In other news... (humorous news items)

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Whizbang » Tue May 06, 2014 8:01 pm UTC

What if it is a "smart" tv?

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Djehutynakht » Tue May 06, 2014 8:02 pm UTC

Definition?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 06, 2014 8:07 pm UTC

I'll agree that humans are generally more valuable than TV's. But not always.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Djehutynakht » Tue May 06, 2014 8:12 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I'll agree that humans are generally more valuable than TV's. But not always.


I'd say always. I mean, the sheer labor value alone...
_______________________

College student orders weightlifting bench, receives drone.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 06, 2014 8:22 pm UTC

Some people have negative value. That is, they make the world worse off for having been part of it. I'd rather have a TV than Pol Pot.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Heisenberg » Tue May 06, 2014 8:22 pm UTC

Your value system is in error.

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Whizbang » Tue May 06, 2014 8:24 pm UTC

That's not what your mother said.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 06, 2014 8:32 pm UTC

One time I ordered an office chair and got a bobcat instead.

speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby speising » Tue May 06, 2014 8:38 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Some people have negative value. That is, they make the world worse off for having been part of it. I'd rather have a TV than Pol Pot.


that may be so. however, it is not to you to decide. except if you are a judge, which i hope you're not.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1405
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby freezeblade » Tue May 06, 2014 8:42 pm UTC

There are non-lethal ways of preventing your TV's theft (chasing the thief out with a hammer, for instance; or setting up some elaborate Home Alone-esque series of booby traps in order to deter potential thieves). There is calling the cops; even if it's possible they may not arrive in time to stop your TV from getting stolen, there's still a pretty decent chance of them recovering it. Penalties, such as prison, serve as a good deterrent.


I can't find it right now because I'm at work, but i remember reading a story about how if you actually did booby-trap your house in a way that injured a burgler, that burgler could then sue you.

As for the police. if you call the police in my area during a home invasion, they tell you to run away, and that unless someone is injured, they won't show up except to file a report, usually the next day. And your chances of getting your TV recovered is actually slim to nill, not "a good chance."

I feel that if the burgler knows that he can get away with the crime because the home-owner won't do anything besides hide, and that the cops won't even show up, then you might as well just give him a wad of cash to thank him for liberating you from that opressive TV sitting in your livingroom. You clearly didn't need it anyway right?
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Tue May 06, 2014 9:00 pm UTC

speising wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Some people have negative value. That is, they make the world worse off for having been part of it. I'd rather have a TV than Pol Pot.


that may be so. however, it is not to you to decide. except if you are a judge, which i hope you're not.


I'm an actuary, so that means that deciding the value of life IS my job.


There are actuaries who work for the criminal justice system to determine the expected costs of keeping someone locked up versus setting them free. Recidivism rates, life expectancies, age, gender, race, sexuality, health, education, all are factored in. That means that two people with different backgrounds but the same exact crime may get different results from a parole board. Sweet dreams.

I bring that up because I think it should stop. Just because something is "best" doesn't make it "right".
Last edited by CorruptUser on Tue May 06, 2014 9:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby addams » Tue May 06, 2014 9:08 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:Perhaps time this becomes its own news thread/Serious Business discussion?


Anti-Gay North Carolina candidate revealed to be former drag queen.

I suppose I can see how his views could have changed for him to have made this conversion, but I find it funny nonetheless.

That is a funny way for a conservative politician to end his career.
Poor Baby. I understand.

He has managed to alienate both sides.
He can't wear his push up bras with pride.

He can't explain dressing up like a girl and liking girls to the Republicans.
Now; I want to know. Is he gay? Is he one of those Male Lesbians?

I want to know.
I don't care.

Who cares?
His lovers may be interested.
I'm not. Not really.

A little!
Do you have photos?
That can be funny.

Eureka!
I found it!

https://www.google.com/search?q=Steve+W ... B634%3B410
Did that link work?
He is cuter as a She than he is as a He.

Of course! He is!
He put some effort into being She.

Maybe being He takes effort.
It only Looks natural.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Djehutynakht » Tue May 06, 2014 10:36 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:call the police in my area during a home invasion, they tell you to run away, and that unless someone is injured, they won't show up except to file a report, usually the next day. And your chances of getting your TV recovered is actually slim to nill, not "a good chance."

