NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5172762

You're passing by in your car, and you see a man by the side of the road beating what appears to be a toddler to death.

What would you do?

Police killed a 27-year-old man as he kicked, punched and stomped a toddler to death despite other people's attempts to stop him on a dark, country road, authorities said.

Investigators on Sunday were trying to establish the relationship between the suspect and the child they say he killed Saturday night. The Stanislaus County coroner said the boy appeared to be between 1 and 2 years old based on his size, according to county sheriff's deputy Royjindar Singh.

"It's been a long night of wondering, 'Why?' — not only for the officers and the passers-by who stopped and tried to help out, but for anyone. Why would somebody do this?" Singh said.

Singh said the coroner does not plan to confirm the identities of the suspect and victim until Monday. Because his injuries were so severe, the child will have to be identified through a blood or DNA test, he said.

The suspect had a child's car seat in the back of his four-door pickup truck. The truck caught the attention of an elderly couple at 10:13 p.m. Saturday because it was stopped in the two-lane road facing the wrong direction, Singh said.

As they got closer, the couple saw the man brutally beating the toddler behind his truck and throwing the child on the ground, according to Singh. Two or three other cars stopped, an unusual number to be passing through the remote area surrounded by a dairy, a cow pasture, a cornfield and a farmhouse, he said.

"What we got from witnesses is he was punching, slapping, kicking, stomping, shaking," Singh said. "They tried to intervene and get involved, but their efforts really didn't have an effect. The suspect was engaged in what he was doing. He just pushed them off and went back to it."

A sheriff's helicopter responding to emergency calls from the area landed in a cow pasture at 10:19 p.m. carrying a Modesto police officer who shot the man to death after he refused an order to stop beating the child, Singh said.

Paramedics tried to resuscitate the toddler, who was not breathing when they arrived. The boy was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

As a libertarian I would ask that he carry it out in the privacy of his own home rather than subject me to the sight, which infringes on my right to comfort of mind.

Oh wait! I'm not a libertarian!

I'd probably puke.

Obviously, from the news story, we see how successful "try and stop him without hurting him" was.

Nice wimpy kick there! Good show!

Obviously, from the news story, we see how successful "try and stop him without hurting him" was.

Nice wimpy kick there! Good show!

To be honest, I can't really fault the policeman, I can't fault the elderly couple for trying and failing, I can't understand the frustration required to take it out on a baby.

I can't see what lesson you want us to take from this either.

Do you (the OP) really see nothing inbetween "not hurting" and "kill" - how about stopping him with a tyre iron but not killing him?

Do you (the OP) really see nothing inbetween "not hurting" and "kill" - how about stopping him with a tyre iron but not killing him?

if you hit someone in the head with a tire iron hard enough to make them stop, you're taking a really good chance of killing him.

The policeman who arrived later had no trouble deciding it was worth using lethal force to stop (bullets don't always kill people, especially pistol bullets).

I would have beaten him with a tire iron until he stopped - and it wouldn't have mattered to me if he had died during the rain of blows.

I would have beaten him with a tire iron until he stopped - and it wouldn't have mattered to me if he had died during the rain of blows.

While taming a lion and impregnating 6 japanese school girls, all at the same time, no less.

Why isn't there an option between "stop him without hurting him" and "kill him"?

Why isn't there an option between "stop him without hurting him" and "kill him"?

Because any use of force strong enough to stop him seriously raises the risks of killing him. You would have to be willing to take that risk.

Obviously, the people in this event failed to stop him because they weren't willing to risk hurting him. They tried to stop him without hurting him.

Because any use of force strong enough to stop him seriously raises the risks of killing him.

Wrists, knees, collar bones, floating ribs etc..

Wrists, knees, collar bones, floating ribs etc..

Police have accidentally killed people hitting them in those areas with batons.

Call the cops then try to stop him. What comes to mind is tackling him, grab the toddler while he's getting back up and run like fuck.

Police have accidentally killed people hitting them in those areas with batons.

But the likelihood of fatality is massively lower than hitting someone over the head.

But the likelihood of fatality is massively lower than hitting someone over the head.

The likelihood of stopping him is also much lower.

Why isn't there an option between "stop him without hurting him" and "kill him"?

Well, because obviously if your first response to such a situation isn't to pull out your favorite semi-automatic machine gun (which you always keep in your truck), aim it perfectly, and shoot the malefactor in the head, neatly killing him without the slightest risk of causing any further harm to his victim, you are a big wussy McWussPants who hates freedom. Or something.

Being the big wussy McWussPants that I am, I would quite certainly attempt to stop him without further violence first. If that wasn't possible, I would try to get between him and the child, as I can probably take kicks and punches better than an infant can. I would try to enlist other passers-by to help me hold the bad guy down while the cops were called. If all else failed, and I had some means at hand to stop him through violence, I would resort to that, but it certainly wouldn't be my first choice.

The likelihood of stopping him is also much lower.

Not true - someone smashed in the knee cap with a tyre iron is pretty much unlikely to ignore the blow. You seem to have a view that it is either no force or fatal force. The Rodney King video shows it is possible...

Not true - someone smashed in the knee cap with a tyre iron is pretty much unlikely to ignore the blow. You seem to have a view that it is either no force or fatal force.

Force implies the risk of fatality. Ask your local police unit.

Many studies have shown that in order to "instantly" incapacitate someone, you need to destroy or damage the medulla or the neural motor strips (the base of the skull or the sides of the head above the ears).

Anything less, and the incapacitation can be far, far from instant, even if the blow is eventually lethal.

Force implies the risk of fatality. Ask your local police unit.

But you didn't say "use force and assume the risk of fatality". You said "kill him"

And by your own admission, there's a distinct difference between accepting a risk, and intending to do so. Which makes this whole thread little more than a typical kimchi masturbatorial effort to go "I'd beat his head in hur hur hur"

Force implies the risk of fatality. Ask your local police unit.

Many studies have shown that in order to "instantly" incapacitate someone, you need to destroy or damage the medulla or the neural motor strips (the base of the skull or the sides of the head above the ears).

Anything less, and the incapacitation can be far, far from instant, even if the blow is eventually lethal.

You don't have to instantly incapacitate him to get him to stop assaulting the toddler. Like in my 'knock his ass over' scenario, or Poli's 'Get him to fight me instead' scenario.
But you didn't say "use force and assume the risk of fatality". You said "kill him"

And by your own admission, there's a distinct difference between accepting a risk, and intending to do so. Which makes this whole thread little more than a typical kimchi masturbatorial effort to go "I'd beat his head in hur hur hur"
Some things never change.

I wonder how many people have witnessed serious violence being carried out, I wonder, of the percentage, how many have intervened.

It can stop you cold.

We all like to think that we'd instantly run in and try to stop it but, for many people, it isn't the case, it can cause a great deal of reactions, few of them are intervention.

Sure some of you are hero vigilantes, black belts no less, but the cold nature of serious violence has many effects, I'm quite impressed by the elderly couple trying to intervene, they were brushed off, I can also have sympathy for the police shooting this guy, it can seem the only thing to do.

I'd rather he incapacitated him, how he might do that without either prolonging the child being beaten or running the risk of shooting the child in the attempt to shoot the guy, which I suppose he ran anyway, I'm not sure.

I just don't know, I think, if I was the policeman, I'd have shot him too, I'd hope that, as a bystander, I'd try to intervene, but our imagination doesn't always fit the reality.

Obviously, the people in this event failed to stop him because they weren't willing to risk hurting him. They tried to stop him without hurting him.

Ah, another 'if only someone had a gun they could have stopped this from happening'.

From the published eyewitness accounts, it's doubtful the child was alive by the time passers-by stopped. And by somehow shifting the blame for this horrific murder onto the shoulders of anyone other than the man who did it, you seriously hope to improve your standing, and drum up support for your 'everyone should have a gun on their hip' mentality?

I wonder how many people have witnessed serious violence being carried out, I wonder, of the percentage, how many have intervened.

It can stop you cold.

We all like to think that we'd instantly run in and try to stop it but, for many people, it isn't the case, it can cause a great deal of reactions, few of them are intervention.

Sure some of you are hero vigilantes, black belts no less, but the cold nature of serious violence has many effects, I'm quite impressed by the elderly couple trying to intervene, they were brushed off, I can also have sympathy for the police shooting this guy, it can seem the only thing to do.

