Following receant riots in N/I by people who arn't protesters they are just thugs, I would suggest the following incredibly simple solution.
Police snipers. Armed with sniper rifles. Attach a camera to the scope so the camera records what it aiming at.
Said police officer points gun at man about to throw petrol bomb. Records video of him about to throw petrol bomb. Blows back of head off.
No more riots. I don't see a downside with this.... the police could warn people in advance that they would be doing this... if people still choose to throw acid bombs, petrol bombs and blast bombs at police offers then that is their decision, and they are accepting the risk that the police snipers will shoot them.-- CasaLoco, Jan 11 2002 Shoot to Kill http://www.guardian...2763,244169,00.htmlMI5 destroy evidence. [stupop, Jan 11 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004] Bloody Sunday http://news.bbc.co....1406000/1406783.stmBritish Soldiers show their aversion to having their murderous antics caught on film [stupop, Jan 11 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004] Brixton Shooting http://www.guardian...2763,523050,00.htmlPolice kill man for novelty cigarette lighter. [stupop, Jan 11 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004] The RUC http://www.safrc.co.../disbandtheruc.htmlWould you trust them to purvey justice? [stupop, Jan 11 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004] Belfast Divisions "Even Greater" http://news.bbc.co....1742000/1742276.stmDon't forget this is a complex situation ... [Aristotle, Jan 11 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004] Belfast riots go back centuries http://news.bbc.co....1752000/1752949.stm... that has a long history. [Aristotle, Jan 11 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004] point blank http://vatican.rotten.com/protester/An indonesian police officer fires his weapon point blank at a protester who is in no position to fight back or commit any wrongful act - completely unprovoked other than by the man's presence at the protest. And yet this made the front page of the Indonesian Observer late last year. [thumbwax, Jan 12 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004] (?) Gun Mounted Camera http://www.rahq.com/gun_camera.htmHow to shoot to kill a psychotic napalm tossing rioter who is there to kill policemen and people on the other side without being seen [thumbwax, Jan 14 2002, last modified Oct 21 2004] Gather 'round folks - Gun Debate 2002 is about to begin.-- thumbwax, Jan 11 2002 I'm fairly sure that prototype guns with cameras have been demonstrated. So I think this one is Baked.
Besides John Alpha of 2000AD/Starlord fame always used to carry around a video camera in the tip of his hat so he could prove that he acted legally. As a hated mutant doing the only job he was allowed to do by law he needed that assurance.-- Aristotle, Jan 11 2002 It's also common in fighter airplanes, I seem to remember from old war comics.
However, as an idea this is essentially capital punishment by the back door. Would you be allowed to shoot them if they weren't throwing the object at anyone, because the camera would likely not see their target? Throwing a petrol bomb in the street is not currently punishable by death. Police are generally able to act against people throwing petrol bombs without having to kill them, using riot shields, water cannons, rubber bullets, etc. They do of course have the option to shoot people in self-defence or the defence of others, but that should only be a last resort.
Police also do not have a terribly good record for distinguishing genuine weapons from cigarette cases, chair legs or wallets. And killing someone, whether or not they were armed, commonly proves very traumatic for a police officer (as for anyone else). I think even the police would be strongly opposed to this.-- pottedstu, Jan 11 2002 Didn't we do this already?-- angel, Jan 11 2002 I agree with [pottedstu]
[CasaLoco] You shouldn't really make such rash comments on a subject that you clearly don't understand.
I accept that some of the rioters are probably only there for a fight, but people generally don't go to such extremes without being pushed. It may not be such a bad idea to attach cameras to the sights of police guns, but I find the statement "shoot rioters" highly objectionable. Rioting can sometimes serve a useful purpose.
If people feel strongly enough about an issue, and I can assure you that people in Northern Ireland feel very strongly about a number of issues, they are not going to be stopped by the prospect of getting shot by police.
Also, you seem to assume that the police are 'good' and the trouble makers are 'bad'. While this is case in some instances, the current riots being, perhaps, an example. It is not necessarily that way all the time. There is a well founded deep mistrust of the police in Northern Ireland.
