them)

Let me paint a different picture, based on reported facts so far.

Officers Blane Salamoni and Howie Lake were reportedly responding to a 911 call about a man threatening someone with a gun

This is a tough situation. Simply threatening someone has a gun will get a paramilitary response (did you see the officers that responded? they were MMA fighters)

before they arrived, but Muflahi said no one was waving a gun, certainly not Sterling.

Now what. A single phone call from an anonymous man claiming a gun can get a black man shot and killed. Read that again. I could anonymously call saying I saw you waving a gun around and a cop could be justified in shooting you if they find *something* on you that may or may not be a gun (i don't know about you, but I don't know what gun you can pull out of a pocket that you can conceal almost entirely in your hand.. check out the video again, freeze frame when the officer pulls something out of the dead man's pocket and try to tell me if that looks like a gun to you)

Also lets never forget this crucial eye witness testimony that was not even considered by the responding officers

Muflahi walked out the front door when he saw the officers talking to Sterling and said there was no “altercation,” as police claimed, until the cops tasered and tackled Sterling. That’s when Muflahi took out his phone and started recording.

You have the owner of the property telling you there was no altercation and yet here we have officers needing to taser and tackle. We see the gentleman slammed into the car and onto the pavement with the use of a taser as reports indicate. Then we see two big police officers on top of another big gentleman. We *HEAR* the police officers say "HE'S GOT A GUN" and then shots go off.

Let me paint a different picture for you.

Someone, not liking this Sterling gentleman, places an anonymous 911 call from a pay or burner phone. Peace officers arrive and engage in a tense and elevated manner leading to preemptive use of controlling tactics before talking to other witnesses at the scene. Once they have this Sterling gentleman on the ground, they are able to cover and shield his entire body for the safety of others as they claim he has a gun. They fire shots as they think this Sterling gentleman is reaching for a gun which an anonymous homeless person claimed he has previously brandished. The peace officers remove an object from his pocket leaving the sterling gentleman to bleed out and perish in front of said store owner who would call these same peace officers if any trouble occurred at his store (which he said, no such trouble existed at his store).

I will not speculate who this someone was that placed this 911 call, that is an exercise for the reader. But seriously think twice before walking near a homeless man with anything in your pocket, it may end your life. Also don't be black when walking around with things in your pocket.

-dk

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

What about my shot?

Before you try to have an adult discussion, please go back and finish school.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, the UK has gun laws.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[dknj]

It doesn't need to be clear case of murder to be a tragedy.

We have no idea if this man was really brandishing. From the video all you can establish is that this gentleman did not want to be put in handcuffs. I mean, race aside, would YOU want to be put in handcuffs simply because someone called the police anonymously and claimed you had a gun? Just turned out this man was black so it was justifiable that he may have a gun and he may use it. Because, you know, that's what they all do on rap videos.

As of now, the white man's terrorism is truly unstoppable.

I agree. It's the same problem we faced with the mob mentality in the 1920's, except we are funding this mafia.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[haruchai]

IIRC, one of them did have a gun.
The UK has a population of ~66 million yet TOTAL police shootings in the past few decades is in the dozens where CA or TX rack up that number in weeks or a few months.
The city of London, England had ZERO fatal police shootings between 2011 & 2014

They're far from perfect and the tendency to withhold the identity of officers who opened fire is worrisome - but the *relative* rarity of police shootings in the UK ( and most of Europe) makes me wonder why American cops are so quick to transform into executioners

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[colinwb]

You cite the example of the British police being (mostly) unarmed, and then suggest the USA police should be disarmed with a mandatory death penalty for killing a USA police officer: you might want to consider that here in the United Kingdom, not only are the police mostly unarmed, but also the death penalty was removed in Britain in 1965 (and in Northern Ireland in 1973), so it's not fear of being judicially killed that's keeping murders of police relatively low. (I'm assuming that the rate of police being killed is higher in the US than the UK - in the true Slashdot spirit, a ten second web search didn't find what I was looking for, so I'll go with what might be the case.)

A minor correction: it's not quite true that "the number of people who have been shot by British cops is zero because they don't have anything to shoot people with"; without searching, I can think of at least two men who have been shot and killed by British police recently: a completely innocent Brazilian whom the police thought might have been a terrorist, and Mark Duggan who had previous criminal convictions. That said, it's true that most UK police are not armed, which, as you say, means they don't have the opportunity to shoot people.

Assuming this Wikipedia list is materially correct, then since 1996 the UK police have killed 41 people, about 2 people per year; the USA population is very roughly five times that of the UK, so the rate for US police seems to be about 50 times the UK rate.

I started at 1996 because if the Wikipedia list is true then nobody was killed by the UK police between 1921 and 1978, which I find more than somewhat unlikely. And the figures do not include deaths in Northern Ireland caused by the British military. According to Wikipedia, between 1969 and 2007 the British military killed 306 people, about 51% being civilians and 41% being republican paralilitaries (presumably the remaining 8% were associated with unionist paramilitaries). In the same period 722 of the British military were killed by paramilitary attacks and 719 died from other causes.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the state where an black citizen, exercising his open carry rights at a protest turned in his weapon during a mass shooting, and wasn't shot?

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[thegarbz]

I'm not sure what you're arguing about. I agreed with you and simply offered an explanation for the clueless GP as to why the rate figures are as they are. Even if the numbers from the US are used the number of police still dwarf the number of pilots.

And you're right, the rate is the best way to measure.

Re: He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever talked to a real cop, or do you just repeat the bullshit in your echo,chamber? I say this because the real cops I've talked to all fear killing someone. Believe it or not, they don't want to. See, unlike your fantasy land, most people become cops because they feel an obligation to serve the community. They want their kids to grow up in a safer community. They also have this strong desire to not die. You really suggested up there that the cops ignore a report of a crime, because someone who has a vested interest in the cops not being there claim nothing happened? That's profoundly ignorant.

Re: He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the cop wears body armor and I don't. I'm a pilot. Look at the rate of incidents of people attempting to shoot or knife cops, and then you've got a relevant statistic.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ScentCone]

So, you're saying that The Police all kill people before they see any threats...

No, just the black ones.

Really. So in millions of police interactions with people every year, The Police kill all the black people they encounter without there being any threat. That explains why good old fashioned murder of black men by other black men is a vanishingly small occurrence by comparison. Woops! That's exactly backwards, isn't it. Yup.

The point is, there is no such thing as "The Police Killing The Black People" - it's a fantasy. There is such a thing as a police officer shooting someone. Police use lethal force more often on white people than they do black people, of course, not to take any of the fun out of the rant for you. Police also work in some very high crime areas that happen to have much larger black populations, and that much higher rate of interacting with black people while also dealing with a more dangerous, higher-crime area of course changes how often force intersects with a given skin color.

We can talk all day long about how places where one cop or two respond to something should probably be four cops or six, so that a given officer isn't wound up nearly so tight, or as likely to fear for his life like that way-out-of-his-league cop in MN that was a jumpy nervous wreck and shot that driver the other day because he misinterpreted the guy's going for his ID. You solve those nerves with more and better backup, and if that doesn't work, you get rid of an incurably nervous cop, and prosecute the ones who should have known/done batter. But you don't say "The Police Kill Black People" like it's some sort of across the board feature of being a cop, or happens everyday. Idiots repeating claims like that are part of the problem, not the solution. It's no different than people who say "computer hackers are pedophiles."

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[squiggleslash]

FWIW, and I'm not sure I want to enter this shit show, it's a list of deadliest jobs. There's no such job as "amateur pilot". It's about professional airline pilots, "Professional" without have been redundant.

You'd have been on stronger ground criticizing him if you'd mentioned that it referred to pilots and flight engineers, not just pilots.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you really understand how things work. An ever-present threat is always present. If the threat is one that will end your life, you're an idiot to ignore it. Cops in general are at a heightened risk of being shot at all times simply because of their job. It's not equal for all cops, but it's there, and it's significant. You can comfortably mock the threat from your position of safety, but you're dumb to do so.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops are at the risk of getting shot because they are pitted against armed criminals, period. It's no good pretending they wouldn't be at risk if there were no wrongful police shootings. Nor will the liberals in this country allow the "auto-death-penalty" arrangement you describe; they plan to abolish the death penalty completely. Conveniently, you don't have to face the reality of having to be armed and a target painted on your back in order to do your job as you sit and prescribe silly "solutions" and "analyses" such as the frankly ludicrous suggestion that British police are at less risk because THEY are not armed, when arguably it's primarily because the civilian population is not armed.

Re: He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

Of course, the cop wears body armor and I don't. I'm a pilot. Look at the rate of incidents of people attempting to shoot or knife cops, and then you've got a relevant statistic.

And the cop never leaves the ground and you do. Look at the difference in the rate of pilots dying in fiery crashes from 20,000 feet vs. pilots.

The only relevant statistic is the relative safety of occupations in terms of the number of fatalities per 100,000. Janitors are more likely to die on the job than cops. You know the guy who drives the Frito-Lay truck to the grocery store and stocks shelves? He's more likely to die on the job than a cop.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

Oh, I got you. Sorry.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the fact that all fatalities can be reduced to a statistical incidence teach you that sawblade accidents are no different than being stalked, ambushed or sniped by a sentient being with a deadly weapon? And thus, you seem to say, cops should apprehend the threat no differently? Pardon me if I think that's bad analysis combined with a shocking lack of empathy and warped understanding of human psychology.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[sudon't]

there are armed police at all UK commercial airports now, have been since 9/11.
(source: asked an armed police officer at Nottingham East Midlands Airport last month as I was passing through).

Yes, but, guns do not kill people, people do. That is the difference between the US and the UK, particularly when it comes to police.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[PopeRatzo]

It's about professional airline pilots

Not all professional "aircraft pilots" are professional "airline pilots". That's the distinction. The statistic is for aircraft pilots, not airline pilots.

A crop duster, surveyor, the guy who flies the helicopter for your friendly traffic reporter, charter pilots, etc. I'm guessing that the number of "airline pilots" who die on the job is smaller (per 100,000) than the guys who bring the mail to an Aleutian Island via seaplane.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ihtoit]

::rolleyes:: any more?

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Richard_at_work]

There are a lot more professional pilot jobs than "airline pilot".

Re: He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ThatsMyNick]

Okay, does the logger or anyone else in the list, ever realize they face imminent danger, and just continue doing their jobs? Or the logger is just unaware.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

And the most dangerous person to a black man is another black man who isn't a police officer. Police shooting you doesn't even make the top 10 dangers civilians face, especially other black males in urban environments.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[thegarbz]

Oh, I got you. Sorry.

... people on Slashdot being civilised. Man this site is going downhill :-)

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[serviscope_minor]

I call BS on professional airline pilot. Pilot in general, sure, due to general aviation. But no way on commercial aviation.