I feel that if the burgler knows that he can get away with the crime because the home-owner won't do anything besides hide, and that the cops won't even show up, then you might as well just give him a wad of cash to thank him for liberating you from that opressive TV sitting in your livingroom. You clearly didn't need it anyway right?


I could argue that is simply bad policework. If they refuse to actively respond to a criminal situation, there's an issue.

Of course if the police force is overwhelmed and simply too stretched to respond there's larger problems to be addressed.


Nonetheless, the right to kill anyone potentially hoping to burgle an everyday common possession is still too disproportionate in terms of the rights and retributions being distributed. Their right to maintain life, of which there is only one, irrecoverable, is worth more than a single TV.

Now, if it turns out to be Pol Pot trying to steal your TV, then we'll talk.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby sardia » Tue May 06, 2014 11:00 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:
There are non-lethal ways of preventing your TV's theft (chasing the thief out with a hammer, for instance; or setting up some elaborate Home Alone-esque series of booby traps in order to deter potential thieves). There is calling the cops; even if it's possible they may not arrive in time to stop your TV from getting stolen, there's still a pretty decent chance of them recovering it. Penalties, such as prison, serve as a good deterrent.


I can't find it right now because I'm at work, but i remember reading a story about how if you actually did booby-trap your house in a way that injured a burgler, that burgler could then sue you.

As for the police. if you call the police in my area during a home invasion, they tell you to run away, and that unless someone is injured, they won't show up except to file a report, usually the next day. And your chances of getting your TV recovered is actually slim to nill, not "a good chance."

I feel that if the burgler knows that he can get away with the crime because the home-owner won't do anything besides hide, and that the cops won't even show up, then you might as well just give him a wad of cash to thank him for liberating you from that opressive TV sitting in your livingroom. You clearly didn't need it anyway right?

Would you rather kill the burglar or face the potential lawsuit for hurting him?

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue May 06, 2014 11:29 pm UTC

Nonetheless, the right to kill anyone potentially hoping to burgle an everyday common possession is still too disproportionate in terms of the rights and retributions being distributed. Their right to maintain life, of which there is only one, irrecoverable, is worth more than a single TV.

So that still brings us back to it not being "ridiculous" for a homeowner to get their gun when their home is broken into. If the homeowner is certain that the intruder is not a threat to their or their family's persons, they can feel free to merely chase the intruder off or call the cops.

I mean, as long as the homeowner doesn't cross the line into "you stay out/put that back or I'll shoot you", everything's good, right? As long as they wait until the intruder actually threatens their family, either through word or deed, to shoot.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby speising » Tue May 06, 2014 11:35 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Would you rather kill the burglar or face the potential lawsuit for hurting him?
you mean, killing doesn't entail legal troubles?
(of course, when i was standing guard in my military stint, they said, if i had to shoot, it should be to kill, so there won't be anybody to contest my version. but i chose to take that as a joke.)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby addams » Tue May 06, 2014 11:54 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:
Now, if it turns out to be Pol Pot trying to steal your TV, then we'll talk.

How many Pol Pots are there?
Is that one of those common names that is not common, anymore?

From what people wrote about the Pol Pot from History,
He would get other people all worked up;
Then, They would take your TV.

Pol Pot will not be showing up for your TV.
Someone that listens to the voice of Pol Pot will.

Not really. Right?
It is not the poor, homeless, friendless and desperate that listen to Pol Pot, Hitler, Mustache-a-Leeni and the whole rational bunch of AssHoles.

Who listens to that Crap?
People that are fearful someone might Take The TV!

Who is fearful of losing the TV?
People with TV's.

The good old Middle Class?
The Lower and Low Middle Classes.

What a power the masses were thought to have. They Do!

The Low Class and the Low Middle Class are so close together.
Bound to one another by Fear. So sad. So historically accurate.

The Slave Driver Class.
And; The Slave.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby sardia » Wed May 07, 2014 1:35 am UTC

speising wrote:
sardia wrote:Would you rather kill the burglar or face the potential lawsuit for hurting him?
you mean, killing doesn't entail legal troubles?
(of course, when i was standing guard in my military stint, they said, if i had to shoot, it should be to kill, so there won't be anybody to contest my version. but i chose to take that as a joke.)