I'm going to find some useful links for you, so that you can educate yourself a little before commenting on this again.-- stupop, Jan 11 2002 How very... inflammatory.-- Guy Fox, Jan 11 2002 [stupop]: What you fail to mention, and the Guardian article also fails to mention, is that the man shot by police while brandishing a cigarette lighter was repeatedly instructed to put it down, and repeatedly failed to do so. Faced with a person waving around something that looked like a gun, who refused to follow instructions, and who approached the officers despite their orders, I submit that their action was rather more justifiable than the Guardian would have us believe.-- angel, Jan 11 2002 OK touched a raw nerve here. I'll dismiss each argument in turn.
First, this isn't the gun debate. This is a law and order debate.
Second Rioting is NEVER good. Peacefull protesting good, rioting BAD.
Thirdly - and a fact - most (not all) riots don't happen for a reason... the so called 'reason' is just an excuse(ask any qualified Psychiatrist) for people to vent their pent up aggression.
last night 34 law enforcement officers were injured in a so called "riot" by youths (youths not responsible adults) throwing acid bombs and petrol bombs (Called Napalm in the US) at them. This is just an example, but I say again.... YOUTHS not responsible adults.
Misuse... the camera was added as a way to ensure that police officers check their targets and don't shoot bystanders. The police will know there will be evidence against them if they deliberatly shoot the wrong person. So that stops that argument.
Defence/Offence - This is primerily a defense tactic. If you put 100 police officers on the ground to keep 2 groups of 200 people apart, and then tell the police officers they can't fight back you might as well paint bulleyes on the police officers faces. The rioters arn't throwing bombs to be friendly their aim is to kill the police officers, knowing that they are pretty much immune from arrest. Perhaps the snipers might discourage this.
Does anybody have any DIFFERENT arguments. i.e. ones I haven't just proved to be false.
As an aside, if you had all had your cars burt out after a group of 14 year olds threw napalm on it while you were in it, and ran off laughing and throwing stones at you, you would probably vote FOR this not AGAINST.-- CasaLoco, Jan 11 2002 I don't think this idea is just about Northern Ireland, which is a complex situation with a contentious history that tends to draw people in on a sectarian level (see links). Note that both sides were rioting and the proper solution is to somehow get both sides of the sectarian divide to realise their avowed enemies are human.
This idea would probably be an advance on any system where someone has to justify a decision to discharge a weapon. This is why the idea is baked.-- Aristotle, Jan 11 2002 [angel] That's one side of the story. The version I heard had it that he was shot in the back while running away. Either way, I suppose if the police had cameras on their guns they would have either thought twice about shooting or failing that would have had some strong evidence to back them up in court.
//Does anybody have any DIFFERENT arguments. i.e. ones I haven't just proved to be false.//
[Casaloco] I think your definition of proof must be different from mine. My general point is, I suppose, that I don't think police should shoot civilians, whether they are breaking the law or not. I just don't feel that an objective decision to end someones life in the heat of civil disorder, can or should be made by anybody, not even those heroic, unbiased, level headed, policemen .-- stupop, Jan 11 2002 A slightly different thought: How can the gun camera footage be authenticated?-- bristolz, Jan 11 2002 First tell us how the hell you be able to fake it. A stage with people dressed to look like the people you shot???
[Stupop] To put your though in context, I believe the US army's rules of combat state that a civilian with a weapon is no longer a civilian. Besides... how far should the policemen let the rioter go? Should the policemen willing allow the rioters to kill them. Should they walk away and let the rioters tear an entire ciy to pieces?
No-one's forcing them to throw acid and napalm at policemen. If they are happy to take the risk knowing they will be shot that would be their choice and no loss to the gene pool.-- CasaLoco, Jan 11 2002 Yes, just like the stage and all those people dressed as dinosaurs they used for Jurassaic Park. I submit that, at this point, virtually anything can be faked to a degree which renders the result indistinguishable from what real footage would look like.-- bristolz, Jan 11 2002 More arguments:
1. Bias. What if the police shoot only the people on one side? Specifically in Northern Ireland if Protestants are rioting against Catholics, what is to stop them using this as an excuse to kill Catholics? In contrast, arrest and trial allows these biases to be both detected and rectified.
2. The basis of the legal system is that police gather evidence about a crime, and the courts decide on guilt and punishment. This system was devised because of the importance of ensuring people have a fair trial with legal representation, that the evidence against them can be questioned and that the punishment is proportionate to all the circumstances.