I'd rather he incapacitated him, how he might do that without either prolonging the child being beaten or running the risk of shooting the child in the attempt to shoot the guy, which I suppose he ran anyway, I'm not sure.

I just don't know, I think, if I was the policeman, I'd have shot him too, I'd hope that, as a bystander, I'd try to intervene, but our imagination doesn't always fit the reality.

Also, this. We may well like to think that we'd show up and be the hero, but you can't really know until it actually happens.

Because any use of force strong enough to stop him seriously raises the risks of killing him. You would have to be willing to take that risk.

You fail to take into account that some people here might have had combat training enabling them to disable without killing. Something the cop should have had as well - if only people would not worship their precious guns so much.

I know what Ifreann says is true. You can't be sure how you'll act until what is described here actually happens to you, but, I would like to think I'd have what it takes to yank that man away from that child. As to whether I'd have killed him...if it was necessary, I would certainly have tried.

In response to Alma Mater's statement, many police departments do have unarmed combat training programs, but some can't afford it, and even in those which can it is considered an auxiliary measure. If you close with him, yes, maybe you can disable without killing, but you also increase the risk that he might kill you. If I had a gun, I would certainly opt to use it before I used my fists.

No idea. I'd probably miss it as I drove past, but on the off chance I didn't, I'd probably stop and get out (sans weapons of any kind) and try to see what the fuck he was doing. After that, no idea. Probably call the polis in all likelihood.

I would have beaten him with a tire iron until he stopped - and it wouldn't have mattered to me if he had died during the rain of blows.

that is probably what it would take. he seems to have been in a psychotic murderous rage that would take a strong blow to the head to interrupt if it could be interrupted at all.

it would be a horrible thing to come upon that situation and find that nothing you do stops him from killing the child.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/16/toddler.killed.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview


the only thing I can say is I wish I was a bystander with a gun. Poor kid didn't deserve that. Or at least a bystander I don't care what it took I would have stopped him.

Yeah, you're so cool, you so totally would have saved the day.

Or at least repeated (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=558973) a thread.

I would have stopped him using force escalating from none until enough to stop him. If only killing him would stop him, then that's how much force I'd use, yes.

But I suspect that had I been there, I could have kept him off the child.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5172762

You're passing by in your car, and you see a man by the side of the road beating what appears to be a toddler to death.

What would you do?

Stop, call the police, then attempt to either
1) stop the man (escalating from kind request to harsh order to knocking him out cold with my bare hands) or
2) carry away the kid in my car and dash to the nearest emergency room

and they even have a poll eee gad

I'd probably just keep on driving. I have things to do and places to be!

I would like to think that I would try to stop him without killing him (maybe not without hurting him), but if I had the power I might not be able to help but kill the fucker.

you all fail to realize this guy was 6'5" and 300 pound farmer. which is why he brushed off attempts by on lookers(there were more then elderly who had arrived) attempts to stop him with out resorts to lethal force. Also was the matter that this person could very easily beat you to death even if you had a tire iron. what needs to be done is a mandatory concealed carry permit requirement for all law abiding males that way things like this don't happen.

you all fail to realize this guy was 6'5" and 300 pound farmer. which is why he brushed off attempts by on lookers(there were more then elderly who had arrived) attempts to stop him with out resorts to lethal force. Also was the matter that this person could very easily beat you to death even if you had a tire iron. what needs to be done is a mandatory concealed carry permit requirement for all law abiding males that way things like this don't happen.

A fantastic idea, with one small problem. You just gave the 6'5 300 pound farmer with extreme homocidal rage the legal right to carry a hidden firearm in public.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5172762

You're passing by in your car, and you see a man by the side of the road beating what appears to be a toddler to death.

What would you do?

Pull out gun, aim for man

BOOM! Headshot.

Police have accidentally killed people hitting them in those areas with batons. note the word you used. "accidentally". that means the intent was not to kill.

Wrists, knees, collar bones, floating ribs etc.. yep. some people wonder why I carried a steel bar in my car. I just shrugged my shoulders and said "keep forgetting to take that out."

The likelihood of stopping him is also much lower.

I dunno, I hit you in the knees with my steel bar, I'll bet I'ld stop you. I break your wrists and I doubt you'll beable to punch grab or slap that child.

and if that asshole was beating the child as witnesses say... I wouldn't be worried about killing him. infact, I probably wouldn't be caring if I did kill him while I was stopping him from continuing his attacks on the toddler.

A fantastic idea, with one small problem. You just gave the 6'5 300 pound farmer with extreme homocidal rage the legal right to carry a hidden firearm in public.

Yes, but this way everyone else will too, and since they now have firearms his height and size are pretty neutralized. That's better than where no one has guns and he can beat toddlers to death with impunity cuz he's so fucking tough.

you all fail to realize this guy was 6'5" and 300 pound farmer. which is why he brushed off attempts by on lookers(there were more then elderly who had arrived) attempts to stop him with out resorts to lethal force. Also was the matter that this person could very easily beat you to death even if you had a tire iron. what needs to be done is a mandatory concealed carry permit requirement for all law abiding males that way things like this don't happen.

...yeah, and this would also solve world hunger, reverse global warming and make everybody really really attractive...

you all fail to realize this guy was 6'5" and 300 pound farmer. which is why he brushed off attempts by on lookers(there were more then elderly who had arrived) attempts to stop him with out resorts to lethal force. Also was the matter that this person could very easily beat you to death even if you had a tire iron. what needs to be done is a mandatory concealed carry permit requirement for all law abiding males that way things like this don't happen.

I'm 5'8" and 175lbs. I've rugby tackled men with 6 inches and a hundred pounds on me. I probably could not have stopped him without risking my own safety, to be sure. The Police could. ANd they did. I certainly don't begrudge them the use of deadly force to save a life with their own safety in mind. But at the same time, I'm not about to back down from a man beating on a kid just because he's bigger than me. WOuldn't be the first beating I've taken.

you all fail to realize this guy was 6'5" and 300 pound farmer. which is why he brushed off attempts by on lookers(there were more then elderly who had arrived) attempts to stop him with out resorts to lethal force.
You know what would work?

Two needles and a high-voltage current.

Doesn't matter how big you are; when you've got electricity flowing through you, you're floored.

Wow, if only someone would invent something like that.

Oh, wait...

A fantastic idea, with one small problem. You just gave the 6'5 300 pound farmer with extreme homocidal rage the legal right to carry a hidden firearm in public.

No, no, see, that doesn't count, because the Internet Commandos would totally be able to take him out with one shot from, like, a million miles away, in the dark, backwards over their heads, whereas this guy was a Criminal and therefore couldn't possibly be more competent than the Internet Commandos and furthermore would already have had a gun anyway because he was a Criminal and also guns are awesome and people who like them have really big penises. Your argument is demolished!

No, no, see, that doesn't count, because the Internet Commandos would totally be able to take him out with one shot from, like, a million miles away, in the dark, backwards over their heads, whereas this guy was a Criminal and therefore couldn't possibly be more competent than the Internet Commandos and furthermore would already have had a gun anyway because he was a Criminal and also guns are awesome and people who like them have really big penises. Your argument is demolished!

lol

still, I would try to shoot him.

Yes, but this way everyone else will too, and since they now have firearms his height and size are pretty neutralized.

Indeed. Because guns are magic wands that make everyone equal.

Well, because obviously if your first response to such a situation isn't to pull out your favorite semi-automatic machine gun (which you always keep in your truck), aim it perfectly, and shoot the malefactor in the head, neatly killing him without the slightest risk of causing any further harm to his victim, you are a big wussy McWussPants who hates freedom. Or something.

Being the big wussy McWussPants that I am, I would quite certainly attempt to stop him without further violence first. If that wasn't possible, I would try to get between him and the child, as I can probably take kicks and punches better than an infant can. I would try to enlist other passers-by to help me hold the bad guy down while the cops were called. If all else failed, and I had some means at hand to stop him through violence, I would resort to that, but it certainly wouldn't be my first choice.

There's no such thing as a "semi-automatic" machine gun. Machine guns are, by definition, fully automatic. And illegal without a permit. An "assault rifle" has burst fire or fully automatic fire in addition to normal semi-auto. Also illegal for civilian ownership without a permit. A civilian AK or AR is just a scary-looking semi-auto-only varmint gun. Besides, I'd use a 12-gauge :D 00 buckshot FTW! At 10 yards, there'd be a ragged 6" hole through his torso.

