Another mentally ill man attacks train passengers

PucaMama

PTH2009 wrote: »

Crazy and it's something that could happen here

There are a lot of unstable people walking the streets in Ireland. They think people are laughing at them, looking at them, talking about them etc

Judging by the behaviour I see every day a lot of people are doing all that.

Widdershins

DanMurphy wrote: »

Easy to generalize about people, i.e. like OAPs for instance (even in jest as in this case,)
I'm an OAP, as you put it, aged 67 to be exact, someone who was reared in the hard old days, spent 30 years in the Army and am still reasonably fit and healthy.
You never know who's sitting beside you on that bus or train, if and when **** happens. If it was me on the bus, I'd rather depend on some of the other 'OAP's I know, than some modern day Mammy's hand - reared boys who'd probably burst into tears at the sight of real violence.

Just sayin' like

Scarily accurate. Rugged manliness being as unpopular as it is I don't know who would stick up for a victim in such a situation.

biko

If only the other passengers would have had some guns...

Widdershins

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Martin Blunt, is that you?

Not really a great deal you can do about it. You want to set up seucirty at trains? Metro/Luas stops? Busses?

And how do you think it;s going to be funded? You'll be the first one up in arms when the cost of your ticket skyrockets.

I don't know the ins and outs of security or how it's done/how easy it is but I would be willing to accept the increased cost of tickets, if necessary..I wonder if many people who want increased security would be bothered by a price hike? I can only speak for myself..

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Widdershins wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Martin Blunt, is that you?

Not really a great deal you can do about it. You want to set up seucirty at trains? Metro/Luas stops? Busses?

And how do you think it;s going to be funded? You'll be the first one up in arms when the cost of your ticket skyrockets.

I don't know the ins and outs of security or how it's done/how easy it is but I would be willing to accept the increased cost of tickets, if necessary..I wonder if many people who want increased security would be bothered by a price hike? I can only speak for myself..

No, because it's a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that isn't going to be solved.

Why do you think this could only happen on trains? What makes you think it couldn't happen on a bus? Or even walking down the street?

Widdershins

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, because it's a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that isn't going to be solved.

Why do you think this could only happen on trains? What makes you think it couldn't happen on a bus? Or even walking down the street?

Well I was talking about the people who do want increased security. Obviously if you think it's unnecessary you won't accept price hikes.
Can't say I've thought about it, only commented off-hand.

Samaris

Widdershins wrote: »

Scarily accurate. Rugged manliness being as unpopular as it is I don't know who would stick up for a victim in such a situation.

Always in these situations, one's own rugged manliness is never in doubt, of course.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Widdershins wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

No, because it's a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that isn't going to be solved.

Why do you think this could only happen on trains? What makes you think it couldn't happen on a bus? Or even walking down the street?

Well I was talking about the people who do want increased security. Obviously if you think it's unnecessary you won't accept price hikes.
Can't say I've thought about it, only commented off-hand.

Kinda makes my point aboutcs knee-jerk reaction - but my point is it's a very false security.

If someone with a mental illness or a terrorist wants to pick up a knife and go on a stab a few innocent people, it's going to happen. Theyll just do it somewhere else.

_Whimsical_

Maybe there is a need for a consensus among members of the public that when it's one person with a gun, knife, whatever, that they probably can be overpowered by enough other people. That as many people as possible step forward and act in these situations rather than run, or as happens now film it on their phone.

In the attack last year in the London Underground where a man with a sword tried to seriously injure someone there was a news report afterwards with a man who did step forward and in part foiled the attack. He said he was surrounded by other onlooking men and expected when he stepped in that others would follow but instead they stood around filming on their phones and left him alone to confront the attacker. He said the attacker could have easily been overpowered by just 2 or 3 more men. One man interviewed who had stood videoing the attack said he stayed and filmed it because he thought the footage would be useful to the police later.

It seems like these attacks by mentally ill people are becoming a phenomenon similar to hysteria, where people in the grip of mental illness are very suggestible and the expression of their distress will manifest itself in the way their culture or environment reflects back to them is how it's done.

Surely if people became more likely to step in it would give pause for thought for the majority of the lone attackers we've seen recently, like teenagers and mentally ill people. It would and should seem more a sure fire route to public humiliation and physical injury than a chance to play scary attacker/jihadi.

Widdershins

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Kinda makes my point aboutcs knee-jerk reaction - but my point is it's a very false security.

If someone with a mental illness or a terrorist wants to pick up a knife and go on a stab a few innocent people, it's going to happen. Theyll just do it somewhere else.

How on earth did it make your point? Asking a mild question is not knee jerk..
There was no knee jerk. I respect that you don't see a need for extra security, and wondered if those who do are prepared to pay for it.
When and where best to implement is a completely different topic for another thread.

Samaris

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Maybe there is a need for a consensus among members of the public that when it's one person with a gun, knife, whatever, that they probably can be overpowered by enough other people. That as many people as possible step forward and act in these situations rather than run, or as happens now film it on their phone.