3. There may be legitimate reasons to throw a petrol bomb, e.g. if you are being attacked by an angry mob. The law gives you the right to kill in self-defence.
4. A sniper filming at night at long-distance will most likely take a very poor video image, which will be useless in assessing the action taking place.
5. Mistaken identity. You have not addressed the fact that police officers make mistakes and can kill people accidentally. It is too late after someone has been killed to check the film and say "Oh dear." You have said nothing about the review process. Would a police officer who kills incorrectly be guilty of murder, and liable to be shot themself.
6. This puts policemen in the position of executioners, a role many of them will be reluctant to take. People do not join the police force to kill their fellow citizens, and this would place them under unfair pressure.
7. Civil disobedience has a long role in British history. CasaLoco claim that riots are always wrong. In fact, there have been many cases where rioters have had legitimate grievances and have achieved social reform as a result. Clearly this should be a last resort, but the line between a peaceful protest and a riot is not always clear-cut (see below).
8. What weapons get you shot? Throwing a water-bomb? A stone? An egg? A flour bomb? And how are the police to decide between them. You may believe that anyone who goes out in the street and throws a water-bomb should know the risks. I don't.
9. Extension. Already I have pointed out that people throwing weapons with little likelihood of causing physical injury or death may be targetted. However, once the right of police to shoot offenders without warning has become enshrined, there is a risk of creep so that people not doing anything violent but breaking some law or in danger of breaking some law are likely to be shot.
10. It is very hard to fire into a crowd and kill your target without hitting people around them.
11. The American constitution according to some interpretations gives people the right to use arms to overthrow an unjust government. A similar right is enshrined in French law.-- pottedstu, Jan 11 2002 i would just like to point out that in my view the words GUN and JUSTICE should be on opposite ends of a very long scale or at least a barge pole
Casaloco - petrol bombs are just petrol in a bottle - napalm is an awful adhesive chemical developed specifically by scientists to kill people (to veiw hideous effects see: vietnam)also a high calibre sniper rifle is likely to shoot someone in the head an go through several more people
" This is primerily a defense tactic" how is firing to kill into a crowd of moving people defense?
i certainly wouldnt trust those responsible for police action at the G9 conference where a load of people got beat and someone was shot since they demonstrated perfectly the kind of violence people are capable of in the name of keeping the 'peace'
it would be much better if the only guns at riots were loaded with shot-filled 'beanbags' that are sufficient to drive off virtually anyone from a safe distance-- chud, Jan 11 2002 I'm just an innocent bystander-- thumbwax, Jan 11 2002 chud: beanbags.. exactly. I agree 100%.
Don't kill people. Kent State. Fishbone.-- waugsqueke, Jan 11 2002 its cos with all the ban/dont ban ideas and arguments someone somewhere is guaranteed to think your idea is crap
also most ideas about guns ARE crap - either unenforceable WIBNIs or genocidal rants
now im going to track down casaloco and riot with napalm and B-52s in front of his house until he gets a camcorder and then ill run away
then ill come back, knock on his door and run away again until he gives me candy (i cant wait 10 whole months)-- chud, Jan 11 2002 <legal pedant> Pottedstu said that the law gives you a right to kill in self defence. It does not. Self defence is a plea in mitigation and is not a complete defence to a charge of murder. It only applies in conjunction with a plea of guilty for culpable homicide/manslaughter. </legal pedant> I think this would be a better idea if it did not use snipers. If all police with firearms had camera-guns, it may well act as a check on 'unnecessary discharge.'-- calum, Jan 11 2002 Police gun cameras seems like an inherently good idea to me, even though shooting into crowds seems like an inherently bad one. The all too common "ohmygod, they shot a poor defenceless man! Waaaaah! Waaaaah!" reaction to police shootings of people carrying what turn out to be imitation firearms has always struck me as hilarious. The guy went out of his way to convince people he was carrying a loaded firearm. He succeeded, and people reacted appropriately. What else did he expect people to do? Give the man a pat on the back and a Darwin award.-- Skinny Rob, Jan 11 2002 After a hurricane a few years ago, I saw a photo which showed where a homeowner had sprayed "LOOTERS WILL BE SHOT" in really big letters on the wall of his house. I have a funny feeling his home was left alone.
From what I understand, it used to be quite common for looters to be summarily shot when law and order broke down. Probably caused some problems, but also had its advantages...
