Gunman holds school board hostage (caught on tape)
Dec 17, 2010 at 2:13 PM Post #61 of 74


Quote:
Most of you in this thread live in some fantasy world.


Not sure about everyone - but you?  Yep.
 


Quote:
 
Quote:
Which is why they then did calculations on the subject and found that it was not possible.  At all.  Not even with the most absurd input parameters.  
You clearly didn't read my first post, where I linked to the declassified scientific report on the subject.  Give it a read - at least the abstract, like I said the first time.

 
Read my post again. I referenced the paper when I wrote "and concluded that the reaction wasn't sustainable due to radiated energy loss". Point being, the fact that they did the paper in the first place and that a Nobel laureate took the concern seriously meant that it was more than an inside joke among the scientists initially.
 


Sorry, I misread that.  But the point is - it was not a concern when they finally performed the Trinity test, because they had researched it and concluded it impossible.  Thus, no perceived risk of destroying the world as we know it.
 


Quote:
Quote:
Most of you in this thread live in some fantasy world.



I'll take that as a compliment from someone who believes that shooting fleeing thieves in the back is not only legal, but necessary and proper.


Me too.
 


Quote:
Quote:
I know it's NOT legal dude, I just don't see why it's "improper" like there is some established code of ethics on shooting intruders.  Someone comes in my house they are getting shot, I don't care which way they are moving.


In general*, the use of deadly force against a person is only allowable if you are reasonably in fear for your life or the life of another. No reasonable person believes that someone fleeing from you presents enough of a threat to you for you to be in fear for your life. Shooting them as a form of punishment or because you just felt like you should doesn't meet that criteria.

* Some states have less rights, some states have more. See a lawyer for details.


Agreed.
 


Quote:
Again, all legality...not common sense.



I wouldn't say shooting someone running from you is ever common sense.  I can see why, if he/she/they had just killed or maimed family or friends - but at that point there is perhaps still rational reasoning to think that he/she/they may return with a more formidable weapon(s).
 
But a common burglar - who breaks in to steal your laptop/jewelry/tv/whatever, armed with at most a baseball bat or switchblade?  If you come out of your bedroom with a 12 gauge, they ain't comin' back.  With this - the far more common scenario - you'd have a hard time making any case at all.
 
Dec 17, 2010 at 2:15 PM Post #62 of 74
The only line should be your sight from your property.  If they are in their car getting away you should still be allowed to shoot them.  Things will change about the government when people start actually seeing how evil and controlling it all is becoming.  It's not only about the use of force as a right that's disappearing, free will is disappearing.
 
Dec 17, 2010 at 2:28 PM Post #63 of 74


Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hmm, law is all about proving intent...  She was brave.  What is wrong with you all?  Who cares if she is stupid or not?  She is stupid because her actions did nothing, to you all.  But what if she would have stopped the whole thing by what she did?  Then you all would be "oh what a hero she is."  Results don't matter, she was brave.  

 
If she had succeeded, she would be a hero and stupid. As it is, she was brave and stupid. Those terms are not exclusionary.



 Check and Mate

 
 
 I'm not saying her attack was exactly well thought out, but she tried, and in my book trying to live is a whole lot more commemorable than hoping not to die.
 
 

 

 Doing something that is not well though out can be seen as stupid... so what was your point 
 
Dec 17, 2010 at 2:33 PM Post #64 of 74


Quote:
The only line should be your sight from your property.  If they are in their car getting away you should still be allowed to shoot them.  Things will change about the government when people start actually seeing how evil and controlling it all is becoming.  It's not only about the use of force as a right that's disappearing, free will is disappearing.



Yep, our government is evil and all controlling.
 
Slavery has been abolished; colored people can vote; women can vote; we have laws that attempt to ensure equality for everyone, not just white male land owners; no one is conscripted into the military; for the first time in history, same sex couples can choose to get married is some states....
 
All of this is clearly evil and controlling, diminishing our free will.
 
Dec 17, 2010 at 2:33 PM Post #65 of 74


Quote:
The only line should be your sight from your property.  If they are in their car getting away you should still be allowed to shoot them.  Things will change about the government when people start actually seeing how evil and controlling it all is becoming.  It's not only about the use of force as a right that's disappearing, free will is disappearing.



Even if you believe that government is overly intrusive, what you've written here simply isn't true. The use of force hasn't been unrestricted in this country since its inception. The only exception would be at the frontiers, but we're at least a century and a half past that time.
 
Also free will, even considered theologically, isn't the same as the freedom to do anything that crosses your mind without consequences.  Free will is about the ability to choose among options. If you make a choice like shooting and killing some unarmed kid who broke into your house, you get to go to jail for it.
 
Dec 17, 2010 at 2:38 PM Post #66 of 74


Quote:
The only line should be your sight from your property.  If they are in their car getting away you should still be allowed to shoot them.  Things will change about the government when people start actually seeing how evil and controlling it all is becoming.  It's not only about the use of force as a right that's disappearing, free will is disappearing.



I live on the second floor and have got a nice AR with a 20" LaRue upper and a 3-9x40 mildot Trijicon scope. Figure with a car sized target and match ammunition, I've got a good 400-500 yards of range where I can quickly and accurately make hits.
 
Doubt you're going to find many people who will consider the notion of being able to legally shoot at fleeing people 400-500 yards away to be "common sense".
 
Dec 17, 2010 at 4:42 PM Post #69 of 74
True also It is suggested everyone know their rights you have plenty not just freedom of speech. The law can be....shady therefore prior knowledge is strongly recommended. 
 
Dec 17, 2010 at 11:16 PM Post #70 of 74


 
Quote:
 
Quote:
Which is why they then did calculations on the subject and found that it was not possible.  At all.  Not even with the most absurd input parameters.  
You clearly didn't read my first post, where I linked to the declassified scientific report on the subject.  Give it a read - at least the abstract, like I said the first time.

 
Read my post again. I referenced the paper when I wrote "and concluded that the reaction wasn't sustainable due to radiated energy loss". Point being, the fact that they did the paper in the first place and that a Nobel laureate took the concern seriously meant that it was more than an inside joke among the scientists initially.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maverickmonk /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I'd still rather trust my own life to my own hands and luck than the mental stability of a madman. An example of my thinking can come from back in highschool. We had an intruder drill, where we turned off the lights, closed the doors, and hid in a huddle in the corner of the room. When I realized that the window of the doors were easily broken and opened from the inside, and that around 80% of school shootings are committed by students there, I asked the teacher what the "procedure" was if the student wasn't fooled into thinking the rest of his classmates left while he was loading up in the bathroom, broke the door and entered the room. Her honest response was "he probably doesn't have enough bullets for all of us. At that point its luck." I find a response like that unacceptable. I find taking my chances with whatever blunt instrument (desk, chair, flagpole) or pointy thing (scissors, etc) than resting my life in the accuracy or magazine count of a shooter. Granted, this case is slightly different, as the person had not started shooting yet, and I wasn't there at the time, so I'm just another guy talking smack on the internet.

 
The school procedures are set up like that for a reason. It makes the armed response by the police much easier and it reduces the risks involved with panic and trampling. Barricaded doors also take time to penetrate and can greatly reduce the number of victims available to the shooter. While your configuration wasn't optimal, it wouldn't take much to make it work. Setting the the door so that it opens inwards, replacing the glass with plexiglass, and equipping it with a heavy duty door stop will secure against anything short of a battering ram.
 
Fighting back is the best of bad options after an active shooter has penetrated or bypassed the barrier as the first few students may soak up enough enough bullets to allow some of the others to reach him when he has to reload. But much better that he doesn't get in the room in the first place.



It was a public highschool, if I were to send a letter to the admin about "why and how someone could kill people in your building and what you should do about it", the only precautionary measure they would take from it would be to have me taken for a psych eval
rolleyes.gif
. I understand that staying safe in a room is far better than trying to dodge bullets from the shooter in the hallway, it was the second "if he gets in here we probably won't ALL die at least" thought that worried me. There needs to be a middle ground between the two, cowering, and futilely flinging your purse at a gunman, which while brave, obviously didn't work. But then again, its one thing to sit here and weigh outcomes and another to be looking down the barrel of a gun fearing for your life. I'm going to try to refrain from any further comment since all I can offer (and hopefully all I'll ever have the experience to offer) is the first and not the second.
 
Dec 18, 2010 at 9:49 PM Post #72 of 74
Tell me about it. Last 5 pages have been just 
eek.gif

 
This being staged is so far out there. "I reject your reality and substitute my own"
The guy who he missed got as natural reaction as you can. As somebody who have had to do 1 year military service in Finland and used handgun after 6 months of plenty of assault rifle training and target practice it's not the world easiest task to shoot from 3-5m range and hit on your first try, especially in his state of mind and looking at his lack of stance and using one hand, probably no training either. 
 
 
Dec 20, 2010 at 1:24 AM Post #74 of 74
I decided to skip over most of the arguments.
 
I really hate videos depicting real violence. I recall years ago when those Al-Qaeda decapitation and Abu Ghraib torture videos came out, people thought it was great to spread them around and I was heavily disgusted. As a pretty light hearted guy when it comes to weird and disgusting videos on the internet, I still dislike seeing shootings, beatings and the like.
 
Glad to see no one was hurt except for the assailant, but still not a pretty incident.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top