Some people take it as more than a joke. I was wondering if Freezeblade was willing to kill someone to lessen the hassle of a lawsuit.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby addams » Wed May 07, 2014 2:36 am UTC

sardia wrote:
speising wrote:
sardia wrote:Would you rather kill the burglar or face the potential lawsuit for hurting him?
you mean, killing doesn't entail legal troubles?
(of course, when i was standing guard in my military stint, they said, if i had to shoot, it should be to kill, so there won't be anybody to contest my version. but i chose to take that as a joke.)

Some people take it as more than a joke. I was wondering if Freezeblade was willing to kill someone to lessen the hassle of a lawsuit.

See??
It's rational.
It's logical.

It is somehow Wrong.
We can go though the reasons one at a time.

We end up at the same place, over and over.
Not all of us end up at the same place at the same time.

Regular, law-abiding, upstanding citizens were the crowds that gathered for the lynchings.
Every tough guy believes deep down, He will be The Exception. Each one Is the Exception.
Spoiler:
Remember.
"Uniqueness is so common a quality of life;
There is really nothing unique about it."
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Carlington » Wed May 07, 2014 3:31 am UTC

Go for your gun, sure. If necessary, shoot the guy, sure. Don't shoot immediately to kill, though. Incapacitate. Render the minimum amount of force necessary for them to no longer be a threat. There is a point at which that minimum amount of force is shooting to kill, and I don't dispute that. I just don't think that bar should be set at "If I don't killem, he might take muh teevee."
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

User avatar
rath358
The bone of my bone
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 6:02 am UTC
Location: west Camberville

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby rath358 » Wed May 07, 2014 3:36 am UTC

There is no such thing as a safe way to shoot somebody. Even if you aim for the legs, a large target with no vital organs, you can still hit an artery. Shooting for less lethal areas is still better than putting two in the head, I suppose, but it doesn't magically prevent deaths.

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Carlington » Wed May 07, 2014 3:44 am UTC

I didn't claim that it would prevent deaths (EDIT: altogether, outright. Hopefully it will reduce the incidence of death is what I meant, that wasn't clear initially). But if you're shooting to kill, it stands to reason that you're more likely to...y'know, kill somebody. At least in my mind, maybe there's some quirk of handling a gun that makes those probabilities unintuitively reversed. I'm just saying that if you're serious about using a firearm for self-defense, it's my opinion that your first option should not be a Mozambique drill.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby addams » Wed May 07, 2014 4:49 am UTC

sardia wrote:
speising wrote:
sardia wrote:Would you rather kill the burglar or face the potential lawsuit for hurting him?
you mean, killing doesn't entail legal troubles?
(of course, when i was standing guard in my military stint, they said, if i had to shoot, it should be to kill, so there won't be anybody to contest my version. but i chose to take that as a joke.)

Some people take it as more than a joke. I was wondering if Freezeblade was willing to kill someone to lessen the hassle of a lawsuit.

The people of the US are a worried people.
I think the xkcd posters that express fear of Criminals are victims.

They are victims of fear and fear producing propaganda.
Things are Not getting better.

Even This guy had something to say about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaPBcUU ... FWTadK6loA
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Thesh » Wed May 07, 2014 5:06 am UTC

Carlington wrote:I didn't claim that it would prevent deaths (EDIT: altogether, outright. Hopefully it will reduce the incidence of death is what I meant, that wasn't clear initially). But if you're shooting to kill, it stands to reason that you're more likely to...y'know, kill somebody. At least in my mind, maybe there's some quirk of handling a gun that makes those probabilities unintuitively reversed. I'm just saying that if you're serious about using a firearm for self-defense, it's my opinion that your first option should not be a Mozambique drill.

Unless you feel your life is in immediate danger, you should not be shooting anywone. If you do feel you are in immediate danger, you should aim for somewhere that is easy to hit, and has the fastest chance of stopping the attacker. This generally means the torso.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Carlington
Posts: 1588
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 8:46 am UTC
Location: Sydney, Australia.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Carlington » Wed May 07, 2014 5:31 am UTC

Aiming for the torso ≠ aiming for the heart or shooting to kill. Aiming for the centre of mass seems like standard strategy here, although the more I read about the more I realise that any gunshot isn't potentially fatal, it's probably actually fatal.
Kewangji: Posdy zwei tosdy osdy oady. Bork bork bork, hoppity syphilis bork.