In all seriousness, I'd use the entrenching tool that's still on the passenger floorboard from when I used it last winter and beat the shit out of him. I'd risk killing him, but thet's better than allowing him to kill a child. Once he's down, I agree about having others hold him there, but good luck holding down a crazed man before effectively subduing him by force.

Being the big wussy McWussPants that I am, I would quite certainly attempt to stop him without further violence first. If that wasn't possible, I would try to get between him and the child, as I can probably take kicks and punches better than an infant can. I would try to enlist other passers-by to help me hold the bad guy down while the cops were called. If all else failed, and I had some means at hand to stop him through violence, I would resort to that, but it certainly wouldn't be my first choice.
But you'd be putting yourself at risk in the process. A guy who's wildly beating a toddler to death probably wouldn't think twice about targeting you, particularly if it's a big guy like has been said. You'd be better off trying to sneak up on the guy from behind and smash him over the head with something like a wheel brace or a steering wheel lock (He probably wouldn't notice you as he'd most likely be concentrating on beating the kid). Not necessarily trying to kill him, but if you did then so be it.

But you'd be putting yourself at risk in the process. A guy who's wildly beating a toddler to death probably wouldn't think twice about targeting you, particularly if it's a big guy like has been said. You'd be better off trying to sneak up on the guy from behind and smash him over the head with something like a wheel brace or a steering wheel lock (He probably wouldn't notice you as he'd most likely be concentrating on beating the kid). Not necessarily trying to kill him, but if you did then so be it.

Oh, I'm aware that that would be putting myself at risk. That's sort of the point - I'm not anywhere near large or strong enough to do him much damage, but I'm still a great deal better-equipped to take blows than the average toddler. Better for me to end up badly bruised than the child to end up dead. (And it's not as if people would quit trying to stop him at that point - "Oh, nevermind, Bob, he's stopped kicking a small child and is instead punching a 100-ish-pound young lady in the face! You can drive on by!")

Indeed. Because guns are magic wands that make everyone equal.
well, they are called "the Equalizers" for a reason. ;)

Yes, but this way everyone else will too, and since they now have firearms his height and size are pretty neutralized. That's better than where no one has guns and he can beat toddlers to death with impunity cuz he's so fucking tough.

a world where he can instead just pull out his perfectly legally firearm and shoot the kid the face killing it instantly before anyone has even a chance to save its life is better?

having had screaming kids in the car I would gracefully stop and help stomp that little shit into oblivion

either that or probabaly just blank it

I've rugby tackled men with 6 inches and a hundred pounds on me.

what happens in Gibraltar stays in Gibraltar?

a world where he can instead just pull out his perfectly legally firearm and shoot the kid the face killing it instantly before anyone has even a chance to save its life is better?

I can honestly say 'sort of'. I would rather die quickly from a shot to the face than several boots to the head no matter how much I enjoyed Monty Python.

a world where he can instead just pull out his perfectly legally firearm and shoot the kid the face killing it instantly before anyone has even a chance to save its life is better?

He already could have used a firearm. Looks like he planned on the beating to get some other form of stimulation.

Yes, there are over 2 million defensive gun uses in the US every year. The vast majority without firing a single shot.

Would you rather that 2 million additional violent felonies occurred?

Oh, I'm aware that that would be putting myself at risk. That's sort of the point - I'm not anywhere near large or strong enough to do him much damage, but I'm still a great deal better-equipped to take blows than the average toddler. Better for me to end up badly bruised than the child to end up dead. (And it's not as if people would quit trying to stop him at that point - "Oh, nevermind, Bob, he's stopped kicking a small child and is instead punching a 100-ish-pound young lady in the face! You can drive on by!")

and another point.... is that while engaged in such activity with the older person, that person can then lead the assailant away from the child where more people can then join in to take him down.

Oh, I'm aware that that would be putting myself at risk. That's sort of the point - I'm not anywhere near large or strong enough to do him much damage, but I'm still a great deal better-equipped to take blows than the average toddler. Better for me to end up badly bruised than the child to end up dead. (And it's not as if people would quit trying to stop him at that point - "Oh, nevermind, Bob, he's stopped kicking a small child and is instead punching a 100-ish-pound young lady in the face! You can drive on by!")
But if you did as I suggested by whacking the guy across the back of the head with a large heavy object, you could both stop him from beating the toddler and avoid putting yourself at risk. You don't have to be large or strong to do that.

But if you did as I suggested by whacking the guy across the back of the head with a large heavy object, you could both stop him from beating the toddler and avoid putting yourself at risk. You don't have to be large or strong to do that.

There's just a chance that will kill him. If you're ok with taking that chance, then ok.

what happens in Gibraltar stays in Gibraltar?

Gibraltar, eh? This reveals an interesting side of the UK, doesn't it?

*takes notes*

There's just a chance that will kill him. If you're ok with taking that chance, then ok.

considering he's beating a child to death?

yeah, I'ld take that chance.

Millions of defensive gun uses per year. Peer reviewed study.

From: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

Peer Reviewed by an anti-gun Professor:

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:

"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. ["Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology] The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

considering he's beating a child to death?

yeah, I'ld take that chance.

Yes. I understand. I'm just not sure other people here understand that there's no harmless way to whack someone in the head with a tire iron.

Yes. I understand. I'm just not sure other people here understand that there's no harmless way to whack someone in the head with a tire iron.

however, hitting an adult in the head, even with a tire iron, doesn't mean death. the chance is determined by so many factors. what part of the tire iron are you using?
how strong is the person you're hitting
how strong are you
angle of blow
number of blows
etc.

one hit will stagger him (maybe) but if the point was to get him off the child, then that one hit will do that. it may even put enough distance between him and the child for someone else (perhaps the person with the tire iron) to put themselves between him and the child.

a couple of swings and some side stepping and who knows, you may get him pointing away from the child.

There's just a chance that will kill him. If you're ok with taking that chance, then ok.
I'm OK with it. If I ever had to choose between trying to restrain a man without violence who's beating a toddler vs. whacking the guy across the head from behind and risking killing him, it's easily the second one I'd choose. I certainly wouldn't be willing to put my own safety at risk to try and take a scumbag like that alive.

..You know, this is eerily similar to the end of the Omen.

Gibraltar, eh? This reveals an interesting side of the UK, doesn't it?

*takes notes*

if its any problem its Spain's problem;)

edit: though really we are more likely to go to [anywhere in the Mediterranean] or possibly Essex if we are looking for that kind of thing

I'm 5'8" and 175lbs. I've rugby tackled men with 6 inches and a hundred pounds on me. I probably could not have stopped him without risking my own safety, to be sure. The Police could. ANd they did. I certainly don't begrudge them the use of deadly force to save a life with their own safety in mind. But at the same time, I'm not about to back down from a man beating on a kid just because he's bigger than me. WOuldn't be the first beating I've taken.

There's also the fact that what kills a toddler bruises a full-grown man.

My honest answer is to apply tire iron to head until he's down, then apply tire iron to ribs until I've heard at least 3 cracks, then step on chest for leverage while I grab his arms and snap them one at a time. Once I'm satisfied that with a fractured skull, ribs, and arms, he's no longer a threat, I grab the child, call 911, and leave for the nearest hospital.

If that POS lives, he lives. If he doesn't, the world's a better place without him.

I would have yelled at him to stop. If he didn't respond I would have shot him just as the police officer did. Not that I am blood thirsty but I wouldn't have hesitated when a young child like that was in danger.

Who could shoot a cute man beating child? :(

Killing him would probably be quickest, which is probably why the cop did it, but to tell the truth I'd probably either freeze in panic or try to stop him without killing him. I doubt I'd have the guts to kill some one.

For that matter, I doubt half the people in this thread who say they'd have gotten physically involved would have. I hate to sound cynical, but how often do bystanders actually intervene in such situations?

What I think we're seeing is a combination of what people would like to see themselves doing (more credit to you), and probably also a few who are just trying to sound tough.

I always love how tough everyone is on the internet. There's a reason why rewards are often given for stopping a crime. It's because most people never do it. It's difficult. It takes time for the untrained to identify what is going on and settle on a solution. Even then they are frequently unsuccessful.