To be sure, there's a difference between protesting and looting. And riots can fall anywhere on that scale. I don't think people should be shot because they're stuck in a peaceful protest gone bad. But of the people who walked out of stores carrying TV's and VCR's after the Rodney King riots could hardly be called innocents.-- supercat, Jan 12 2002 There's the solution then. Shoot everyone not completely innocent ... then shoot the person who shot the non-innocent as they also fell from grace in the process ...-- Aristotle, Jan 12 2002 I saw some of the aftermath of the G9 riots, and I know many good people who went there to make a legitimate protest against the hypocrises and injustices being perpetuated by those in some charge of the socio-political future of our world. I would applaud CasaLoco's idea if we were anywhere near a position to believe that police forces are beyond reproach, and that they could not be controlled by the political forces which, my friends are convinced, largely created or magnified the problem.-- Viennoise, Jan 12 2002 After the police show up, "riot" begins. Coincidence?-- thumbwax, Jan 12 2002 Innocence and guilt are just a matter of timing so why don't we just shoot everyone now and get it over with.-- DrBob, Jan 12 2002 I was hoping this idea was for a camera with a gun on it with Artificial Intelligence that shot someone whenever it saw someone of (insert your least favorite ethnic group here).-- Amishman35, Jan 13 2002 And what, pray tell - is your least favo(u)rite ethnic group, Amishman?-- thumbwax, Jan 13 2002 Napalm - for those of you who think it is something special I think you'll find you can make a rough equivilent with stuff from your local supermarket. Mainly Petrol (gasoline) and soap. Try looking up "Jolly Rogers Cookbook" on the net.
Accuracy - I think you'll find that with a decent scope and a trained marksman they could easilly pick off individual rioter without hitting anything else.
Police = Riots - the reason "Riots" as such start after the police arrive is because the riotrs went there in order to kill policemen and people on the other side. the police don't cause riots... they are the victims.
Arrest vs Shooting - I want to see [pottedstu] try and arrest a rioter... hehe... go on and see what happens.
Faking Video - [Bristolz] - Do you have any concept of what it would cost to fake riot scene... you would have to build a detail set of the place the riot took place and hire x number of actors to take part, ALL IN COMPLETE SECRECY.
[Chud] - Riots aren't a tightly packed group of people, walking neatly along in lines holding banners... that a protest. Try watching the news more and movies less.
"Arms to overthrow an unjust government" is a tad different from a group of youths throwing acid bombs at policemen because all there mates are doing it... which is what much of rioting comes down to.
"What weapons get you shot" - I think all the other HB members could make a rough guess at that... just to get you going... rocks No, Blast Bombs (home made grenades) YES. A bit of common sense renders that question a desperate "grasping at straws" argument.
oh yeah... and will everyone please stop trying to turn this into a gun debate....it isn't. (You know who you are. And so the the ATF probably...)-- CasaLoco, Jan 14 2002 My question was how could you assure that the footage was bona fide not how do you fake the shots. Assume that the shots could be flawlessly faked, how would you (or a court or review board) know that they weren't? I was looking for some thinking along those lines. Maybe fragile watermarking (if the digital watermark is disturbed you know the footage has been tampered with) or something like that. You know, an enhancement to the invention that makes it more valuable than just bolting a camcorder to a weapon.
As for faking the shots, I think I do have a good idea of what it would cost, actually. It's not a cinematic release under discussion here, rather some poor looking, jerky footage shot under marginal conditions. It's easy to hide errors with such footage. The scene could be faked, from scratch, with some still shots of the actual scene, multiple takes shot with two actors and a decent consumer DV camera; RealViz Stitcher, Image Modeler and MatchMover; some decent CGI; Ultimatte and some clever compositing. You could do it (in complete secrecy) In your garage or living room or laptop in the bathroom. It wouldn't cost much at all. Of course, if you had real gun camera footage to start with and all you were doing was altering that, well, so much the easier.
My dumb opinion only, but I think it is not long before footage becomes inadmissable as evidence in court unless captured with some authentication scheme in place.
