LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 11-26-2008, 01:28 PM   #21
mealiusarses

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
379
Senior Member
Default
I think pepper spray would have done the job. If that didn't take the guy down then shoot him. Center of mass as they say.
Pepper spray doesn't work on everybody, just as tazers don't work on everybody. It all depends on the person's mindset, whether they're under some sort of drug influence, or a number of other factors.

Plus, at the ranges that tazers and pepper sprays are typically designed to be deployed at, any malfunction or failure-to-perform leads to a very small window of opportunity for firearms to be brought to bear without significant chance of harm to the defender.

No matter the cause, it's a sad story.
mealiusarses is offline


Old 11-26-2008, 02:04 PM   #22
Fellionas

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
504
Senior Member
Default
What I don't like is the fact that private security guards are in possession of, and using firearms; surely that should be reserved for properly trained and regulated government agencies.

How about 'Tazers' for the private security personnel?
You have to consider that the laws and cultural norms are different in America (and even in different parts of America) than they are in other countries.
Fellionas is offline


Old 11-27-2008, 04:38 AM   #23
WhonyGataxott

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
632
Senior Member
Default
I don't understand this everybody wins stuff. I own a jewelry store and have carried a pistol for years. I have had an armed robbery and take comfort in the fact that if my robber decided to start shooting, or stabbing, or baseballbatting I could have a chance to survive by killing him. The second to last thing I ever want to do is hurt someone, the last is to have them do harm to me so I can't be there for my family. I want to win so he has to lose if it comes to life or death. life is good, and I hope to cross shinai with my friends for years to come.
Thanks for the response. The different perspective definitely makes me think on this stuff more. First, I'm very sorry that you've experienced first hand an armed robbery. I can't imagine what that's like. I know that's not the point of your post, but it does bring into perspective that stuff like the news article happens to real people (that I know personally and have crossed shinai with) as opposed to some guy out in theoretical land that doesn't exist.

It is hard, if not impossible to say what I'd do in a life or death, me or him situation. I'm honestly torn between the desire to be there and take care of my family and to save my own skin versus my faith. But that's for me to work out. At the moment, I attempt to live wise enough so I'm don't find myself in those situations. That said, I realize one cannot control everything.

Still, I see and deal with the fallout of these kinds of situations years later where even more lives have been destroyed (on both the victim's side and the offender's), marriages ripped apart, children left fatherless (predominantly) and the cycle perpetuated into the next generation. Hip-deep in this experience, I'm left to wonder, is there a situation in which everyone can 'win'. Yes, win is a terrible descriptor; perhaps it's better stated as 'where everyone loses less.' Even that's not ideal and certainly not clear as how do you distribute who loses how much.

But the end solution doesn't matter to this discussion so much as the perspective I'm coming from with regards to 'everyone wins'.
WhonyGataxott is offline


Old 11-27-2008, 01:12 PM   #24
indartwm

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
429
Senior Member
Default
I don't think I'd fancy taking on someone who is mentally unbalanced, be they armed or not, with pepper spray. I received a fair dose of oleoresin capsicum a few years back and while it is incapacitating, I wouldn't chance my survival on it.

LOL at Satsumaruma for his comment. Kudos.
indartwm is offline


Old 11-27-2008, 02:20 PM   #25
ENGINESSQ

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
What I don't like is the fact that private security guards are in possession of, and using firearms; surely that should be reserved for properly trained and regulated government agencies.

How about 'Tazers' for the private security personnel?
California is one of the most heavily regulated states in the union, especially when it comes to legal possession of and use of firearms. Even in the Mid West (where I live, and known for a thing I like to call "Freedom") armed security are generally required to be licensed, and required to pass a training course to BE licensed. On top of that, many professional armed security are ex-military, ex-police or active duty police doing off-duty work.

You're not allowed to use a gun if you are not in immediate danger, and if you are in that sort of danger it is unwise to try risky things like using killing tools to "disable" people. Real life is not the movies, and it takes someone HIGHLY trained, even beyond your average armed professional, to use a firearm to do such a thing, and even then only under certain conditions. Many people unfamiliar with firearms or situations requiring their use assume that such knowledge be common and practical to "trained professionals", but this is simply not the case. In a situation where you have seconds to react to someone threatening you with lethal force, the proper reaction is to aim center mass and put out lead until the threat is neutralized. It is expected that one do this with as much restraint and good judgment as possible, but it is understood that anyone who presents such a threat has placed their own life at risk by doing so.