As far as severely injuring or killing someone, I call bullshit. Real, non-sociopaths suffer when they hurt others. I've never met anyone that didn't question whether they did the right thing when they seriously injured someone. The sound of bones breaking is haunting and awful. These people who act like they would shrug it off... well, I can guess where it comes from. I know it's not because they speak from experience.

They say speak softly and carry a big stick. When you start speaking softly, I'll believe you've got that big stick.

As far as the all force is lethal nonsense, I've struck WAAAY more people that I care to admit and the survival rate is shockingly high.

For that matter, I doubt half the people in this thread who say they'd have gotten physically involved would have. I hate to sound cynical, but how often do bystanders actually intervene in such situations?

What I think we're seeing is a combination of what people would like to see themselves doing (more credit to you), and probably also a few who are just trying to sound tough.
I completely agree with you here. I'd LOVE to see myself grab that guy by the shoulder, spin him around, and punch him in the face until all of his teeth fall out, but I know very well that won't happen. I know that more than likely, if I do anything in the situation, I'm calling the cops.

I always love how tough everyone is on the internet. There's a reason why rewards are often given for stopping a crime. It's because most people never do it.

It's the kind of grandeur you allot to yourself when you, from the comfort of your chair, allow your imagination to run.

The way guns are discussed on this forum, you'd think we were in a Western. And all of the posters are potential members of the Superposse from Butch Cassidy. But the criminals aren't the Sundance Kid, they're that anonymous schmuck who gets his belt blown off.

that is probably what it would take. he seems to have been in a psychotic murderous rage that would take a strong blow to the head to interrupt if it could be interrupted at all.

There are such things as submission holds, joint locks, and the like. Unless the person is inhumanly strong, joint locks are often sufficient to immobilize a person. Even tackling, and then sitting on top of the person, works if one has the weight or numerical advantage.

I always love how tough everyone is on the internet. There's a reason why rewards are often given for stopping a crime. It's because most people never do it. It's difficult. It takes time for the untrained to identify what is going on and settle on a solution. Even then they are frequently unsuccessful.

As far as severely injuring or killing someone, I call bullshit. Real, non-sociopaths suffer when they hurt others. I've never met anyone that didn't question whether they did the right thing when they seriously injured someone. The sound of bones breaking is haunting and awful. These people who act like they would shrug it off... well, I can guess where it comes from. I know it's not because they speak from experience.

They say speak softly and carry a big stick. When you start speaking softly, I'll believe you've got that big stick.

As far as the all force is lethal nonsense, I've struck WAAAY more people that I care to admit and the survival rate is shockingly high.


I would agree with most of what you say. However you don't know what everyone is capable of or their background.

There are such things as submission holds, joint locks, and the like. Unless the person is inhumanly strong, joint locks are often sufficient to immobilize a person. Even tackling, and then sitting on top of the person, works if one has the weight or numerical advantage.

Yeah there are plenty of moves one could do if they know how to do it properly. But as Ashmoria said this guy was in rage. Stopping someone in a rage can be difficult. I think it would have taken more than one individual to stop this guy. The shortest way to stop the actions are to shoot him as the police officer did.

well, they are called "the Equalizers" for a reason. ;)

Wouldn't Republicans and the whole "you rise or starve on your own merit, welfare is the devils work!" clique then hate guns?

The odds of me accurately assessing the situation in time to have done anything are pretty slim.

That's a pretty shocking and extreme situation. Anything I say that I would do now is merely bravado.

Yeah there are plenty of moves one could do if they know how to do it properly. But as Ashmoria said this guy was in rage. Stopping someone in a rage can be difficult. I think it would have taken more than one individual to stop this guy. The shortest way to stop the actions are to shoot him as the police officer did.

Having been put through a few joint locks, I think it's safe to say that unless the person was in sufficient rage to break their own bones through excessive force on a locked joint and ignore the pain, or was strong enough to the point where they can toss a person with just that joint, a joint lock would effectively immobilize them.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5172762

You're passing by in your car, and you see a man by the side of the road beating what appears to be a toddler to death.

What would you do?

This was on the front page of my paper this morning. :( Sadly it figures it would be in Turlock.

Why isn't there an option between "stop him without hurting him" and "kill him"?

I agree--I would certainly use what force I could, but I wouldn't try to kill him. It wouldn't even be on my mind, really, I would just want to make him stop, and since I don't have a gun and I am a strong but not particularly large woman, I doubt I could very easily.

I completely agree with you here. I'd LOVE to see myself grab that guy by the shoulder, spin him around, and punch him in the face until all of his teeth fall out, but I know very well that won't happen. I know that more than likely, if I do anything in the situation, I'm calling the cops.

In my case, at least, it was more what I think I would probably do than either what I would definitely do or what I wish I would do. I wish I could, for that moment, transform into the Incredible Hulk, bring the guy down clean without touching the toddler, and call in the cops while I was sitting on the bad guy's head. I know, however, that I am small and weak and whatever I do will have to be something a small, weak person could do. I am about 99% certain I would call the cops, as I am well enough aware of the bystander effect that I wouldn't consider waiting for someone else to do something (and because I've intervened in smaller, less life-threatening situations without waiting for someone else to deal with it). I'm 97% sure I would at least yell, "Hey! Stop hitting that kid!" for the same reasons. If neither of those worked, I am perhaps 90% sure that I would try to get between the bad guy and the child, again for the same reasons, and also because I've attempted to break up fights between adults/teenagers this way. I might turn out to be a total coward this time. I hope I wouldn't, and I have some past evidence to suggest I wouldn't, but I honestly don't know, so all I can do is offer my best guess.

I do, however, know that the odds of someone like me who is small and weak and has no training in any form of combat being able to bring the guy down through violence singlehandedly are ludicrously low, and any attempt to hit him with a crowbar or whatever would be very much more likely to end with him wrenching the crowbar out of my hands and hitting me or the child with it than with me doing any significant damage - so I'm not going to be an Internet Commando and pretend that I'm in any way badass enough to do more than stop the cops and provide a larger and more resilient target than the infant.

Killing him would probably be quickest, which is probably why the cop did it

Actually, the cop really had no other option. He was dropped by helicopter on the other side of an electric barbed wire fence and couldn't get past it to the man. It's lucky his shot hit him, really.

I always love how tough everyone is on the internet. There's a reason why rewards are often given for stopping a crime. It's because most people never do it. It's difficult. It takes time for the untrained to identify what is going on and settle on a solution. Even then they are frequently unsuccessful.

As far as severely injuring or killing someone, I call bullshit. Real, non-sociopaths suffer when they hurt others. I've never met anyone that didn't question whether they did the right thing when they seriously injured someone. The sound of bones breaking is haunting and awful. These people who act like they would shrug it off... well, I can guess where it comes from. I know it's not because they speak from experience.

The very few times I've ever had to use force against someone, to protect myself or someone else, I have definitely second-guessed myself and I did not enjoy it at all. I didn't hesitate much at the time, but it did not feel good, and I was sure as hell scared.

What would I do were I there?

Most likely, -- based on an assessment of my behavior in crisis situations in the past -- were I to comprehend what was going on, I'd just get the hell out of there and hope he hadn't noticed me. When safely at home I'd shove heavy objects of furniture against the doors and board up the windows, just on the off chance he was also going to beat any witnesses to death, too. :-/

Of course, I've never been in a position like this, so I really don't know. It's unlikely I'd put my own personal safety at risk though, especially not against an obviously violent individual about thrice my weight. Even if I had a gun... well.... killing anything isn't easy, and killing a person is probably far more difficult (emotionally and morally) than killing, say, a spider.

I chose option one, but I wouldn't have been trying to kill him. As soon as he stopped his rampage on the toddler, I would let the police handle him.

Edit: As to the internet commando and badass comments above, for me personally, there is no way I could have not gotten involved. I have a habit of getting in the middle, because I'm trying to help. It usually works out just fine, even when they're drunk and all aggro. Not sure whether it helps that I'm a girl, I would assume that it does. The two times I've gotten hurt because of stepping into the middle were both accidental, and both people came out of their aggro state really fast. I'm big on protecting, guess that's why I have to get involved. Also, I think that once you resort to violence, you've already lost..