Eebster the Great: What specifically is moving faster than light in these examples?
doogly: Hands waving furiously.

Please use he/him/his pronouns when referring to me.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Xeio » Wed May 07, 2014 5:52 am UTC

Carlington wrote:Aiming for the torso ≠ aiming for the heart or shooting to kill. Aiming for the centre of mass seems like standard strategy here, although the more I read about the more I realise that any gunshot isn't potentially fatal, it's probably actually fatal.
Note that even if you hit someone (even fatally) they are not necessarily disabled immediately. It takes time to bleed to death, during which they can potentially continue to be a threat.

You should not be using a gun if you are not prepared to kill your target.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 07, 2014 6:24 am UTC

Stop getting your information about guns from Hollywood. There is no such thing as "shoot to incapacitate". Even a special forces sniper isn't capable of that, especially not in a close quarters combat situation where the target is, you know, moving unpredictably. If you shoot, it's to kill.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby addams » Wed May 07, 2014 6:46 am UTC

What part of shooting a gun is funny?
A lot of it.

Under controlled conditions the body count is low.
It is surprising how few die of gun.

If these people are aiming at your legs,
where do you think they might hit you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvz6cM_LeW4

You should not be using a gun if you are not prepared to kill your target.

You should not be using a gun if you are not prepared...Most are not prepared enough.

Guns are adult Toys.
Guns and immature behavior go together.
If I can manage to not get hit, it's funny.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby eSOANEM » Wed May 07, 2014 7:42 am UTC

Adam H wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:You're looking at legal definitions. I was making no claim about them. I was talking about the fact it's an emotive term chosen to make them seem worse than they are on average.
In my opinion it's more misleading to use burglary as a catch-all. Burglary is by definition NOT a violent crime, but we are talking about cases where the people of interest don't know how likely violence is. Home invasion is not a loaded term to me, it should simply mean an invasion of a home - i.e. break-in - and I assumed that's all it meant until I looked it up as a result of this thread.


Invasion isn't a loaded term? Are you seriously that blind? The reason we were using burglary was because the example here was a burglary. When I was talking about a general situation or what the home-owner knows I always used break-in which is obviously an entirely factual and unloaded term.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Diadem » Wed May 07, 2014 7:51 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Stop getting your information about guns from Hollywood. There is no such thing as "shoot to incapacitate". Even a special forces sniper isn't capable of that, especially not in a close quarters combat situation where the target is, you know, moving unpredictably. If you shoot, it's to kill.

What utter bullshit.

You should not at shoot someone if you are not prepared to accept the potential consequence of their death. That is empathetically not the same as always shooting to kill.

In self-defense, you shoot to disable. That involves shooting at the center of mass, and has a high chance of killing. But you're still not shooting to kill. Killing should never ever be your aim, and if it is your aim then it is not self-defense but premeditated murder.

Police stopping a suspect however are trained to shoot at the legs. This can still be fatal, but in the majority of cases it is not. And it certainly should never be their intent to kill, in fact they should do everything reasonably possible (to the point of accepting light risks to themselves) to avoid killing a suspect. Police are both trained and paid for this, so their threshold for self-defense should be much higher than for a member of the general public (From what I read about the US, I get the impression that it 's actually often lower there. A very serious problem).
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Mambrino » Wed May 07, 2014 10:59 am UTC

Diadem wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Stop getting your information about guns from Hollywood. There is no such thing as "shoot to incapacitate". Even a special forces sniper isn't capable of that, especially not in a close quarters combat situation where the target is, you know, moving unpredictably. If you shoot, it's to kill.

What utter bullshit.

You should not at shoot someone if you are not prepared to accept the potential consequence of their death. That is empathetically not the same as always shooting to kill.

In self-defense, you shoot to disable. That involves shooting at the center of mass, and has a high chance of killing. But you're still not shooting to kill. Killing should never ever be your aim, and if it is your aim then it is not self-defense but premeditated murder.

Police stopping a suspect however are trained to shoot at the legs. This can still be fatal, but in the majority of cases it is not. And it certainly should never be their intent to kill, in fact they should do everything reasonably possible (to the point of accepting light risks to themselves) to avoid killing a suspect. Police are both trained and paid for this, so their threshold for self-defense should be much higher than for a member of the general public (From what I read about the US, I get the impression that it 's actually often lower there. A very serious problem).