An issue with that is that no-one knows how they're react in a situation like that. If I saw someone with a knife attacking people on a train or whatever, I would like to -think- that I'd try to help/stop it. I have some slight evidence that I -do- step into stupidly dangerous situations if someone's in trouble, but I've never been confronted with...okay, I have had the knife thing, but I've definitely never been confronted with a gun. Or someone actually stabbing people with said knife. I can -say- "yes, people must attack these people and put a stop to them", but until and unless I am actually in that situation*, it's nothing but words.

*I'd really prefer not to be, thanks!

Samaris

Samaris wrote: »

An issue with that is that no-one knows how they're react in a situation like that. If I saw someone with a knife attacking people on a train or whatever, I would like to -think- that I'd try to help/stop it. I have some slight evidence that I -do- step into stupidly dangerous situations if someone's in trouble, but I've never been confronted with...okay, I have had the knife thing, but I've definitely never been confronted with a gun. Or someone actually stabbing people with said knife. I can -say- "yes, people must attack these people and put a stop to them", but until and unless I am actually in that situation*, it's nothing but words.

*I'd really prefer not to be, thanks!

No-one knows til it happens, even then ya can't always be sure. I've run when there was no need to, I've stepped in after a pint when seeing someone get bottled and it was nothing to do with me. Sometimes it flips one way, sometimes the other. I avoid fighting as much as I can though because I tend to lose control and I'm not small.

Samaris

Deleted User wrote: »

No-one knows til it happens, even then ya can't always be sure. I've run when there was no need to, I've stepped in after a pint when seeing someone get bottled and it was nothing to do with me. Sometimes it flips one way, sometimes the other. I avoid fighting as much as I can though because I tend to lose control and I'm not small.

No harm in survival instincts! I will and have used that I am female in weighing up the odds. In one case, it worked in my favour, because the large bloke whaling the **** out of the smaller stunned bleeding guy didn't want to thump a teenage girl in a pink skirt because rly, that's not going to do anything for his cred :P I might have had more issues as a male there, as that guy outweighed me (and a hypothetical male me) by LOTS. Other situations, being female has worked against me. I doubt it would make any difference in the sorts of situations we're talking about here though. I'm no fighter, so I tend to be the one to get into the middle of it and try to calm the situation, which doesn't work with either terrorist attacks or someone being off their heads. I also don't think Tactic Two (a thorough scolding - hey, it's worked before for me ) would be particularly helpful either.

Sooo, realistically I can conclude that I'd either stay back or get stabbed. Or both.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Widdershins wrote: »

How on earth did it make your point? Asking a mild question is not knee jerk..
There was no knee jerk. I respect that you don't see a need for extra security, and wondered if those who do are prepared to pay for it.
When and where best to implement is a completely different topic for another thread.

There have been two or three attacks in the last few weeks around Europe. The immediate reactions is a sudden claim for the nessecity of metal-detectors and security on every train and metro in Europe (which is what was queried in the opening post). That is most certainly a knee-jerk reaction.

You're never going to be completely safe or immune from this happenign to you.

Widdershins

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

There have been two or three attacks in the last few weeks around Europe. The immediate reactions is a sudden claim for the nessecity of metal-detectors and security on every train and metro in Europe (which is what was queried in the opening post). That is most certainly a knee-jerk reaction.

You're never going to be completely safe or immune from this happenign to you.

I'm not debating the necessity for extra security and didn't say anything about metal detectors etc. I had no knee jerk reaction. I was working on the basis of some people wanting security, and not questioning the sense of that, only whether they would be ok with paying for it. Their minds are made up, I'm not interested in putting them down or proving them wrong.

_Whimsical_

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

There have been two or three attacks in the last few weeks around Europe. The immediate reactions is a sudden claim for the nessecity of metal-detectors and security on every train and metro in Europe (which is what was queried in the opening post). That is most certainly a knee-jerk reaction.

You're never going to be completely safe or immune from this happening to you.

The greatest safety should lie in knowing there's usually tens or hundreds of people around and that they will step in and help if something does happen. It should also be the greatest deterrent for would be attackers. Not just for terrorism but for violence in general too.

Samaris wrote: »

An issue with that is that no-one knows how they're react in a situation like that. If I saw someone with a knife attacking people on a train or whatever, I would like to -think- that I'd try to help/stop it. I have some slight evidence that I -do- step into stupidly dangerous situations if someone's in trouble, but I've never been confronted with...okay, I have had the knife thing, but I've definitely never been confronted with a gun. Or someone actually stabbing people with said knife. I can -say- "yes, people must attack these people and put a stop to them", but until and unless I am actually in that situation*, it's nothing but words.

*I'd really prefer not to be, thanks!

Yup I agree with you. I don't know exactly how I'd react either. I think it would be easier to step in though if we lived in a society where you were absolutely confident others would join in.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm not debating the necessity for extra security and didn't say anything about metal detectors etc. I had no knee jerk reaction. I was working on the basis of some people wanting security, and not questioning the sense of that, only whether they would be ok with paying for it. Their minds are made up, I'm not interested in putting them down or proving them wrong.

Fair enough. Didn't mean it to be come across as being personal

But the OP mention mealt secuirty which startde it all. And my poitn was that it's going to cost money and not make people any safer.

mickstupp

Thread title is disgusting.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

mickstupp wrote: »

Thread title is disgusting.

How so?