And I'm not just talking out of my ass here, I formerly carried a firearm for a living.

Tasers also sometimes kill people, on top of often not being enough to stop the truly agitated.
ENGINESSQ is offline


Old 11-27-2008, 02:28 PM   #26
thomaskkk

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
518
Senior Member
Default
Wonder what the li'l ol' lady who owned that liquor store in Oklahoma would feel about Big Cheeze's situation. There's this TRUE story that had made the rounds in CNN about said L-O-L that got held up by two big 'uns in the middle of the night. One of the big goons stuck a S&W .357 Mag in her face and demanded that she clean out her cash register. Now, she was alone in that store (how freakin' crazy is THAT?!? ) at 11pm, so she does the "smart thing" and complies....

Unbeknownst to the big-un's... she's got a fully-loaded (with double-ought shot) shotgun pointed at his... human species perpetuation mechanism under the counter (blocked by a panel on his side of the counter). Long story short: she bent over to withdraw the money from the register with her left hand, pulled the trigger with her right hand, and blew the guy's 'nads 5 miles apart. Right Through The Panel!!!

The guy survived (the other one took off like a scared cat!), and later sued the lady for "deprivation of [his ability to enjoy] sexual intimacy"...
thomaskkk is offline


Old 11-28-2008, 04:43 AM   #27
timgreyuvcz

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
370
Senior Member
Default
Ninja Gaiden 2 (Xbox 360 game) will kill you this quickly and coldly. It hates people, and particularly whoevers playing it.

Any volunteers for getting close enough to pepper spray a mentally ill fella with two swords?
timgreyuvcz is offline


Old 11-28-2008, 01:30 PM   #28
repldoinfo

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
569
Senior Member
Default
You're not allowed to use a gun if you are not in immediate danger, and if you are in that sort of danger it is unwise to try risky things like using killing tools to "disable" people.
Immediate danger is subjective, and whilst I am not implying that the guard did not feel he/she was in immediate danger; I do believe there were possibly other options available. The report said there were three guards, but only one felt threatened to such a degree that they opened fire. Does this imply that the other two did not feel threatened? Who knows?

I agree that Tasers do sometimes kill and are sometimes less than ideal, but when used the mortality rates are less than that of a regular firearm. Are they not also reguarly used by US Police officers as well?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you shouldn't have the 'right to bear arms' or anything like that; but I do think it odd when a private citizen can be placed in a position of authority with a gun to back it up.
repldoinfo is offline


Old 11-28-2008, 02:56 PM   #29
tomsmuidh

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
573
Senior Member
Default
What I don't like is the fact that private security guards are in possession of, and using firearms; surely that should be reserved for properly trained and regulated government agencies.

How about 'Tazers' for the private security personnel?
Immediate danger is subjective, and whilst I am not implying that the guard did not feel he/she was in immediate danger; I do believe there were possibly other options available. The report said there were three guards, but only one felt threatened to such a degree that they opened fire. Does this imply that the other two did not feel threatened? Who knows?

I agree that Tasers do sometimes kill and are sometimes less than ideal, but when used the mortality rates are less than that of a regular firearm. Are they not also reguarly used by US Police officers as well?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you shouldn't have the 'right to bear arms' or anything like that; but I do think it odd when a private citizen can be placed in a position of authority with a gun to back it up.
Precisely the thinking that led to your Sword ban.

The majority of you Countrymen (and/or women) think it odd that a private citizen should be in possession of a weapon of war from times past.


"First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out.
And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
Martin Niemoeller
tomsmuidh is offline


Old 11-28-2008, 04:23 PM   #30
DfrtYhyu

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
512
Senior Member
Default
Precisely the thinking that led to your Sword ban.
No, I don't think so.
DfrtYhyu is offline


Old 11-28-2008, 09:17 PM   #31
anatmob

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
598
Senior Member
Default
Well you can shoot him in both shoulders. Or in both legs. Anyone with good aim can disable a man without killing him. Just cause someone is clearly deranged doesn't mean he deserves to die.

Although I agree, better this way than if the swords guy had actually hurt anyone. I doubt he expected to be greeted kindly by running towards two armed guys whilst waving around some blades...
I'm not sure what led up to the situation that the guards found themselves in, but from the article, it sounds like the swordsman had already gotten way too close. This guy probably didn't study Kendo, but we all know you can reach much farther with a strike than most people realize. That's a tough pressure situation to be in and a quick decision to make.