Was going to point out this. The number of gunfights is here so low that this is anecdotal evidence at most, but I think there was 3 cases where the police shot at someone last year, and only one resulted in the death of person shot at -- and that one case was because after realizing being injured, the person the police was trying to apprehend chose suicide over surrender and shot himself. If 'often-not-fatal' gunshot at legs isn't always enough stop the perpetrator, in many cases the risk is still worth taking when it comes to the law enforcement. (For example, in another of those three cases police shot at someone who was armed with a pistol and two knives and acting in a threatening manner on a street. They shot him at a leg, and found out that the gun was a replica. Yes, another anecdote, but still a preferable outcome than would have been with a 'shoot to kill' policy.)

Then again, if you're not (presumably trained) police officer with a task to detain a suspect and 'protect the public' (possibly with a support of other armed officers and an ambulance crew on it's way or maybe already present), but just a regular guy defending yourself from an attacker, I agree it's not unreasonable to shoot at the center of mass (in other words, 'shoot to likely kill') instead of a failure-prone heroic attempts to 'barely incapacitate'.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Red Hal » Wed May 07, 2014 12:40 pm UTC

I find these discussions hard to fathom sometimes. To me it is self-evident that here is no human being on this planet whose life should be considered as worth less than a television. There is no human being on this planet who deserves to die. There are plenty of human beings on this planet who act in ways which harm other people, but that does not mean they are worth less than a domestic appliance.

If your life is at risk from someone then I understand that you would feel justified in taking whatever steps are necessary to remove that risk, but the object should be to prevent the assault, not end the other person's life. That is, understandably, valuing your life over that of someone else where it is an either/or matter, but if your life is not at risk then neither should be your assailant's.

The needs of the many do not always outweigh the needs of the few.
Last edited by Red Hal on Wed May 07, 2014 12:41 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

johnny_7713
Posts: 555
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby johnny_7713 » Wed May 07, 2014 12:40 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Police stopping a suspect however are trained to shoot at the legs. This can still be fatal, but in the majority of cases it is not. And it certainly should never be their intent to kill, in fact they should do everything reasonably possible (to the point of accepting light risks to themselves) to avoid killing a suspect. Police are both trained and paid for this, so their threshold for self-defense should be much higher than for a member of the general public (From what I read about the US, I get the impression that it 's actually often lower there. A very serious problem).


Important addition: In the Netherlands Police stopping a suspect however are trained to shoot at the legs. In fact IIRC my ex-roommate who is in the army reserves told me that when they're on sentry duty and using lethal force, the aim is to incapacitate rather than kill outright.

In the US police are trained differently. There's an anecdote that this caused Dutch policemen on exchange in the US to score incredibly low on their shooting exercises (because Dutch policemen were trained to shoot at the legs, not the torso), but I'm not sure how true that is.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 07, 2014 12:48 pm UTC

freezeblade wrote:
There are non-lethal ways of preventing your TV's theft (chasing the thief out with a hammer, for instance; or setting up some elaborate Home Alone-esque series of booby traps in order to deter potential thieves). There is calling the cops; even if it's possible they may not arrive in time to stop your TV from getting stolen, there's still a pretty decent chance of them recovering it. Penalties, such as prison, serve as a good deterrent.


I can't find it right now because I'm at work, but i remember reading a story about how if you actually did booby-trap your house in a way that injured a burgler, that burgler could then sue you.

As for the police. if you call the police in my area during a home invasion, they tell you to run away, and that unless someone is injured, they won't show up except to file a report, usually the next day. And your chances of getting your TV recovered is actually slim to nill, not "a good chance."

I feel that if the burgler knows that he can get away with the crime because the home-owner won't do anything besides hide, and that the cops won't even show up, then you might as well just give him a wad of cash to thank him for liberating you from that opressive TV sitting in your livingroom. You clearly didn't need it anyway right?


There are anti-booby trap laws, yes. This is for the good reason that they are highly likely to ensnare some random person. Home Alone is not a realistic guide to home security. Also, I can't believe that typing the previous sentence was necessary.

Djehutynakht wrote:I could argue that is simply bad policework. If they refuse to actively respond to a criminal situation, there's an issue.