Commercial aviation is much more than just large, scheduled flights from large commercial airports.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

I can live with that.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[publiclurker]

I wold hardly call a world where cops feel entitled to shoot any minorities that they want to be a fantasy world. Someone like you might, but not a respectable person.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[publiclurker]

in other words, it is OK when someone like you kills a minority because other people like you are more than willing to insult everyone's intelligence by pretending that they can justify these murders.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[mark-t]

No... that is not what I am saying at all. p. My point was that it was noted above that police work is not even in the top ten most dangerous jobs, as measured by fatality incidents... and a followup poster appeared to contest the notion, by raising the fact that police might have to put themselves in particular situations that are obviously recognized even to a layperson as life-threatening, such as possibly getting shot. My "what difference does it make?" remark was driven by the fact that those points do not somehow cause police work to be more dangerous than it already statistically is when you are measuring how dangerous a job is by how many fatalities it causes in the first place. While police officers may put themselves in situations that may be obviously viewed as dangerous, and my "what difference does it make?" remark was certainly not intended to sound flippant towards those who would put themselves in harms way in the interests of upholding the law and to protect innocent people, going strictly by the number of fatalities, those efforts do not change the fact that the number of police officer fatalities doesn't even place police work in the top ten most dangerous jobs.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Many (most?) US cops are poorly trained cowards. That's why they keep shooting people who aren't real threats. That's why they pepper spray people indiscriminately. That's why they grenade babies. That's why SWATing is actually dangerous in the USA. And that's why suicide by cop is actually viable in the USA (even if you change your mind they may shoot you anyway: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ).

If firefighters were as cowardly as US cops they'd refuse to go into any burning building to save lives and just spray at it from a safe distance.

In the USA if you were trying to save someone who was suicidal, calling the cops may result in that person getting killed ( https://www.washingtonpost.com... ). Better to call others like the fire brigade.

How many other places in the world do the cops destroy and empty building? http://www.policestateusa.com/...

I'm a coward too but I didn't apply to be a police officer. Those cops are not fit to be cops.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans think they invented being victims of terrorism in 2001. Part of it the strong support for the IRA which they conveniently forget when they talk about nations supporting terrorism.

Double-standards are twice as good as regular standards for the cunts.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Guspaz]

I'm afraid Western Australia has me beat, because most of the cities in Quebec that are furthest away are not accessible by road, only by air :)

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[whoever57]

By London 4, he might have meant Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and "London Luton"?

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ScentCone]

in other words, it is OK when someone like you kills a minority because other people like you are more than willing to insult everyone's intelligence by pretending that they can justify these murders.

What, out of curiosity, do you think you're accomplishing in the way of some sort of rhetorical victory, by simply making up some BS in direct contradiction of what you just read, pretending something else was said? I get it, you're lazy, and would rather claim a righteous victory over a straw man of your own creation than actually address what was said. But you should understand how much of a tool that makes you, and transparently so to anybody watching. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

In the first place, the cops didn't hide. They were on the scene within minutes, and they contained the situation. Two "terrorists", high profile attack - precisely one casualty. That's a win.

In the second place, the murderers didn't threaten the crowd. On the contrary, they went out of their way to tell passers by that they had nothing to fear, they killed Rigby because he was a soldier, but they wouldn't attack civilians.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[MercTech]

I can see the average for the country as a whole being low for law enforcement. I've known several police that did a 30 year career and only saw a weapon drawn other than on the range once or twice.
    What I would like to see is a breakdown of the police injury rate from the 7 major urban areas that purportedly account for over 80% of shootings in the country. Then compare the workplace injury rates with the rest of the country.
      I admit it has been several years since I dug into Occupational Safety & Health statistics. I was surprised to see farm work not topping the list of dangerous occupations the way it had for decades prior to 2007. (The last time I had to run a company comparison with national statistics was 2007.) I wonder if in the years I was looking at, logging was lumped in with other agriculture?
    I also look at the high number for aircraft pilot and flight engineers; is that including combat flights? If not including combat; what has happened as commercial air flights have been one of the lowest risk occupations since WWII was over.
    Hmmm, the latest is 2014 for OSHA to have a complete tabulation online. If you want to see fatal injury rates broken down by industry; have a look at http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm#2014 PDF chart download.
      I note that law enforcement was not even in the top ten of risky occupations. Mining and Farm work have the most fatal injuries. Again, you really can't gauge your local jurisdiction based on national averages. Crime rates in Hot Coffee Alabama are orders of magnitude lower than D.C. Metro.
   

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[jabuzz]

There has been armed police at UK airports since the Abu Nidal Organization (a militant Palestinian splinter group from the PLO) shot up the El Al checking desks at Rome and Vienna airports in 1985.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

None of these remarks change the fact that police work is nightmarishly dangerous, with the "nightmarishness" supplied by people actively trying to murder police officers. Again: your statistical argument is driving bad analysis and bad judgment, and seems also to reflect a totally absurd expectation of how police should apprehend the *violent* threats they face, a totally absurd indifference to the more basic and incontrovertible fact that police face *violent* threats that almost none of the other "more dangerous" occupations face and certainly none face in the same degree or the same manner (and yes, I know taxi drivers get *robbed* a lot)—and again, a shocking lack of empathy. You're taking, as an example, the logging profession, with about 50,000 people in the U.S., and its higher reported rate of *accidental deaths not caused by murder*, comparing that against the police profession which numbers at least 1.2 million in the U.S. and uses weapons and combat tactics to guard its members against deaths that come substantially or predominantly in the form of *murder with a deadly weapon*, and glibly presenting that as some sort of serious argument about police work and how its dangers should be viewed by the police themselves that are made into walking gun targets. I assume you also, conveniently, have no fear that you would ever be in a position where you had to seriously consider police work as a career, and have no close friends or relatives who are police. I somehow doubt that your prescriptions for "fixing" an alleged problem with systematic police, whatever they may be, are sound, and I think you should examine your motives.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[mark-t]

I wasn't proposing anything to "fix" an alleged problem. While it's almost certainly true that the likelihood of getting murdered doing policework is much higher higher than the chance of being murdered working in the logging industry, the accidental death rate in the latter is so much higher as to *completely* offset that measurement of overall job danger. And when the end result is same: you die, what difference does the cause of death make with regards to determining how dangerous that job really is?