I always love how tough everyone is on the internet. There's a reason why rewards are often given for stopping a crime. It's because most people never do it. It's difficult. It takes time for the untrained to identify what is going on and settle on a solution. Even then they are frequently unsuccessful.

As far as severely injuring or killing someone, I call bullshit. Real, non-sociopaths suffer when they hurt others. I've never met anyone that didn't question whether they did the right thing when they seriously injured someone. The sound of bones breaking is haunting and awful. These people who act like they would shrug it off... well, I can guess where it comes from. I know it's not because they speak from experience.

They say speak softly and carry a big stick. When you start speaking softly, I'll believe you've got that big stick.

As far as the all force is lethal nonsense, I've struck WAAAY more people that I care to admit and the survival rate is shockingly high.

I concede the possibility. The closest I've come to a test like this, where a guy started pummeling a girl outside a house I was staying at when I was 17, I did not intervene, although that was because of outside restraints (long story) more than anything else. So I don't know how William Munny I'd personally be. I guess the best way of putting it is that I fear I am not bullshitting at all.

The odds of me accurately assessing the situation in time to have done anything are pretty slim.

That's a pretty shocking and extreme situation. Anything I say that I would do now is merely bravado.

I think you'd be surprised the kneejerk reaction that would occur to you when you see a grown man stomping on a kid. After the initial moment of shock, action isn't the problem, thought is.

you all fail to realize this guy was 6'5" and 300 pound farmer. which is why he brushed off attempts by on lookers(there were more then elderly who had arrived) attempts to stop him with out resorts to lethal force. Also was the matter that this person could very easily beat you to death even if you had a tire iron. what needs to be done is a mandatory concealed carry permit requirement for all law abiding males that way things like this don't happen.

Because a woman with a gun couldn't blow your head off just as dead?

Because a woman with a gun couldn't blow your head off just as dead?

Sure, but it would be moar dangerous, you know.......during that time.... you know........when we are "irritable"

I can honestly say 'sort of'. I would rather die quickly from a shot to the face than several boots to the head no matter how much I enjoyed Monty Python.

Boot to the head was not Python. Boot to the Head was The Frantics.

Sure, but it would be moar dangerous, you know.......during that time.... you know........when we are "irritable"

Election time? :confused:

Sure, but it would be moar dangerous, you know.......during that time.... you know........when we are "irritable"

WHAT DO YOU MEAN "THAT TIME"? I AM NEVER IRRITABLE, $&*(#$&*(&(e$u(!!!!!


Seriously, though, having drawn a recurve bow and aiming it at one of a group of five threatening my brother -- I assure you that the female of the species can pick a target and aim as coldly as a male.

Looks like the people fell to the bystander effect.

Like that time when that woman was murdered in the middle of her neighborhood and no one did anything. It's the case of "I'll wait until someone else starts then I'll join in and help also."

-----
I would stop him not caring if he got hurt, but the intent would still to keep the guy alive... So he can become Bubba's new friend.

I would kill the fucker without question.

Where's the "Grab my steelcap shoes and join in" option?

however, hitting an adult in the head,
...
a couple of swings and some side stepping and who knows, you may get him pointing away from the child.

Yeah. I noticed that most of people were on the "little-less-than-lethal" force option.

Anyway, if you use any reasonable crushing weapon in an intelligent way, you can knock down ANYONE. Don't lose time beating the target on the head: go for the knees. Possibily the backside of the knees. Foe falls down and is partially incapacitated, but the risk of death is minimal (it's very difficult to cut a major blood vessel by striking a knee with a blunt weapon). Once he's grounded, you can proceed with hitting his arms if he still struggles, thus completely incapacitating him, apart from shouting crude things.

Wrists, knees, collar bones, floating ribs etc..

People have died from broken wrists by going into pain shock. Again, you COULD hurt him, but even if you're just going for his rib you need to take the risk he might die.

In different terms, such things are not in my view morally permissible unless, in the situation at hand, it would also be morally permissible to kill him.

he'd get the crowbar.

... "too stoned to care?"

Oh, because people who smoke pot don't care if they see a man beating a child? Right...

he'd get the crowbar.

Gordon Freeman, savior of infants?

... "too stoned to care?"

Oh, because people who smoke pot don't care if they see a man beating a child? Right...

Pot smokers are clearly just as guilty as all baby-killing maniacs. Gateway drug man.

I would kill the fucker without question.

suuuure you would.

he'd get the crowbar.

Don't forget the glasses or the suit:D.

I would kill the fucker without question.

Memo to all the internet assasins out there: Shooting and killing someone who is beating a child is still considered a serious crime. Its NOT self defence as an unrelated child is not yourself. You probably wont get charged with anything because almost no jury would convict, but you would none the less be technically guilty of manslaughter. Certianly something to consider when you mount your white horse and get out your silver 6 shooter.

Also im not really happy about the cop shooting the guy dead. Police taser people for sneezing yet in this case when a taser would have been the exact right approach to use it doesnt even get considered? No farmer is going to be able to continue a beating with electricity running thru his body any more so then with a bullet or two in it.

Memo to all the internet assasins out there: Shooting and killing someone who is beating a child is still considered a serious crime. Its NOT self defence as an unrelated child is not yourself. You probably wont get charged with anything because almost no jury would convict, but you would none the less be technically guilty of manslaughter. Certianly something to consider when you mount your white house and get out your silver 6 shooter.

That's not entirely true. Most jurisdictions recognize a "defense of others" justification. The general rule is, a 3rd party is allowed ot exercise a level of force to defend someone, even an unrelated someone, to the same extent that the defended individual would have been lawfully able to use to defend himself.

In other words, if I am in a situation in which the law recognizes my right to use lethal force to defend myself, a 3rd party is likewise allowed to use lethal force to defend me. They are allowed to use the same level of force in my defense as I myself would have been allowed to use in my own defense in that circumstance.

And since the only time lethal force is legally allowable is to defend against what is reasonably perceived to be a lethal threat, and the threat was most certainly lethal in this case, a defense of others claim would likely succeed.

Not that I believe for a minute that these internet cowboys would really put their money where their mouth is if the situation were truly to arise.

apparently, the animal was beating and kicking the child to DEATH.

he wasnt just smacking the child, he wasnt yelling and yanking him by the arm like we so often see.

how do you incapacitate an animal that clearly has no ability to reason or think properly?

How do you stop him without maiming or killing him, IN TIME to save the child?


In real life-you probably dont. In the movies maybe. In real life-not so likely.

And now, we dont need to hear his smooth defense attorney tell us how the animal was abused or neglected so he didnt know any better.

Fuck him, we are all better off he's dead.

If he lived, someone in a rest stop bathroom could look at him crosseyed and he'd kill him.
We need less defects. Not more with excuses.

how do you incapacitate an animal that clearly has no ability to reason or think properly?

How do you stop him without maiming or killing him, IN TIME to save the child?


With a taser. In fact, sometimes even bullets dont slow down someone if not hit in a vital spot. There are no safe spots on your body when your hit with 100,000 volts and any action will stop instantly. This is EXACTLY the situation tasers are designed for, not to silence protesters at a Presidential rally.

suuuure you would.

Oh don't even start. Anyone who wouldn't at least try and stop a guy killing a child like that is a goddamn coward and should be ashamed of themselves. And to hell with whatever *laws* are violated in defending the baby. A babies life is worth more than any damn law.

Memo to all the internet assasins out there: Shooting and killing someone who is beating a child is still considered a serious crime. Its NOT self defence as an unrelated child is not yourself. You probably wont get charged with anything because almost no jury would convict, but you would none the less be technically guilty of manslaughter. Certianly something to consider when you mount your white horse and get out your silver 6 shooter.

So the fuck what? No jury anywhere would convict a person for killing a nutjob who was killing a baby. To not at least try and defend the baby would be cowardly and wrong. And, as Neo Art already said, you can defend other people.



Also im not really happy about the cop shooting the guy dead. Police taser people for sneezing yet in this case when a taser would have been the exact right approach to use it doesnt even get considered? No farmer is going to be able to continue a beating with electricity running thru his body any more so then with a bullet or two in it.

The bullet sure stopped the fucker, didn't it? I'd have done the exact thing in the cops place.
Also, how close was the cop to the target? Was he even in range for a taser? (not that I think a taser should have been used)

Oh don't even start. Anyone who wouldn't at least try and stop a guy killing a child like that is a goddamn coward and should be ashamed of themselves.

On the internet, everyone's a cowboy.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN "THAT TIME"? I AM NEVER IRRITABLE, $&*(#$&*(&(e$u(!!!!!


Seriously, though, having drawn a recurve bow and aiming it at one of a group of five threatening my brother -- I assure you that the female of the species can pick a target and aim as coldly as a male.

Kudos to Katganistan for using the assault rifle of the 1300's! Personally, a clothyard shaft would scare me a hell of a lot more than a bullet. Bleeding to death with a stick lodged in my chest isn't the way I would want to go.

On the internet, everyone's a cowboy.

Neo Art, just don't even start. Just stop being a jerk with all your one line retorts to everything.

I cannot fathom just driving by and ignoring someone beating a child to death. I don't care if the person had a hundred pounds of muscle on me, I'd still try and help (I'd try and grab a 2 by 4 or something first then), I wouldn't let a child be killed.

If someone wouldn't at least try and help, even by just distracting the guy from the child, then that someone is a coward. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It is that simple.

I didn't read the whole thread, so I don't know what you said you would do. So, what would you do, mister hotshot lawyer? Would sit back telling everyone the laws about such a situation or would you get off your ass and help?

The bullet sure stopped the fucker, didn't it? I'd have done the exact thing in the cops place.
Also, how close was the cop to the target? Was he even in range for a taser? (not that I think a taser should have been used)

I sure the hell hope he shot the guy at point blank range and not from 300 feet away. Who shoots someone from long range when a child is RIGHT NEXT to him? Also the cop had to be close enough to assess the childs condition in order to justify deadly force. There is STILL no compelling reason a Taser could not have been used even if for no other reason than ensuring the child doesnt get accidentally shot by the cop.

so what we are having pity on the bastard who beat that child to death? that the officer should have used some other means to stop him? the bystanders tried, the officer tried, the man kept on with what he was doing. but lets be concerned about not hurting HIM to badly. lets try to only wound him slightly, who cares if it may have no real effect on stopping him from his assault, that if the child was still alive would subject him to more punishment because you don't want to do the quick sure way of stopping him and protecting that little boy.

as for what you or me would do i don't think we can just assume we'd heroically intervene, until the situation comes up i have no clue how i'd react.

but who knows maybe the internet warriors are the real deal?

I would club the S.O.B. uncounsouse. rescue the kid, and then take the man for "a ride". Won't tell what I'll do to him, but I bet Tarentino could make a good movie about it.

so what we are having pity on the bastard who beat that child to death? that the officer should have used some other means to stop him? the bystanders tried, the officer tried, the man kept on with what he was doing. but lets be concerned about not hurting HIM to badly. lets try to only wound him slightly, who cares if it may have no real effect on stopping him from his assault, that if the child was still alive would subject him to more punishment because you don't want to do the quick sure way of stopping him and protecting that little boy.

Firing a gun in that situation endangers everyone. It endangers the suspect, it endangers the victim and it endangers bystanders. A Taser has the EXACT requirements needed in this situation. It instantly prevents an action from continuing and endangers nobody. And it meets the polices goal of the encounter, to safely and instantly stop an illegal action and to arrest those guilty of comitting those actions. So other then a feel good, there i shot the bastard cowboy mentality what was gained by using a gun instead of a taser?

Police whip out tasers at the drop of a hat when people talk too loudly at speeches yet they couldnt be bothered to use that technology to stop an assult?

I would have tried to intervened. Even though I don't own a firearm, I would have tried to hit him anything I had that was heavy.

Firing a gun in that situation endangers everyone. It endangers the suspect, it endangers the victim and it endangers bystanders. A Taser has the EXACT requirements needed in this situation. It instantly prevents an action from continuing and endangers nobody. And it meets the polices goal of the encounter, to safely and instantly stop an illegal action and to arrest those guilty of comitting those actions. So other then a feel good, there i shot the bastard cowboy mentality what was gained by using a gun instead of a taser?

Police whip out tasers at the drop of a hat when people talk too loudly at speeches yet they couldnt be bothered to use that technology to stop an assult?

Did the officer even have a taser? (it still shouldn't have been used)

Neo Art, just don't even start. Just stop being a jerk with all your one line retorts to everything.

If I use a one line retort it's because one line is sufficient. Let's look at the poll results shall we? More than 60% of those responding said they would try to kill the person. Yet isn't it amazing that these poll results show no real baring to what actually happened?

Every time there's a tragedy like this, the results are the same, a bunch of people show up and claim "well if I was there I would have done something about it!" Whether it's a school shooting or a violent knife wielding maniac or some guy brutally beating a toddler to death, whenever it happens, after the fact, we always here from the great brave crowd, full of their own pompus self assured arrogance, how they would have stopped it. And I'm left to wonder, where the hell are all these people?

Maybe there is a crowd of brave vigilantes out there, who for some cruel twist of fate, though they be ready and willing to intervene, never seem to be at the right place at the right time to actually do anything. It takes a whole lot of bravado, but not a lot of real bravery, for 60% of the crowd to say they would have done something different, after the fact.

Maybe NSG really is filled with people (60% of respondants after all) who would actually do something, and it's poor luck they didn't happen to be there at the time. But when 60% of people say they'd do something, but far less actually do, maybe, as I said, on the internet, everybody's a cowboy. Just not in real life.

Did the officer even have a taser? (it still shouldn't have been used)

I see, so you support unnessesarily endangering the public? Or are you just ignoring the fact that every time a weapon is fired it endangers not just the person its being aimed at but everyone near the target as well? Not to mention the fact that stray bullets can travel over a mile? Please explain why a gun was better then a Taser in this situation since you have made your position clear.

Indeed. Because guns are magic wands that make everyone equal.

No, but they pretty much nullify a physical strength advantage or disadvantage.

Take the 300 pound throbbing man-monster. Most people could defend themselves against him if they were armed, relatively few people could if they weren't.

a world where he can instead just pull out his perfectly legally firearm and shoot the kid the face killing it instantly before anyone has even a chance to save its life is better?

I guess you have to ask yourself whether beating, punching, kicking, throwing an infant to death is better than shooting an infant to death.

People had a chance to save its life, but they didn't. Why not? I mean, aren't YOU a kung fu master and couldn't YOU have taken him out, bare-handed? Who couldn't, amirite?

I guess you have to ask yourself whether beating, punching, kicking, throwing an infant to death is better than shooting an infant to death.

Oh I'm sure being beatten to death is far worse than being shot quickly to death. I'm also sure being slowly tortured to death is worse than the two.

It however is a question of goals, what do we value? Do we want to prevent the deaths of innocents, or do we want to ensure the innocents who die die quickly?

Because sure, if we don't arm the homicidal maniacs, I'm sure the methods they use ot kill will be far more brutal and painful. But I'm also willing to bet their victims will be fewer.

I see, so you support unnessesarily endangering the public? Or are you just ignoring the fact that every time a weapon is fired it endangers not just the person its being aimed at but everyone near the target as well? Not to mention the fact that stray bullets can travel over a mile? Please explain why a gun was better then a Taser in this situation since you have made your position clear.

Because will a gun will the the fucker till he's dead. Like he deserved, and as it happened. As long as someone had good aim, then the threat to bystanders is minimal.

So- proper instruction reduced risks, and because it ends threats. That's basically why a gun should have been used.

If I use a one line retort it's because one line is sufficient. Let's look at the poll results shall we? More than 60% of those responding said they would try to kill the person. Yet isn't it amazing that these poll results show no real baring to what actually happened?

Every time there's a tragedy like this, the results are the same, a bunch of people show up and claim "well if I was there I would have done something about it!" Whether it's a school shooting or a violent knife wielding maniac or some guy brutally beating a toddler to death, whenever it happens, after the fact, we always here from the great brave crowd, full of their own pompus self assured arrogance, how they would have stopped it. And I'm left to wonder, where the hell are all these people?

Maybe there is a crowd of brave vigilantes out there, who for some cruel twist of fate, though they be ready and willing to intervene, never seem to be at the right place at the right time to actually do anything. It takes a whole lot of bravado, but not a lot of real bravery, for 60% of the crowd to say they would have done something different, after the fact.