<later> Okay, so I am traipsing off into really way-the-hell-off topic land. The thing is, that it is the only part of this discussion that interests me. I'm sure that this post appears as some sort of sustained Tourette's Syndrome utterance. I'm off my meds. Apologies.-- bristolz, Jan 14 2002 Dear Abby,How come rioters don't wear helmets and carry guns and knives and stuff if they come with the intent to kill?Confused-- thumbwax, Jan 14 2002 Dear ConfusedBecause a) they've already stashed a crate full of petrol bombs in an alley, and b) they know that, with half a dozen friends, a rioter can turn a vehicle upside down.Abby-- angel, Jan 14 2002 //"What weapons get you shot" ... rocks No//
Tell that to the Palestinians. The Shoot To Kill policy is working really well to maintain civil stability in that region, I'm sure. Not exacerbating tensions, whatsoever. But hey, they're rioters, right, those little kids with the stones; they know the risks, so shoot them down like the dogs they are. That'll stop the rioting. Just like Shoot To Kill worked so well in Northern Ireland. And just think what blissful peace we'd have in Bradford right now if we'd sent in snipers to just shoot down any fourteen year old with a half-brick during the riots last year. No, that wouldn't have added to the sense of disaffection and disenfranchisement amongst Britain's asian youth.
Given the tactics of police during the protests that were to become the Poll Tax Riots or, say, the Brixton Riots back in the early 80's, such a simplistic solution is, I think ill-conceived. When well-organised racist groups are going into black and asian areas just to whip up tension, and political groups of even slightly radical ideas (like, gosh, anti-McDonalds groups... that's really sodding subversive) are infiltrated by agent provocateurs employed by the very organisations they're targeting, you're going to get riots exploding for all sorts of reasons. People go to demos to express outrage, and that anger can be herded and prodded, pushed and shoved, by police with batons or by counter-demonstrators (eg. Combat 18 turning up at anti-racist rallies) until mob mentality takes over, and even usually reasonable people become caught up in the unleashed rage and frustration. Newbury. Kent State. Tianenmen Square. Seattle. Geneva. Whether it's a protest or a riot, and who's to blame, is seldom as clear-cut as "All riots are wrong; rioters should be shot."
[Spelling error corrected. *Ahem*. Ta, th'wax.]-- Guy Fox, Jan 14 2002 //...anti-Macdonalds groups//As in Clan MacDonald or Burger McDonald?-- thumbwax, Jan 14 2002 As a student in the 80s who participated in UK student grant protests against Thatcher's government I can sympathise with people who become caught up in riots. We avoided such occurrances because we were well stewarded, knew when police were starting to get serious and able to spot anarchists wanting to stir up trouble (because they wore black, had shaven heads and carried anarchist flags). There was probably quite a big element of luck also as prior and previous protest marchers were brutally suppressed during that period.
However despite all this in two of the three annual marches we came pretty to a dire confrontation. Once we were about to be charged by riot police on horseback (the stewards got us to sit down) and the other time we found the police had built a 60 foot barrier in a successful attempt to stop us advancing on parliament with burning staves. If any of those situations went pear-shaped a lot of peaceful participants, whose only "crime" would have been chanting the "Maggie Out" protest song, would have been hurt or killed.
This is why it is generally the wiser option not to shoot people during demonstrations.-- Aristotle, Jan 14 2002 Both I and another member of my family have had close encounters with armed policemen (UK bakers will appreciate that such encounters are not a common occurrence here - though not as uncommon as they used to be, alas!) and I've got to say that I wouldn't trust them with a truncheon, let alone a gun.
Others have made most of the relevant points about the value of this idea, so I'll not re-hash it all. Just to address the point that some people have made about the restraining effect that gun-cameras may have on the police. I'm not convinced. I strongly suspect that there would merely be a rash of 'camera faults' at critical moments.-- DrBob, Jan 14 2002 Foolproof: proof that a fool can fool with the proof.Hypothetical: Suppose that The GunCamera - which would need to be hooked to a recording medium is "confiscated" in tandem with taped evidence by Internal Affairs who are acting in 100% good faith and film remains undoctored by all parties.If Officer doesn't flick 'On' switch until protester makes what appears to be a threatening move, then shoots - it appears as if protester was initiating his/her own injury/death.Example: If a protester was wielding a flower, then a bottle rolled up to protester - protester dropped flower and picked up bottle in order to place it in a trash can because s/he didn't want bottle to harm another person or business which was nearby - then cop shot him/her - it may appear that bottle was going to be used as weapon, and cop would be off hook. All without doctoring tape - same as it ever was with or without "evidence".-- thumbwax, Jan 14 2002 An extremely good point, [TW]. What is omitted can be as critical as what is captured, indeed.-- bristolz, Jan 14 2002 casaloco - you just dont seem to be able to understand - if a big pointy bit of metal is flying through the air very fast and it hits somone it will go through and if they are in a crowd it will in all probability hit somone else - standing in line is not a requirement
for being so dumb you're getting silly stringed(strung?) as well now - or would that also condemn me to the death penalty?-- chud, Jan 15 2002 CasaLoco: (What an appropriate name!)