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Larry Lightbulb]

Armed police have been in London airports long before 2001.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[ganjadude]

explain how even though black people interact with the police more, more white people are shot by cops.....

stop...

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that world doesn't exist, so yes, it's a fantasy on your part.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Zontar The Mindless]

[citation needed]

[citation needed]

And even if we give you a free pass on both assertions, you're conveniently ignoring the fact that there's more white people.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[phorm]

Wonkey_monkey sounds like many women I've dated. Whenever an argument comes up where said relation does something, it's
"Yeah, but remember that terrible thing you did *FIVE YEARS AGO*" (the one I promised not to mention again).

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[Anonymous Coward]

So do you just enjoy making unhelpful and rather irrelevant drive-by comments that add nothing to the discussion? Never mind that; the "difference it makes" is that the threat of accidental death is much different than the threat of murder in that the latter affects the potential victim in different ways psychologically. What was being discussed when you jumped in was *how the risks are perceived by the people that face them*.

If you claim you don't find the threat of being ambushed, stalked, sniped, or just plain shot/stabbed in a rage—by an armed and intelligent human being who *wants to kill you*—more frightening than a faceless and non-malevolent risk of *accidental* machine/tree/landslide/car accident/etc. death, then I don't think there is anything left to discuss here. Your apparent expectation that cops be inhumanly fearless is duly noted and filed away in an appropriate location.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[mark-t]

If you claim you don't find the threat of being ambushed, stalked, sniped, or just plain shot/stabbed in a rageâ"by an armed and intelligent human being who *wants to kill you*â"more frightening than a faceless and non-malevolent risk of *accidental* machine/tree/landslide/car accident/etc. death, then I don't think there is anything left to discuss here

I'd like to answer that by considering the following (rhetorical) question: If fear can be argued to be a genuinely useful survival mechanism that we have evolved to rapidly recognize and avoid threats, how rational is it to be more afraid of something that is less likely to kill you than something that is far more likely to do so?

Of course, human beings aren't particularly rational anyways, especially when it comes to things like fear, but how irrationally we might be more afraid of someone who wants to kill us than of an accidental death that is several times more likely is not a logically sustainable basis to suggest that the job that puts one in the former position is necessarily more dangerous. because how dangerous a job might be is not measured by how afraid someone might be of the threats of the job, however frightening they might be, but solely by how statistically likely it is that one gets killed doing that job.

This should not be interepreted as a suggestion that cops should necessarily be any less afraid of the hazards of their job than they are... fear is subjective, and as I said, it's a healthy survival mechanism. Without it, they may even end up dead far more often than they statistcally do.

But the post to which I initially responded appeared to suggest that the hazards of police work, which one may entirely reasonably have more of an instinctive fearful reaction to, should somehow mean that the job is necessarily more dangerous than others where one is actually much more likely to get killed, and that is the point that I took exception to.

I don't know how it got interpreted that I was suggesting that cops should not have any right to be afraid of the threats they might face, because that is most certainly not what I meant.

Re:He is lucky he did not get shot on the spot

[dave420]

And not to mention the police didn't protect the guy who fucked up - the whole system learned from what happened, and concrete steps were taken to ensure something similar doesn't happen again.

Whoah

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment but even I think this is foolhardy at best and insanely stupid at worst.

And trying to board a plane with it these days seems like a terrifically stupid thing to do, despite the fact that it's not actually a firearm.

Re:Whoah

[Jhon]

It's part of an ans amble. There's a matching vest with wires and color coordinated blocks of clay and smoking shoes.

Re:Whoah

[ihtoit]

there's no Second Amendment in the UK.

(Stansted is in Essex).

Re:Whoah

[drinkypoo]

I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment but even I think this is foolhardy at best and insanely stupid at worst.

Even if the second amendment applied in this case (they've already lost their right to bear arms on that side of the pond) there's no right to freak people out and fuck with security personnel in anyone's constitution, that I'm aware of.

In theory we have the right to tell them what we think of them in either country, but in fact we're denied that right in the USA, and I'm imagine they're stuffy about it over there as well but I have no personal experience.

Re:Whoah

[Anonymous Coward]

there's no Second Amendment in the UK.

(Stansted is in Essex).

So, where is Essex?

Re:Whoah

[Anonymous Coward]

So, where is Essex?

between Aredoubleyou and Teewye.

Re:Whoah

[PopeRatzo]

There's a matching vest with wires and color coordinated blocks of clay and smoking shoes.

Those aren't blocks of clay, they're portable chargers and battery extenders.

smoking shoes

I once had a smoking jacket, but never smoking shoes. Sounds intriguing though.

Re:Whoah

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is an ansamble?

Re:Whoah

[Anonymous Coward]

People have no right to be freaked out either.
This is why our militia always hires a private aircraft.

Re:Whoah

[Anonymous Coward]

On my keyboard it is between aayzze and deesee.

Re:Whoah

[drinkypoo]

This is why our militia always hires a private aircraft.