Maybe NSG really is filled with people (60% of respondants after all) who would actually do something, and it's poor luck they didn't happen to be there at the time. But when 60% of people say they'd do something, but far less actually do, maybe, as I said, on the internet, everybody's a cowboy. Just not in real life.

Ok, fair enough then. I see what you mean.

I just cannot see myself not trying to help a child being beaten to death. Honestly, I can't.

So- proper instruction reduced risks, and because it ends threats. That's basically why a gun should have been used.

A taser ends threats just as well and with far less risk. So if your concern is ending threats while managing risk, why SHOULDN'T have they used a taser instead?

Because will a gun will the the fucker till he's dead. Like he deserved, and as it happened.

Oh, that's why. Because you don't actually care about justice, or innocents, or preserving life.

You just care about vengence.

I sure the hell hope he shot the guy at point blank range and not from 300 feet away. Who shoots someone from long range when a child is RIGHT NEXT to him? Also the cop had to be close enough to assess the childs condition in order to justify deadly force. There is STILL no compelling reason a Taser could not have been used even if for no other reason than ensuring the child doesnt get accidentally shot by the cop.

Current taser technology limits the range to about 21 feet for police/military models. At 21 feet, the probe spread is 35", which is more than enough to miss the target with one or both probes.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/pdf/tasergun.pdf

Basically, if the cop was more than 21 feet away (which really isn't that far), a Taser wouldn't have been a viable option.

Police should have been able to stop him without shooting him, especially if he wasn't armed. They have no excuse for having shot him...that is not proper protocol AT ALL.

Oh I'm sure being beatten to death is far worse than being shot quickly to death. I'm also sure being slowly tortured to death is worse than the two.

It however is a question of goals, what do we value? Do we want to prevent the deaths of innocents, or do we want to ensure the innocents who die die quickly?

But gun carry laws would not have affected this case at all anyway, i.e changing them would not prevent this from happening.

Because sure, if we don't arm the homicidal maniacs, I'm sure the methods they use ot kill will be far more brutal and painful. But I'm also willing to bet their victims will be fewer.

It's not about 'arming' these people anyway. They'll arm themselves if they want to, regardless of the law. I'm just in favor of allowing potential victims to possess means to defend themselves as well.

But gun carry laws would not have affected this case at all anyway, i.e changing them would not prevent this from happening.

No, but while this event is tragic, I tend to try and look at the big picture.

It's not about 'arming' these people anyway. They'll arm themselves if they want to, regardless of the law.

If that were true, then the rate of gun related violence would be about the same in countries with strict gun control compares to those without.

And they're not.

Not even close.

Police should have been able to stop him without shooting him, especially if he wasn't armed. They have no excuse for having shot him...that is not proper protocol AT ALL.

Did you read the story?

The only place the helicopter could drop the officer was in a field behind an electric fence.

The guy beating the baby was on the other side of the fence. What then? Was the officer even in range for a taser? Was the officer carrying a taser?

The officer shot the guy because he could not go and physically restrain him- as he was separated by an electric fence. Should the officer have just stood there and let the man continue beating the baby? I don't think so. He shot the guy to end the child's beating.

Police should have been able to stop him without shooting him, especially if he wasn't armed. They have no excuse for having shot him...that is not proper protocol AT ALL.

Actually, it was defense of another, so the cop WAS justified in shooting. Granted, I wish the perpetrator had been shot with a 12g beanbag round (which would have put him on the ground), so he would experience our prison system for the rest of his life, but the cop was following protocol to attempt to save the life of the toddler.

True.... if there were only two variables involved in a neat lab experiment.

There are far too many other variables involved for this would-be acid test to work. For example, arms manufacturing in general. Civilian gun use or not, the US is very into arms manufacturing while, for example, Norway is not. That's not going to change anytime soon, anymore than differences in culture or geography.

perhaps, but I have never found "it won't change any time soon" to be a valid excuse to not start change now.

If that were true, then the rate of gun related violence would be about the same in countries with strict gun control compares to those without.

True.... if there were only two variables involved in a neat lab experiment.

There are far too many other variables involved for this would-be acid test to work. For example, arms manufacturing in general. Civilian gun use or not, the US is very into arms manufacturing while, for example, Norway is not. That's not going to change anytime soon, anymore than differences in culture or geography.

Holy crap, is this turning into a gun thread Trostia and Neo Art?

If so...

wtf?!?!

Because will a gun will the the fucker till he's dead.

In America (Fuck Yea according to your profile), the police are not executioners. They are required by law to bring people accused of crimes safely into custody. It is the job of the Judge and or the Jury to decide the suspects future. This is how its supposed to work in America. Fuck Yea!

Like he deserved, and as it happened.

As stated above, we have a system to decide who gets what they deserve.

As long as someone had good aim, then the threat to bystanders is minimal.

And what if he doesnt have good aim? Or a child unexpectedly jumps the wrong way? Minimal threat is not the same as no threat. What possible reason would you suggest that minimal deadly risk is superior to equaly effective NO RISK options?

No, but they pretty much nullify a physical strength advantage or disadvantage.

Bullcrap. At the range where the guys strength is actually relevant (i.e. arms length) a gun is almost useless. Trusting in it in fact increases the chance that *you* will get hurt, since you are less focussed.

Any person with a minimal amount of training in e.g. krav maga, systema or another "real life" combat system can deal with guns at close ranges. A big bully does not even need this training.

In America (Fuck Yea according to your profile), the police are not executioners. They are required by law to bring people accused of crimes safely into custody. It is the job of the Judge and or the Jury to decide the suspects future. This is how its supposed to work in America. Fuck Yea!



As stated above, we have a system to decide who gets what they deserve.



And what if he doesnt have good aim? Or a child unexpectedly jumps the wrong way? Minimal threat is not the same as no threat. What possible reason would you suggest that minimal deadly risk is superior to equaly effective NO RISK options?

True. Normally cops should try to subdue criminals, but this was a life or death situation. The cop killed the criminal to try and SAVE THE INNOCENT CHILD.

And any jury would probably sentence that guy to death or life in prison.


The kid was a toddler being beaten to death. I would have, and I'm sure many cops, and many other people would have shot the criminal to try and save the kid. n

And nobody has answered my goddamn question.

Was the cop in range to even use a damn taser, and was the cop even carrying a taser?!

If the cop was out of range or didn't have a taser then the whole 'he should have tased him bro' argument is moot.

Bullcrap. At the range where the guys strength is actually relevant (i.e. arms length)

You're not disagreeing with me. The guy's strength isn't even relevant to gun owners, unless of course the gun owners are for some reason fighting in melee combat range.

Any person with a minimal amount of training in e.g. krav maga, systema or another "real life" combat system can deal with guns at close ranges. A big bully does not even need this training.

Yes, we've all seen the Matrix and how easy it is to take a gun away from someone before they shoot you using amazing kung fu powers.

You're not disagreeing with me. The guy's strength isn't even relevant to gun owners, unless of course the gun owners are for some reason fighting in melee combat range.

With that phrasing I can agree.

Yes, we've all seen the Matrix and how easy it is to take a gun away from someone before they shoot you using amazing kung fu powers.

Oh please. You do not need such amazing powers. Slapping a hand away is trivial. No belts or anything needed. About 10 lessons would be sufficient.

With that phrasing I can agree.


kay


Oh please. You do not need such amazing powers. Slapping a hand away is trivial. No belts or anything needed.

Well, you need to not just slap the hand away, but get the gun out of my hand and my finger off the trigger in less time than it takes for me to pull the trigger. That sounds a bit kung fu to me, something a bit more difficult. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I wouldn't count on taking some krav maga to a gun fight and managing to walk away most of the time.

perhaps, but I have never found "it won't change any time soon" to be a valid excuse to not start change now.

Hey, I'm all for de-industrializing and de-militarizing the military-industrial complex. I think part of America's violent tendencies is due to the way the government so quickly and often resorts to armed conflict in foreign affairs. It's like having abusive parents.

Yes. I understand. I'm just not sure other people here understand that there's no harmless way to whack someone in the head with a tire iron.

People have died from broken wrists by going into pain shock. Again, you COULD hurt him, but even if you're just going for his rib you need to take the risk he might die.

In different terms, such things are not in my view morally permissible unless, in the situation at hand, it would also be morally permissible to kill him.