>Accuracy - I think you'll find that with a decent scope >and a trained marksman they could easilly pick off >individual rioter without hitting anything else.
Tried it? In a shifting crowd, your marksman would have to be a very good shot even to ensure that the first thing the bullet hit was its intended target. And where does the bullet go then? I don't know much about ballistics, but I'm told a round can come out of a body in a direction utterly different to that in which it went in. And as for the "trained marksmen", the (UK at least) police's skills don't fill me with confidence. They sometimes used to practice on the next range to us when I was in the school shooting team.
>Faking Video - [Bristolz] - Do you have any concept >of what it would cost to fake riot scene... you would >have to build a detail set of the place the riot took >place and hire x number of actors to take part,
No you wouldn't. Given the picture quality to be expected from something bolted to the side of a rifle and used from any kind of distance, I could probably make a convincing fake in a few hours, and I'm no great shakes as a computer artist.
>What weapons get you shot" - I think all the other HB >members could make a rough guess at that... just to >get you going... rocks No, Blast Bombs (home made >grenades) YES. In what way does a blast bomb look significantly different from a rock? As in "can be clearly distinguished from 200m, while held in a clenched fist, in less than a second (to allow time to make the shot between seeing it pulled from the pocket and thrown)." And assuming it is identified, the shot will have to be made very quickly, and we go back to the accuracy issue again. A snapshot like that will probably miss and hit the little old lady sticking her head out of the door to see what the noise is. Indeed, at 100m, a 7.62mm rifle bullet will probably go through three walls and hit her where she's hiding in the kitchen at the back of the house.
When I read the original post, I thought it was an idle joke, but your defence of it suggests that you seriously believe it's a good idea. They say it takes all sorts to make a world, but I would prefer it if your sort wasn't a vital ingredient.-- Rugrat, Feb 24 2002 Comrade CasaLoco has just been awarded a medal for showing that we were in our full rights to kill and maim the evil rioters at Tienanmen. They were just the violence - seeking scumbags they seemed to be. signed, The Communist Party of the People's rRepublic of China-- Saruman, Jul 07 2002 A bit late, but...
They have gunbots, (or what have you - I don't know what they're really called), already. They're .50 caliber sniper rifles armored somewhat and on gimbals. The officer using the gunbot hustles his ass out into an area that would be too dangerous for a human sniper, plants the gun on its tripod and high-tails it to cover. From there the gun is guided with a remote control and sighted with a remote a camera (which records the action, as far as I know).
[thumbwax] : I take it that you haven't seen the full Rodney King tape, then. The bit that the news stations didn't show. Several minutes of a man stopped by police for driving erratically leaping out of his car and rushing the cops, shrugging off everything from pepper spray to several tasers until the cops - who were plainly scared shitless - put him on the ground with their batons. They kept whacking him because PCP gives the user immunity to pain and the strength to break handcuff chains - this last is documented in many, many police reports. Given the kind of pants-crapping terror King had put them in, I credit the cops with unbelievable restraint in not blowing his head off long before they had him on the ground. The entire tape is over seven minutes long. The news didn't show more than a minute thirty of it. Just pointing out that it goes both ways.
By the way, "petrol bombs" are a Russian invention from the second world war, called "Molotov cocktails." Homemade napalm is generally done with gasoline and styrofoam peanuts, or petroleum and ping-pong balls diced up small.-- subsonic, Sep 25 2002 Stupop is the only one talking sense here, his views are made with a succinct and objective accuracy that i can only admire. If there were elections for a world leader, stupop would more than certainly get my vote. I say almost certainly, because i don't know who the othere canditates are yet, so to offer my unequivocal support at this point could appear somewhat obsiquious.-- garlic twins, Mar 09 2004 random, halfbakery