Our military just has planes lying about, and when they want to move men around, they put them on them. They also don't use the same airports, so people aren't really aware of troop movements at all unless they're in the process of being deployed or released.

Re:Whoah

[Anonymous Coward]

Ans... amble...? Do you mean "ensemble"?

Re:Whoah

[K. S. Kyosuke]

American National Standard amble, probably.

Re:Whoah

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

there's no Second Amendment in the UK.

Yes, I know. I mentioned that so people wouldn't get the idea that I'm just having as knee-jerk reaction to guns in general.

Re:Whoah

[djinn6]

Even boarding a plane at all seems pretty stupid nowadays... they've got all these moron types in charge of security theater.

Re: Whoah

[Anonymous Coward]

We did get the point which means communication succeeded. This being the Internet, spelling is excused for the most part.

Re:Whoah

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if you simply let CCW holders carry on the plane, not only would you be able to bring weapons on board airplanes, but there'd be no risk of terrorism.

Re:Whoah

[Hognoxious]

It's a bit like chef and puppet.

Re:Whoah

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I'm picturing some type of inside-only, velvet lined slip-on shoes. The kind that your feet don't even notice your wearing, and match the jacket lol

Re:Whoah

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I keep seeing the word "ansible" instead lol

Re:Whoah

[ihtoit]

right in between Suffolk and Kent.

Re: Whoah

[Anonymous Coward]

unless someone's a troll of the language pedant variety.

Officer! It's just a phone that has a funny shape!

[MillionthMonkey]

"You ain't fooling me! This is obviously a weapon that fires extremely thin bullets!"

why the fuck..

[Anonymous Coward]

are police "speculating on twitter"

is this the price society is paying for free wifi at starbucks and dunkin donuts?

Re:why the fuck..

[MillionthMonkey]

Believe me, society is paying a very high price for Twitter- I can tell you that much.

Re:why the fuck..

[PopeRatzo]

Freedom of speech is for people who really deserve it, and that does not include Donald Trump (or any GOP candidate in general).

Excuse me, dummy, but do you think Donald Trump's freedom of speech has been somehow infringed? I find that a little hard to believe.

Re:why the fuck..

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone please stop the Americans above me from arguing about their two retards again... please.

Re:why the fuck..

[MillionthMonkey]

Waaaah! A little humor-impaired, I guess.

Re:why the fuck..

[PopeRatzo]

Someone please tell the Brit above me that a majority of the voters in his country just voted to hit themselves in the head with a hammer...please.

Re:why the fuck..

[MillionthMonkey]

Well, they do have getting hit on the head lessons over there.

Re:why the fuck..

[lucm]

That's one more thing you got wrong.

What they did was not hitting themselves on the head, what they did was standing up and rejecting once again the idea of a unified Europe under German control. This is called the right to self determination, but of course you're against it, just like you're against letting a politician speak his mind unless you share his opinion.

Re:why the fuck..

[lucm]

Jokes with a political bias are only funny when:

1) the reader shares your bias

and

2) the target of the joke is not already ridiculed on a daily basis by comedians sharing your bias and being immensely funnier

So you failed. What you did was the equivalent of spelling Micro$oft with the dollar sign, it stopped being funny a long time ago.

Pro tip: If you want to go for the low-hanging fruit expect some competition.

Re:why the fuck..

[MillionthMonkey]

My point was, society is paying a high price for Twitter. They've got ISIS chopping off heads over there!

Re:why the fuck..

[lucm]

If you ask me, the highest price society has to pay for Twitter is seeing their illegitimate CEO prancing around on tv and web clips as if he was a real businessman.

see: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...

Funny enough they've started to use the words "active devices" instead of "users", like that lame java installer from Oracle (one billion devices!). So they probably know that most people now post using scripts or services like buffer without ever reading themselves what other people post.

Re:why the fuck..

[phayes]

Freedom of speech is for everyone (Including idiots like Trump and you) or it is for no-one. Once you start making exemptions because "he doesn't think the way I do" you are no better than the NKVD, the Gestapo, the Stasi, the SAVAK, etc.

Re:why the fuck..

[fnj]

Typing "Micro$oft" isn't supposed to be funny, you lunkhead. It is an insult and a pithy description.

Re:why the fuck..

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

"Micro$oft" may not be funny anymore, but it's still true. Although their not nearly as bad as Oracles per-core licensing.

Re:why the fuck..

[colinwb]

"what they did was standing up and rejecting once again the idea of a unified Europe under German control" - No, that's what about 52% of the people who voted in the recent referendum did. The other 48% (including me) voted to remain in the EU.

And while there may have been some voting for exit because of perceived German dominance, I suspect most were equal opportunity disliking of control by foreigners. (A position with which, to repeat myself, I disagree.)

For what it's worth, given a choice between being led by, say, Donald Trump and Angela Merkel, I'll happily follow Merkel. Actually, given a choice between Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom - the two remaining contenders for leadership of the Conservative Party - I'll go with Angela Merkel. There's something deeply ironic about the next UK prime minister being chosen by about 150,000 people who were largely in favour of exit from the European Union to regain control from an "anti-democratic" institution, with the other 99.6% of the electorate (including me) having no say whatsoever in this.

Re: why the fuck..

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you fantasize about dictating that post while standing on a cliff, overlooking the English Channel. The Kaiser and Hitler shake their fists in impotent rage as your powerful oration is heard even over the sound of your mighty ejaculation as Katie Price encourages your wang to climax while a bulldog lovingly licks your nuts?