I can't really fault the guards at that point for using lethal force to stop him. You might only get a single shot off and if you try to aim for something like a shoulder or a leg, you might miss or graze him. Even if you hit him, he might get still off a desperate lunge and get you.

That's not to say the guards are completely off the hook. There's not enough detail to really decide if they really handled it in the best way possible. Was there a way to incapacitate him at farther range? If he were far enough away, maybe I would try to shoot him in the legs and drop him. I don't know. I haven't been in a "me or you" situation before, so it's not fair for me to judge.
anatmob is offline


Old 11-30-2008, 08:24 PM   #32
sirmzereigMix

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
449
Senior Member
Default
Immediate danger is subjective, and whilst I am not implying that the guard did not feel he/she was in immediate danger; I do believe there were possibly other options available. The report said there were three guards, but only one felt threatened to such a degree that they opened fire. Does this imply that the other two did not feel threatened? Who knows?

I agree that Tasers do sometimes kill and are sometimes less than ideal, but when used the mortality rates are less than that of a regular firearm. Are they not also reguarly used by US Police officers as well?

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you shouldn't have the 'right to bear arms' or anything like that; but I do think it odd when a private citizen can be placed in a position of authority with a gun to back it up.
Any situation is subjective to the observer, though each U.S. state has a legal definition that is held up to the facts as collected and understood after the fact by the governmental authorities. The police show up and collect evidence and then a detective or other higher up authority decides if something needs to be submitted for further review. People can and are convicted of homicide for shootings they claim are in self defense. What most states look at is whether or not the shooter had a reasonable chance to escape, and each state defines it differently. In Kansas if I have the ability and opportunity to flee then I must, but if I don't feel I can flee safely then the battle is legally on. In Florida one can blast anybody who comes into their house, but can't carry a gun out their front door to confront a potential home invader. In Texas I'm pretty sure you can shoot someone for looking at you funny.

As far as a private citizen being placed in a position of authority with a gun to back it up, this sort of thing is related to private property. You don't generally see armed private citizens patrolling public spaces, but American law is based on individual ownership concepts and "natural rights of man" philosophies. The Scientology Church is not a public space, the Scientologists have a right to defend their property and to hire people to defend their property, and the guards have a right to defend their own lives.

It's not as if this guard was just taking it upon himself to wander the streets with a gun righting wrongs and fighting injustice. Believe it or not even the U.S. has laws against that. Except for maybe Texas, I don't know, they're kind of their own thing down there.
sirmzereigMix is offline


Old 12-01-2008, 07:02 AM   #33
gabbaman

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
467
Senior Member
Default
[quote]There are arteries (
gabbaman is offline


Old 12-02-2008, 11:16 PM   #34
avaiftBoara

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
414
Senior Member
Default
Actually, centre of mass is used because #1 it is the easiest, largest area to hit, #2 in the military you are trained to hit that area because it will not kill the enemy as easily and therefore the psychological effects of seeing your buddy lying there in his blood screaming and writhing in pain help distract/defeat/demoralise the enemy AND it takes around 12 soldiers to deal with the wounded individual and the amount of supplies and time it takes help weaken the enemy.

In the middle of an large centre it is much easier to shoot someone in the leg and have the ambulance show up and save them than it is to shoot them in the chest and have the ambulance show up and try to save them.

As for the 'Sympathetic Nervous System' that's why a person needs to train - repeatedly.

You'd have the same problems in Kendo if you put someone in bogu after a practice or two and then put them in a serious competition/match.

Just because the guards (or police especially!!!) were scared, does not justify not attempting to wound and then subdue the assailant.
In my .5 years as a 14M(stinger missile operator) and 5.5 years as 11B(infantry) I was never told to shoot to save. It was always a double tap(or "controlled pair" they call it now) to the body, and if that didn't work 2 more. We were told to "put rounds through their soul". The psychological impact on the remaining enemy was never a consideration. Fast forward to today, I work security for the City of Portland (sounds WAY more interesting than it is) and it's the same thing. Wounding just isn't something that's thought about in training. Also, as many of us experience through kendo, the way you train is the way you behave in the situation being trained for, be that shiai or combat(obviously not combat for kendo, thought I should clarify that one )

This got kinda wordy and now I lost my train of thought... oh well. Basically what I'm trying to say is, yes it is easier to hit center mass, which as you stated is one of the reasons it is trained as the point of aim. Given the amount of training anyone who carries a firearm for a living goes through, and the stress of the situation they train for, one can see why they would be less inclined to go counter their training and fire for a limb instead.
avaiftBoara is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:39 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity