[Guidostrunk]

 

[DoctorZoidberg]

Quote:

How many times are you going to spam this thread with 1 word answers and smiley faces?

 

[Uncle Erik]

ramicio, as has been pointed out, shooting a fleeing person is usually interpreted as murder. Probably second degree, but possibly third if you really went after them. It would depend on the state you're in. Personally, I'd use the gun and try to hold them at gunpoint. That's usually legal. And even if they got away, there's very little chance they'd come back to someone who pulled a gun on them.

Also, I think that woman was an idiot. You don't attack someone with a weapon better than what you have unless that's your only chance.

You're almost always better off negotiating with the nuts. If they haven't started shooting, they're still thinking it over. That's when you have an opportunity to get them talking and interrupt the plans.

I'm not law enforcement, but I've been locked in cells with some dangerous folks and had some violent clients. One that really had me spooked at first was a guy who beat the ever living feces out of four prison guards. They had weapons and he didn't. I made small talk and turned the conversation to prison food - which I expected him to hate (he did) and everything went fine. I used the same technique with anyone who seemed dangerous. Still do - my regular haunt is a bar with bullet holes in the walls and some real characters.

It might not sit well with Internet Tough Guys, but a lot of potentially bad situations can be solved with negotiation. Establish that you're not going to attack, get a little trust, let them talk and listen (listening is really important), and then you cold cock them by changing the conversation.

That might not be testosterone-pumping machismo, but it works.

And yes, I'm a gun owner. I sure enjoy shooting pieces of paper. I also keep a housecat around for protection.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Quote:

The first nuclear detonation?  They knew it wouldn't ignite the atmosphere because oxygen needs a fuel to burn together.  Pure energy that is released is not a chemical fuel, and even so, the fuel that is the reaction would run out long before it consumed all of the oxygen on earth.  If you've ever researched it seriously you would know it was more of an inside joke between all of the scientists and wasn't ever taken seriously.

Wrong on a couple of levels. First, the scientists were worried that temperatures caused by a fission bomb would be high enough to fuse nitrogen atoms and cause a self sustaining fusion reaction. Note that this is the sort of reaction that is behind fusion bombs, albeit with hydrogen isotopes instead of nitrogen. Second, it was enough of a concern that scientists on the Manhattan project researched the matter and concluded that the reaction wasn't sustainable due to radiated energy loss. Arthur Compton, a physics Nobel Laureate and another scientist on the Manhattan Project, also took it seriously enough that he flagged the possibility in a report to the US government.

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.

 

[Maverickmonk]

Quote:

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

 
 
Not so according to Socrates, In the dialogue of Protagoras he makes a very logical claim that wisdom, courage, and several other traits are all interconnected.
 
More historically speaking, things that are "stupid and brave" according to this logic (difficult odds, chance of death, etc.): Apollo 13's attempted(and successful) reentery, D-Day, the American Revolution, the detonation of the first nuclear weapon at Los Alamos (They had no proof that it WOULDN'T ignite the entire atmosphere and end life as we know it on planet earth).
 
Looking at it the other way, if she had done nothing, and died, what would she be? Cowardly and smart? 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.
 
 
I'm not trying to argue, I just like a good ole' debate, no ill intent whatsoever.

Apollo 13's attempted(and successful) reentery - And their alternative was?  There could be no rescue in space.  What were they going to do, wait to die?
 