Of course if the police force is overwhelmed and simply too stretched to respond there's larger problems to be addressed.


It is established law in the US that the police have no duty to assist you. And, realistically, tracking a stolen tv or a stolen bike is just...not something that is going to happen in most cases. Pretty much your only hope is that, after reporting it, they stumble across it in the pursuit of something else. The cop who took the report for my stolen bike told me as much. And really, what do you expect? Block by block searches for a stolen bike/tv? That'd be kind of a horrible violation of rights.

Of course, then people often just don't report minor thefts, because they don't see the point, so numbers end up being significantly underreported.

speising wrote:
sardia wrote:Would you rather kill the burglar or face the potential lawsuit for hurting him?
you mean, killing doesn't entail legal troubles?
(of course, when i was standing guard in my military stint, they said, if i had to shoot, it should be to kill, so there won't be anybody to contest my version. but i chose to take that as a joke.)


*sigh* I've heard this before, too. Perhaps it makes legal sense, but morally, it's terrible. You should shoot to stop. This *may* kill. If the situation does not warrant this, you should not shoot at all. If you find yourself in court saying that what he did wasn't worth killing him over, but you shot "to wound" or some crap, it will probably not go well for you. Keep this in mind before pulling the trigger. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd imagine that making comments about being willing to kill to lessen legal difficulties might have the opposite effect in court.

Carlington wrote:Go for your gun, sure. If necessary, shoot the guy, sure. Don't shoot immediately to kill, though. Incapacitate. Render the minimum amount of force necessary for them to no longer be a threat. There is a point at which that minimum amount of force is shooting to kill, and I don't dispute that. I just don't think that bar should be set at "If I don't killem, he might take muh teevee."


You put two rounds center mass. If they do not cease attacking, you then put one in the head.

Shooting "to wound" is a terrible idea. It's impractical for stopping an attacker. Do not shoot at anything you are not willing to destroy. Ever.

Carlington wrote:Aiming for the torso ≠ aiming for the heart or shooting to kill. Aiming for the centre of mass seems like standard strategy here, although the more I read about the more I realise that any gunshot isn't potentially fatal, it's probably actually fatal.


Shooting the torso is effective in part because the bits inside are important. Putting holes in them is notoriously unhealthy. It's not as if non-heart shots are magically safe.

eSOANEM wrote:
Adam H wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:You're looking at legal definitions. I was making no claim about them. I was talking about the fact it's an emotive term chosen to make them seem worse than they are on average.
In my opinion it's more misleading to use burglary as a catch-all. Burglary is by definition NOT a violent crime, but we are talking about cases where the people of interest don't know how likely violence is. Home invasion is not a loaded term to me, it should simply mean an invasion of a home - i.e. break-in - and I assumed that's all it meant until I looked it up as a result of this thread.


Invasion isn't a loaded term? Are you seriously that blind? The reason we were using burglary was because the example here was a burglary. When I was talking about a general situation or what the home-owner knows I always used break-in which is obviously an entirely factual and unloaded term.


No. We were originally talking about an event that happened to be both a home invasion and a burglary. These categories overlap, but neither is a subset of the other. Self defense is wholly applicable to home invasions. Self defense is only applicable to the burglaries that are also home invasions(ie, occupant is at home). It isn't about loading terms, it's about talking about the relevant thing. Talking about burglaries and your odds of not being there is...wildly irrelevant. THIS is the attempt to shift the examples. If you are not there, your choices for self defense are entirely irrelevant, are they not? It simply will not arise.

Diadem wrote:Police stopping a suspect however are trained to shoot at the legs. This can still be fatal, but in the majority of cases it is not. And it certainly should never be their intent to kill, in fact they should do everything reasonably possible (to the point of accepting light risks to themselves) to avoid killing a suspect. Police are both trained and paid for this, so their threshold for self-defense should be much higher than for a member of the general public (From what I read about the US, I get the impression that it 's actually often lower there. A very serious problem).


