Saturday, December 13, 2008


I thought it'd be nice to have a little "talk amongst yourselves" today.

Perhaps you could tell me the issues which burn in you, annoy, anger and/or irritate you. I think you have a fair idea of mine, I'm always willing to add to the bonfire here.

Might give me some more ideas that I can easily write about.

It's going to be hot today and I need to get the green panic under control, preferably before it seeds. Hopefully there'll be a storm thisafternoon and I can look at the papers and see what's been happening.

About that fifteen year old in Vic who was shot by police. Who'd be a copper? He was warned, he was weilding knives. He was dangerous. He seemed to be under the influence of something. Let's see what unfolds as the facts come to light.

Caz's tips for not being shot dead.


bruce said...

I remember Victorian police being called trigger-happy in the late 1970's.

But I don't blame them for this recent event, I blame all 'the young people' spoilt indulged by their indulgent parents.

The 18 year old eldest son of the family who lives on the property behind us had a party last night for all his friends. You should have heard them, like foul-mouthed kindergarten brats, all me me me.

Actually they've had perpetual weekend parties since the end of matric exams (matriculation- there's a misnomer). We called the police at 3am 2 weeks ago after 2 weekends of loud hysteria all night. They went quiet for the 2 weeks, and now they've started up again. I'm dreading tonite a bit.

bruce said...

Forgot to delete 'indulged'.

Boy on a bike said...

I find it fascinating that it's ok to issue all Police with a lethal firearm that will kill 90%+ of the people that are shot, but it is incredibly difficult to equip them with a non-lethal Taser that might accidentally kill 0.1% of those shot.

We just have to accept that the Taser will kill a few people - those with unknown heart defects or whatever - and just live with it. I'd rather the plod electrocuted people with a 0.1-1% chance of a fatality instead of shooting them with a 90%+ chance of a fatality.

Blame the stupid civil libertarians and the other assorted safety nazis for the death of this kid if you want to blame anyone, but don't blame the thin blue line.

Boy on a bike said...


We also have some teenagers just up the street. The have taken to sitting in the backyard, drinking and pulling skateboard tricks and playing loud music until sparrow fart. I can put up with that, as there are only a few of them, but I draw the line at them doing burnouts in the street (which happened last night).

Just wish I had been fast enough to photograph them for evidence.

Steve said...


I understand the point you're trying to make, but have to say that your "90%+" seems to have come from the telly or movies.

Everything you learn from the movies is wrong.

Odd as it might seem, handgun wounds to the torso are about as lethal as deep knife wounds, which turn out to be lethal about 15% of the time.

It's still no argument against Tasers, but it does sound a little less hysterical.

kae said...

Steve, hi! Are you in Qld? Just wondering if I know you from Bolt's or Blair's...

Welcome here, too!

Anonymous said...

Kae. What if you requested bloggers to consider recent crimes/trials and the surrounding circumstances like sentencing and invited bloggers thoughts re if the penalty fitted the crime? That may draw instances from different countries, States etc and could be interesting.

I'll start. My elderly (87 and 86 year old) Auntie and Uncle parked outside a supermarket in a regional NSW town last week. He is on his last legs and she is not 100%. She parked in a 20 minute zone and left Uncle in the car with his oxygen bottle while she scarpared away to shop.

Auntie ran over the 20 minutes and some zealot plonked a ticket on the windscreen. Uncle couldn't blow sufficient oxygen to explain the situation. Therefore. Should my Uncle and Auntie pay the fine, go to jail, have the penalty waived, or .....whatever. This is at the lighter end, but I can't believe the bastard wrote the ticket while looking at my very ill Uncle. Mehaul.

kae said...

Uncle and Aunty should be able to submit a stat-dec stating the circumstances of their parking there and see how they go.

Anonymous said...

That was meant to be a thought starter, not a step up stone as to how to fix the problem. You asked for some ideas. I was throwing an idea at the page. Mehaul

kae said...

Oh. Oops. Ignore what I said.

Dylan in France said...

One interesrting issue from round my way today is the news that the city is banning mobile phones for children under 12 years of age. I'm not sure at all how this will be enforced: surely there are more important crimes for cops to police than that of an 11 year old girl texting her friends? Also, while the city has reasonably broad powers (and it's own police force to enforce local laws) it's hard to see how this could be applied to anyone visiting the city with their mobile-equipped kids.

Pedro the Ignorant said...

Bitching time at Kae's place, here's mine:

Wannabe war veterans who wear fake and/or "commemorative" medals who appear at significant ceremonial occasions (Anzac day, Long Tan day, etc).
Tarted up with berets, blazers, and racks of dodgy tin medals, lining up front with genuine veterans, giving interviews to TV and newspaper reporters who have been sucked in by these fake "veterans".

Lying, bludging toads, who ride on the backs of better men than they will ever be. The only ones they fool are kiddies and gullible civilians, but that's OK in their book, they would have gone to war if they had only been asked.

They steal the honour of genuine veterans as if it was something cheap and easy to filch, and wear the cloak of other men's courage as if it was their own.

Stinking lowlifes.

Anonymous said...

Pedro. There's a web site and office, I think in Canberra that is all over this issue. If you can prove to them that someone is falsifying their involvement in previous action then these guys go for the jugular. They publish pics, the names, everything to maximise the culprit's embarrassment. I'm useless technically, but if you google appropriate key terms you won't struggle to find the site. Mehaul

kae said...

I'm not going to say it's called "ANZMI (Australian and New Zealand Miliary Imposters).
You'll have to google veteran imposter Australia yourself.

Zardoz said...


And then there are the one who actually were in the service and decide to spin tall tales that the media prints without a bit of fact-checking. For example, Pvt. Scott Thomas Beaucham who put his lies on paper and had them published in the New Republic. No due diligence on the part of NR—you can't let the truth get in the way of a good story, right?

Of course back in my day it was John Kerry and the Winter Soldiers that testified in front of a Senate sub-committee and every word was swallowed without a bit skepticism on the part of our Senators or the press.

Very few reporters have ever been in the service and so they have not developed the ability to smell BS when it's piled in front of them. They choose to remain ignorant and file their bylines from the safety of some hotel or studio miles away from the sound of the guns.

It's not just “kiddies and gullible civilians” that fall for this crap—the members of the media are all too willing to believe the worst of the troops.

Minicapt said...

I'll say it is:


Boy on a bike said...


It depends on who is doing the aiming!

On the survival rate issue, Theodore Dalrymple has written some interesting stuff on this lately (none of which I can find). He points out that one of the big drivers in the falling homicide rate is better emergency health care. 30 or 40 years ago, those that were shot or stabbed in city brawls tended to die. Now they live, perhaps as a brain mangled vegetable, but they are alive enough to not count as a homicide victim.

Let me rephrase my statement - when the police shoot at you with a pistol, they are trying to kill you. When they zap you with a taser, they are not trying to kill you, but disable you instead.

You might survive both types, but I was always taught to keep squeezing the trigger until they stopped moving. Call in a double-double-double tap.

Skeeter said...

I remember reading somewhere recently, a policeman's advice to shoot to kill when defending yourself from an armed house invader.
His reasons for the advice:
If you just wound him, you will probably be found guilty of assault.
The invader and his pro-bono lawyers will sue you for your remaining assets after you have paid your defence expenses.
It's highly likely that the villian has never been convicted of an offence. So, if he is convicted of armed robbery this time, as a first offender he will be let off with a caution and a good behaviour bond.
Meanwhile, you are broke and in gaol serving your sentence.