D-Day - Really?  Difficult odds?  We're not talking about "I know - let's invade the continent tomorrow!" - they had been planning for years and training for months before the big day.  Numerical superiority was planned (24,000 airborne troops assaulting the night before and 160,000 landing during the day, compared to around 10,000 Germans) and extensive shelling and bombardment was done - not to mention the diversionary tactics before and during the invasion - e.g. bombing Calais to make the Germans think that's where the invasion would be, and paradummies over Normandy to divert enemy soldiers from the real forces.  Deaths of soldiers were a given - but this is war - people die!
 
the American Revolution - Yes, the odds were uncertain, and again - this is war - death is a given.  But nonetheless, there was a great level of organization and preparation going on here.  It wasn't like D-Day, no - but you also have to deal with the ruling English government being across a the formidable Atlantic...
 
the detonation of the first nuclear weapon at Los Alamos (They had no proof that it WOULDN'T ignite the entire atmosphere and end life as we know it on planet earth). - First things first, the test was at White Sands Proving Ground - some 100 miles away from Los Alamos in basically the middle of nowhere.  Second, this declassified document shows that such a result was determined impossible by scientists working on the project.  Read the abstract, at least.
 

I don't disagree that there have been all sorts of brave and stupid incidents in history (this woman is an example) - but you know, being brave isn't always a good idea.  It gets you killed, perhaps more often than not.

 Ok, I have no clue how I made that error yesterday. It was totally White Sands Proving Ground. May I chalk it up to finals week insanity?
I really enjoyed reading through the document, and I honestly never knew they had proven it impossible before the test, even though I admit it turned into word soup halfway through. I'll conceed the first two examples were poo, but I feel the 3rd still stands, because we were disadvantaged in nearly every aspect of the battle, and without some serious mistakes on the side of the British (Burgoyne's failed campaign, and several other incidents), and some luck (the timing of the arival of French aid), it may well have ended differently. I'm not saying bravery leads to success. I'm saying that even though she failed, and admittedly could have done things differently (waited until a better opportunity, used a chair or something?), what she did was still commendable, even if it was a commendable failure.
 
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.
 
Again, thanks for the enlightening document

 

[ramicio]

Watch Trinity and Beyond, it was a joke.  No one was taken seriously about the concern.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

 Ok, I have no clue how I made that error yesterday. It was totally White Sands Proving Ground. May I chalk it up to finals week insanity?
I really enjoyed reading through the document, and I honestly never knew they had proven it impossible before the test, even though I admit it turned into word soup halfway through. I'll conceed the first two examples were poo, but I feel the 3rd still stands, because we were disadvantaged in nearly every aspect of the battle, and without some serious mistakes on the side of the British (Burgoyne's failed campaign, and several other incidents), and some luck (the timing of the arival of French aid), it may well have ended differently. I'm not saying bravery leads to success. I'm saying that even though she failed, and admittedly could have done things differently (waited until a better opportunity, used a chair or something?), what she did was still commendable, even if it was a commendable failure.
 
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.
 
Again, thanks for the enlightening document

I agree, the revolution isn't an entirely horrible example.
 
But anyway, when you try to disarm a gunman who isn't shooting at anyone yet - when the situation doesn't even remotely favor your success - you're not taking matters into your own hands.  You're putting your life in the madman's hands.
 
Not that there aren't times to act - the heroic teacher at Virginia Tech that held the door shut despite being shot multiple times comes to mind.  But there was no talking down the shooter then - he was already rampaging.  This guy wasn't.

 

[marvin]

 
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.

 

[ramicio]

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

 

[marvin]

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.

 

[ramicio]

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.

 

[marvin]

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.

 

[ramicio]

Again, all legality...not common sense.

 

[DoctorZoidberg]

 
Quote:

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

 
 
 

Originally Posted by ramicio /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
Just more staged "terrorism" to bring in more laws, cops, and feds to make us submissive.

 
 
Ha.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Again, all legality...not common sense.

We live in a society where the government has a near exclusive right to the legitimate use of force. Like it or not, that's the way it is. There are instances where individuals are allowed the use of deadly force, but those are exceptions not the rule. Common sense says there has to be a point where the individual's right to the use of deadly force ends, and the cessation of the threat is about as good of a bright line as it gets.

Besides, where would you have that line placed? Once the intruder is out of the house? Out of the property? Out of the city? How about time limits? One hour? One day? Never?