The EU is not run by Germany and there is no conceivable way in which this could change. Germany has a lot of influence, just as the UK could have had influence. The biggest barrier to representation and self-determination is the broken political system of the U.K. Leaving the EU does not change this and in fact removes a safeguard.

Re:why the fuck..

[lucm]

I'm sure it made Bill Gates cry many times

Re:why the fuck..

[lucm]

And the "best of both world" is Oracle on Azure. The cheapest instance is $825/month; that's Oracle Standard (not Enterprise of course) running on a 1-core VM with 750MB of RAM (yes, less than 1GB).

I've seen Oracle shit itselfs on 4-core machines with 32GB of RAM under workloads that wouldn't make a network-shared Access file blink, so I guess if one rents that $825/month instance, one must have something else in mind than using it as a database server for real.

Re:why the fuck..

[lucm]

Trump only needs 270 votes to be elected, in a country of roughly 323,000,000 citizens and 11,000,000 illegal housekeepers and gardeners. Now THAT is democracy.

But at least he won't join the Western Imperium (sorry I meant the EU). He even wants to exit the NAFTA, because apparently selling subsidized grain and lumber to Mexico and Canada is hurting the middle class.

Re:why the fuck..

[serviscope_minor]

What they did was not hitting themselves on the head, what they did was standing up and rejecting once again the idea of a unified Europe under German control.

Except no we didn't because that was never a thing. It's very easy to justify something if you're prepared to make up shit completely about it. Next up: the British rightfully left the EU to stop the German illuminati pants gnomes from stealing all our pants.

Only one good reason to do this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... and that's to prove a point - that either the law is on your side or that, if the law is not on your side, the law is immoral.

BUT there are two major caveats:

* You should expect to be harassed, detained, or even arrested, and if you are at an airport, miss your flight without any financial recourse.

* You have to have the law on your side OR you have to be willing to do what everyone who breaks the law in the name of civil disobedience should expect to do: continue to make your point by enduring the legal consequences.

In the USA, bringing a gun-shaped iPhone into an airport is almost certainly legal under free speech laws, especially if it doesn't look so much like a gun that it would cause reasonable people to panic (the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is not protected speech in the USA). In Great Britain, probably not so much.

Re:Only one good reason to do this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's against the law in the USA airports.

https://www.tsa.gov/travel/transporting-firearms-and-ammunition

"Replica firearms, including firearm replicas that are toys, may be transported in checked baggage only."

Re:Only one good reason to do this ...

[PopeRatzo]

In the USA, bringing a gun-shaped iPhone into an airport is almost certainly legal under free speech laws, especially if it doesn't look so much like a gun that it would cause reasonable people to panic

Hold on a sec. We recently had an Italian mathematician who had his flight grounded and was taken off and questioned, because some stupid American lady thought the math symbols on his notepad were "terrorist code". I'll bet this woman would consider herself a reasonable person.

I don't think you necessarily want "would cause a reasonable person to panic" to be the legal standard, because you might have trouble finding any.

Re:Only one good reason to do this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the flight was grounded to get the lady off the plane. She was crazy and pretended to be ill to force the plane to land. The flight attendants cleared the guy while they were still in the air. Once they landed, the police questioned people involved in the incident as normal and the mathematician was one of those people. That guy got back on the plane, the lady didn't.

Re:Only one good reason to do this ...

[PopeRatzo]

The mathematician was taken off the plane and questioned. The flight took off two hours late because of a crazy Trump supporter, acting the fool.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:Only one good reason to do this ...

[pete6677]

Anyone doing this is a fucking idiot who deserves all the above plus more.

Re:Only one good reason to do this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

it would cause reasonable people to panic (the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is not protected speech in the USA)

The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" trope is both commonly referenced and false.

Re:Only one good reason to do this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And your proof that the crazy lady was a Trump supporter is what?

Re:Only one good reason to do this ...

[PopeRatzo]

And your proof that the crazy lady was a Trump supporter is what?

a) she thought mathematical symbols were "terrorist code" and b) she thought an Italian mathematician was a muslim terrorist.

Case closed. Trump supporter.

Re:Only one good reason to do this ...

[phorm]

I don't think that this woman alone was a sign to despair about a reasonable person, it's that the airline staff and the authorities actually followed through after the initial report and disembarked/questioned the mathematician as opposed to the crazy wench that called him in.

Re:Officer! It's just a phone that has a funny sha

[Anonymous Coward]

It makes me so sad when stupidity is used as a guide for policy. I once went to a courthouse for a traffic ticket. At the metal detector I emptied my pockets. On my keychain I had this trinket that was a really really tiny pipe. It looked like a fullsize one in shape though. It was a novelty. Surely some dopefiend probably could use it, but I showed the officer that there was nothing inside, it had never been used. I explained that we went through a lot of crap to get our friend sober and this was a keepsake for everyone involved. It had a lot of sentimental value. He didn't care. It was "paraphernalia" and therefore "illegal" (it wasn't). I asked what law and so on. Of course he couldn't cite it. They confiscated it. I could not get it back on my way out. P.S. the traffic ticket was bogus too, and I had all kinds of proof, relevant case law, etc. Didn't matter. I had to pay the fine anyway. After waiting 6 hours for the judge (the lazy ass showed up to 9am court at 1pm), all just to just laugh in my face anyway.

Everything they ever told you about justice and fairness is a lie. They are thugs, they treat us how they like. Rules and laws don't apply.

Re:Officer! It's just a phone that has a funny sha

[drinkypoo]

I explained that we went through a lot of crap to get our friend sober and this was a keepsake for everyone involved. It had a lot of sentimental value. He didn't care. It was "paraphernalia" and therefore "illegal" (it wasn't).