Hmm, was gonna say, this does not seem to be the case in the US. At all. We're lucky if the cops manage to shoot the suspect without blowing away any bystanders. Training? Hah. It's often a single "can you hit the target" qualification. Yknow, the same thing casual shooters do all the time, for fun. Pay does not make one competent. Perhaps this *should* be the case, but the usual procedure seems to be "look for any excuse to use weapons, and shoot the dog just because".

speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby speising » Wed May 07, 2014 1:44 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
speising wrote:
sardia wrote:Would you rather kill the burglar or face the potential lawsuit for hurting him?
you mean, killing doesn't entail legal troubles?
(of course, when i was standing guard in my military stint, they said, if i had to shoot, it should be to kill, so there won't be anybody to contest my version. but i chose to take that as a joke.)


*sigh* I've heard this before, too. Perhaps it makes legal sense, but morally, it's terrible. You should shoot to stop. This *may* kill. If the situation does not warrant this, you should not shoot at all. If you find yourself in court saying that what he did wasn't worth killing him over, but you shot "to wound" or some crap, it will probably not go well for you. Keep this in mind before pulling the trigger. I'm not a lawyer, but I'd imagine that making comments about being willing to kill to lessen legal difficulties might have the opposite effect in court.


the idea is that i can then say "he wanted to intrude and didn't stop after i dutifully warned him and fired a warning shot." and he can't reply "i was just taking a stroll.". of course that's morally terrible, hence, joke.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 07, 2014 2:27 pm UTC

I always wondered if the police SOP of shoot with no chance of survival was a round about way of lowering legal expenses. Also racism.

User avatar
PolakoVoador
Posts: 1028
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 11:11 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby PolakoVoador » Wed May 07, 2014 3:42 pm UTC

I guess the reallities of some countries are just really different. Here in Brazil, there is a considerable overlap between the set of people who break-in and the set o people who are willing to shoot you for very stupid reasons, or no reason at all. I find it reasonable to fear for one's life during a break-in, but I see how this can trigger different reactions:

1 - Don't react, because you could get shot/stabbed
2 - Try to shoot the criminal before they shoot you just because you were home.


Since we don't have the gun culture of the USA, most people fall in category 1, but I can't bring myself to blame whoever happens to decide for option number 2.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 07, 2014 3:43 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I always wondered if the police SOP of shoot with no chance of survival was a round about way of lowering legal expenses. Also racism.


Honestly, it's probably a mixture of paranoia, poor training, institutional inertia, in group bias, and a host of other things.

For instance, some locales have a ridiculously heavy trigger pull simply because...they always have. This increases chances of pulling shots off target. Obviously, this results in increased risk to bystanders, and as missed shots require follow-up shots, results in training people to dump the entire magazine.

I note that the military did NOT train mag dumps as a matter of course. So, when a police strategy is "shoot every bullet you have", there *might* be an issue there.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 07, 2014 3:53 pm UTC

Well, in the military you are out in the field with potential hostiles all around and hours from any resupply. Waste all your bullets on one target and well, it'll end badly. With the police, you are unlikely to face an ambush right after emptying your clip, you have time to reload, and can just get more ammo from your trunk if you need more.

But seriously, the police need to stop trying to be the military. There should be SOME penalty for failing to haul the criminal before the courts. I think I suggested a while back deducting 2 days pay automatically for any death, no matter how justified. No (rebuttal free) arguments about how he was totally a threat, no paid vacation (suspension with pay), no buts. To compensate, all officers will get a pay increase based on expected kills, so if they can meet their no kill bonus, money. Maybe sell it to the police as a bonus instead of a cut? 'If you could go a year without killing anyone, an extra $1000 Christmas bonus!"

Choboman
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:54 pm UTC

Re: In other news... (humorous news items, etc)

Postby Choboman » Wed May 07, 2014 4:02 pm UTC

If I suddenly discover that a stranger has broken into my house in the middle of the night, I'm obviously going to be stressed. I'm not psychic - I can't know what's going through their mind. >80% they're just here to steal stuff and slip away unseen. Maybe a 10% chance he's just drunk/confused/lost. But there's some chance (1%? 5%?) the intruder has some other, more disturbing intention. I have to make an on-the-spot decision based on incomplete knowledge about how best to keep myself and my loved ones safe. Is it more likely that a confrontation will make the intruder run away, or that it will cause an originally non-violent offender to panic and escalate to violence? Is the intrusion just random and scaring them off will end the threat, or is it personal/targeted, so that them running away just delays another future encounter? While I'd like to think I'd lean toward a non-violent response when feasible, I have a hard time judging someone else who reacts differently under stress.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: idonno and 24 guests