It depends on where you are. In Texas, and I believe California, if it doesn't have any drug residues then it's not paraphenalia. However, at least in TX, last I heard if you had 10 pipes and 1 had residue you had 10 counts of paraphenalia. I asked a roving glass vendor while at Eeyore's Birthday one year.

Re:Officer! It's just a phone that has a funny sha

[Anonymous Coward]

In this locality paraphernalia was explicity LEGAL. But that's besides the point because as you said if it doesn't have residue it isn't paraphernalia, and this didn't have residue. And again, even if it did, it was legal. The guy was just either a dumbass or a dick, or both.

Police are not executioners.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You have a split second decision to make ... #WhatWouldYouDo"

You do the exact same thing you SHOULD do if you suspect someone has a gun, tell them to freeze and then to slowly raise their arms above their head.

The response from morons to this phone case proves that police need better training about their fucking role in society.

Re:Police are not executioners.

[PopeRatzo]

You do the exact same thing you SHOULD do if you suspect someone has a gun, tell them to freeze and then to slowly raise their arms above their head.

Then if they're black you fire a few warning shots into their chest.

Unfortunately, that's what US police are being taught.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015...

Re:Police are not executioners.

[Anonymous Coward]

"This illustrates why officers can't always wait to see a gun"
Hahahaha, well it might be a good idea instead of just shooting everyone you pull over.
I have a better idea, why don't they just get missile launchers on their cars. Tail light out? Blow that shit up, why risk a traffic stop where you'll be have to shoot them anyways.

From the no-shit department?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Wow. Thanks for the tip.

Just wear one of these

[future assassin]

http://rlv.zcache.com/im_the_b...

What the FUCK?

[Opportunist]

Don't get me wrong. I'm the first to defend anyone from overreaching, overzealous and trigger-happy "must-fight-terrrrrrism" idiots shivering in their boots because they assume that everyone and their dog wants to blow them to kingdom come. But how STUPID do you have to be to bring something shaped like a GUN to an airport?

Re:What the FUCK?

[SeaFox]

...how STUPID do you have to be to bring something shaped like a GUN to an airport?

Looking at the photos of the entire case, it looks like it would be rather awkward to make phone calls with the phone while it was still in the case. It seems like an item whose only use would be a stupid prank like this.

Re:What the FUCK?

[sjames]

There's plenty of blame to go around. It seems silly to file charges. I'm not sure what takes so long about emptying his pockets for him, accidentally dropping the phone and congratulating him for winning the jackass of the week award.

But, as for the passenger, he truly is a depressingly stupid jackass.

Re:What the FUCK?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 1990s, I had a portable hard drive that had a gun-shaped power supply. Taking it through security, the officer took it out, held it like a gun, and had this look of pondering on his face. Yes, it looks like a gun, but the kind of gun would have to be some kind of laser blaster. I politely explained what it was and he let it through.

CAPTCHA: continue

Re:What the FUCK?

[thegarbz]

It seems silly to file charges.

Does it? We laugh it off in your scenario as giving someone an award for being a jackass. Next time it turns into wide spread panic along with shots fired and some one dies. The chargers here are public order offences, a fine not exceeding 1000GBP. Seems perfectly reasonable for insane stupidity which could cause disruption and panic in an international airport.

Re:What the FUCK?

[sjames]

Yes, it really does. Surely the natural consequences of his action have given him good reason not to do it again.

Why must every small slight, real or imagined, demand a pound of flesh?

If you want to play the game of worst possible consequences, go ahead and assume he causes an international incident leading to global nuclear war. Surely we must soak him in gasoline and light him up in a public square.

Re:What the FUCK?

[thegarbz]

Surely the natural consequences of his action have given him good reason not to do it again.

What consequence? Having a stern talking to? Missing a cheap flight? You're right, natural consequences are a lesson and a deterrent so I'm not sure why you would argue at reducing them.

If you want to play the game of worst possible consequences, go ahead and assume he causes an international incident leading to global nuclear war. Surely we must soak him in gasoline and light him up in a public square.

If you think it's unreasonable for someone to end up hurt or killed when they bring what looks like a handgun into a security area in a country where open carry is non-existent in an environment where everyone is looking for terrorists then you should turn off your computer and spend more time in the real world. I mean it's not like anyone would ever be incorrectly assumed to be a threat and then taken down with lethal force. I would lecture you on your logical fallacy in the last paragraph but quite frankly you didn't make one, instead you just posted two sentences of complete unrelated garbage.

Re:What the FUCK?

[squiggleslash]

It's a fine, not lighting him on fire or even sticking him in jail. And it's not just to deter him, it's to deter others, who might find the whole idea funny and consider replicating the act without even having a flight to catch.

Re:What the FUCK?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, if he can afford an iPhone and an accessory whose only purpose is to cause other people to panic, then he can afford 1000 quid for playing a prank with a fake gun in an airport. The only thing he's a victim of is his own arrogant stupidity.

Re:What the FUCK?

[sjames]

So you believe they should fine him for putting himself at risk based on their sincere belief that they lack the mental maturity necessary to be allowed to carry guns in a disarmed country?

Shall we also fine him if he is seen running with scissors in his own home? What if he uses a fork to pull his toast from the toaster?

Re:Officer! It's just a phone that has a funny sha

[PopeRatzo]

I asked a roving glass vendor while at Eeyore's Birthday one year.

I bet there's a good story that goes with that. Maybe someday when the statute of limitations have passed, you can post a journal entry about it.

Do you live in Texas, drinky?

and another thing

[sacrilicious]

"Please folks -- this cell phone case is not a cool product or a good idea. A police officer's job is hard enough, without having to make a split second decision in the dark of night when someone decides without thinking to pull this out while stopped for a motor vehicle violation..."

And further: do not make it so that to unlock the phone, you have to activate its voice recognition and then scream into it, "I'm gonna GIT you mothahfuckah!"

Just sayin'.

Re:and another thing

[hcs_$reboot]

to unlock the phone, you have to activate its voice recognition and then scream into it

No, to unlock the phone you have to pull the trigger.

Re:and another thing

[ThatsMyNick]

Even better point at your face (for face recognition by the camera in the barrel) and then pull the trigger to unlock.

Re:and another thing

[freeze128]

A police officer's job is hard enough, without having to make a split second decision in the dark of night when someone decides without thinking to pull this out while stopped for a motor vehicle violation...

Airport security lines are well lit, and move slowly. Plenty of time for even the dimmest of agents to determine that it's a phone case.

Re:and another thing

[allo]

But this does not mean, that they think it's funny.

LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the police bother to wait and see if you're pulling a weapon or not. Just the mere act of trying to show the officer your ID is enough to get you shot and killed these days.

Hell, not complying with their demands fast enough will get you killed.

Moral of this story: Avoid the Police at all costs. You'll live longer.

Two parts

[Anonymous Coward]

Part the first: We still have too much arrogantly incompetent federal-or-not rent-a-cops in airports, world-wide, and other security theatre shitshow that is there to make us feel safer through excessive harassment but that does not do anything even close to make us actually safer. It has gotten people shot or nearly so, put on watch lists, denied all sorts of rights, forced them into protracted legal battles, or simply cost them oodles of money, hassle, and time. Most will get eaten as business expenses, but that doesn't justify any of it.

Part the second: Even if part the first wasn't the case, having what looks like a gun casually stick out of your back pocket in an airport just isn't the greatest of ideas. Not even in Texas well before the security theatre malarky hit. In fact, not in any sort of busy public place except questionably a gun show. That it then turns out to be an iphone case means you deserve to get hit with a 2x4 with quite a bit of force.

See? Argument made without any but-brigade weasel-wording.

Reaching for it...

[Anonymous Coward]

No good could possibly come from using this stupid case in a crowded public environment -- in an airport no less.

You can print your own!

[Biogoly]

http://www.thingiverse.com/thi... Although, looks like anything but SLS would be more than a little tricky...

Location

[Roger W Moore]

So, where is Essex?

East of Wessex and north of Sussex but strangely not south Nossex since that anglo-saxon kingdom didn't last long enough to leave it's mark on history.

Re:Location

[Anonymous Coward]

So, where is Essex?

The centre of the Universe :-) and home of culture and refinement

Why anyone would have a departure lounge there is a mystery :-)

Re:Location

[Ambient Sheep]

So, where is Essex?

East of Wessex and north of Sussex but strangely not south Nossex since that anglo-saxon kingdom didn't last long enough to leave it's mark on history.

Indeed it didn't, and the clue as to why not is in the name...

Presumably, given your username, you already know this.

Gun shaped phone? How about a phone shaped gun?

[XNormal]

This company makes a phone-shaped gun. This is not a novelty item. It's a real gun.

American obsession with firearms is inspiring. And creepy. And... other things.

Re:Gun shaped phone? How about a phone shaped gun?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that gun is actually safer than most other guns. Granted, it will do a little, but not much, extra for those who want to shoot people, but most people carrying guns don't want to shoot people and a gun that isn't recognisable means there's less people who start shooting them when there's no reason apart from ‘he gotta gun!’, plus less chance they have to draw it if their attacker misses.

The only thing...

[dohzer]

The only thing that stops a bad guy with an iPhone is a good guy with an iPhone.

Well ... No shit.

[Qbertino]

Captain Obvious strikes again!

How about

[AndyKron]

How about a gun shaped like a cellphone? OK then?

"With nervousness at airports at an extreme"

[HalAtWork]

Quote from TFA "With nervousness at airports at an extreme, it's easy to have sympathy with the police."

What? Why would anyone be nervous with all the security measures and officers around?

He was homosexual.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the only information they could extract.

My problem is your an idiot

[BlueCoder]

Guns do not necessarily have a shape. If your relying on the classic hand gun shape then you deserve to be shot.

A gun can be in almost any form. All you need is a cylinder really.

Secondly if I really wanted to carry a firearm on to a plane no one could stop me. It might take years to design the gun but still it would not be imposible. The gun itself would probably be less than practical.

If you want security I would do the opposite. Give everyone that wants one, on the plane, a gun at boarding.

Re:My problem is your an idiot

[serviscope_minor]

If you want security I would do the opposite. Give everyone that wants one, on the plane, a gun at boarding.

Given that all the civilized airlines also give you free drinks on board, that sounds like an awesome idea for a party at 30,000 feet. I reckon they should dish out blow too.

Not cool? Since when?

[Askmum]

Looking at the rampant gun-ownership in the States, it seems to me that a lot of people do think guns are cool. Last saturday there was an incident in the Netherlands where a suspected gunman wearing a balaclava was spotted on the beach. It turned out to be a 15 year old German kid who was walking around with a (legal in Germany not legal in the Netherlands) fake steel lookalike automatic rifle.
15 years old. Almost suicide by cop. Way cool man.

... ac

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't say that was smart, but:

In the year 2000, I was not afraid of cops, the government, or terrorists.
2016, I'm not afraid of terrorists.