But the difference is in the risk - whacking someone over the head is more likely to result in death. The issue is intention - the poll and the comments of the OP seem to imply a desire to kill the perpetrator rather than just save the child. However repellant the perpetrator, and this one is the lowest of the low, the priority should be to save the child whilst not killing the criminal. This aim is perfectly possible to achieve - but to people who want to live out some vigilante wet dream this is not as satisfying as 'blowing the fucker away'.

I'm 5'8" and 175lbs. I've rugby tackled men with 6 inches and a hundred pounds on me. I probably could not have stopped him without risking my own safety, to be sure. The Police could. ANd they did. I certainly don't begrudge them the use of deadly force to save a life with their own safety in mind. But at the same time, I'm not about to back down from a man beating on a kid just because he's bigger than me. WOuldn't be the first beating I've taken.

Your continued existence gives me a great deal of satisfaction. Please continue to exist for as long as possible. :D

Neo Art, just don't even start. Just stop being a jerk with all your one line retorts to everything.

This from Trollgaard? Really?

Firing a gun in that situation endangers everyone. It endangers the suspect, it endangers the victim and it endangers bystanders. A Taser has the EXACT requirements needed in this situation. It instantly prevents an action from continuing and endangers nobody. And it meets the polices goal of the encounter, to safely and instantly stop an illegal action and to arrest those guilty of comitting those actions. So other then a feel good, there i shot the bastard cowboy mentality what was gained by using a gun instead of a taser?

Police whip out tasers at the drop of a hat when people talk too loudly at speeches yet they couldnt be bothered to use that technology to stop an assult?

For the Nth time, WE DON'T KNOW THE RANGE AT WHICH THE POLICEMAN WAS DROPPED! We DO know he was behind a fence, dropped there by a helicopter. The news story does NOT give us enough information to even START the taser/gun debate. The fact that you and others keep yammering about the efficacy of a weapon that WAS LIKELY AS NOT INEFFECTIVE due to range or obstruction considerations is just so much mastur-de-bation. I'm not saying you should stop, but rather pointing out how pointless it is. Please, feel free to continue turning this into ANOTHER lethal v non-lethal argument thread. Lord knows we haven't seen any of them before.

And while I'm tilting at this windmill, let me mention once again that the news sources for this incident do not give us the information we need to make a truly informed decision about the appropriateness of the policeman's actions, or even the bystanders'. I understand the need for controversy to propel a thread's post count, but so much of this is conjecture that it gets predictable.

Yeah. I noticed that most of people were on the "little-less-than-lethal" force option.

Anyway, if you use any reasonable crushing weapon in an intelligent way, you can knock down ANYONE. Don't lose time beating the target on the head: go for the knees. Possibily the backside of the knees. Foe falls down and is partially incapacitated, but the risk of death is minimal (it's very difficult to cut a major blood vessel by striking a knee with a blunt weapon). Once he's grounded, you can proceed with hitting his arms if he still struggles, thus completely incapacitating him, apart from shouting crude things.if he was so 'engaged' in beating that child, your first hit could be in a location that would really count.. the other head. with bat/bar/club applied in a golf swing.

knees would down him and make standing difficult. wrist or elbows (or if you know where the nerve clusters are) would make hitting back difficult.

People have died from broken wrists by going into pain shock. Again, you COULD hurt him, but even if you're just going for his rib you need to take the risk he might die. can you provide documentation for anyone dying from only a broken wrist or a broken rib?

Oh I'm sure being beatten to death is far worse than being shot quickly to death. I'm also sure being slowly tortured to death is worse than the two.

It however is a question of goals, what do we value? Do we want to prevent the deaths of innocents, or do we want to ensure the innocents who die die quickly?

Because sure, if we don't arm the homicidal maniacs, I'm sure the methods they use ot kill will be far more brutal and painful. But I'm also willing to bet their victims will be fewer.

This is very true.

If there's one thing we have this horrible habit with in this country, it's our over obsession with firearms. There's nothing wrong with firearms on their own. They're extremely useful tools for a number of reasons, and are also quite efficient in their task.

And, the simple fact is, we are an armed society. Our society is not going to do away with firearms anytime soon no matter what happens, nor should we even really try.

On that same token, there's a lot we could do to reduce violent crime committed with firearms without harming law-abiding firearm owners. For example, one thing I most definitely want to see is a required, government-funded(slight 1% gun tax or possibly just reallocated funds from elsewhere ought to be more than enough) gun safety and usage course. That is, I want all gun owners to know how to store their guns safely, how to use them safely and effectively(you may goggle at this but a person who doesn't know how to use a firearm is far more dangerous than a person who does).

I want this because this would not only prevent a significant number of accidents(most gun deaths involving children have to do with accidents resulting from inproper storage) but also because it would encourage significantly more responsibility from gun owners. That ought to at least dim murderous intent at times. (Besides, it's a lot harder to get a gun out and shoot someone in a crime of passion if it's locked up.)

I'd also like to see us stop promoting a gun culture, of sorts, as much as we do, because such a culture tends to encourage solving one's problems with guns rather than using more sensible courses of action.

Seriously, though, having drawn a recurve bow and aiming it at one of a group of five threatening my brother -- I assure you that the female of the species can pick a target and aim as coldly as a male.
Kat is secretly an elf *nods*

On the internet, everyone's a cowboy.

Yeehaw.

This is very true.

If there's one thing we have this horrible habit with in this country, it's our over obsession with firearms.

I'd also like to see us stop promoting a gun culture, of sorts, as much as we do, because such a culture tends to encourage solving one's problems with guns rather than using more sensible courses of action.

The Simpsons satirized this in one episode where Homer joins the local gun club and ends up using his revolver as a multitool, doing everything from opening beer cans to changing the TV channel with a shot. If it was on YouTube there'd be a link by now.

<snip>
Well, you need to not just slap the hand away, but get the gun out of my hand and my finger off the trigger in less time than it takes for me to pull the trigger. That sounds a bit kung fu to me, something a bit more difficult. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I wouldn't count on taking some krav maga to a gun fight and managing to walk away most of the time.
<snip>

No, not true. One hand sweep across to slap the hand away, and turn the momentum into a turning kick to the ribs.

All that you actually need to do is make sure the shot misses. Beyond that, a few lessons in how and where to strike will put you at an advantage, especially because the person with the gun is likely not expecting to face an opponent in hand to hand combat. Futhermore, most people will be distracted somewhat having just taken a solid kick to the floating ribs. Yes, it's risky, but it's not too tricky to teach.

And you haven't seen how quick and fluid someone can get at a motion like that with a little practice. Most martial arts teach them as a drill style. Start from a simple stance. Hand up and across, follow through with kick and khia (sp?). Done. You drill it, get it into muscle memory. I can still remember most of these from when I did Tae Kwon Do, and that was some time ago.

..You know, this is eerily similar to the end of the Omen.

I don't remember that one very well (and aren't you refering to one of the sequels?), but am I right to assume the man was a priest or otherwise do-gooder and the toddler was satan's reincarnation?

I don't remember that one very well (and aren't you refering to one of the sequels?), but am I right to assume the man was a priest or otherwise do-gooder and the toddler was satan's reincarnation?

I guess we'll never know.

For the Nth time, WE DON'T KNOW THE RANGE AT WHICH THE POLICEMAN WAS DROPPED!
I'm going to invoke an N+1th time here by asserting that the problem of range in Tasers will be overcome through investment and research into future models (given the support of the governments and police agencies of the world), and that whether or not the cop was within the range of current taser models right here and now is actually incidental to discussing how we could change how future events of this sort could be handled.

Also im not really happy about the cop shooting the guy dead. Police taser people for sneezing yet in this case when a taser would have been the exact right approach to use it doesnt even get considered? No farmer is going to be able to continue a beating with electricity running thru his body any more so then with a bullet or two in it.

With a taser. In fact, sometimes even bullets dont slow down someone if not hit in a vital spot. There are no safe spots on your body when your hit with 100,000 volts and any action will stop instantly. This is EXACTLY the situation tasers are designed for, not to silence protesters at a Presidential rally.

Firing a gun in that situation endangers everyone. It endangers the suspect, it endangers the victim and it endangers bystanders. A Taser has the EXACT requirements needed in this situation. It instantly prevents an action from continuing and endangers nobody. And it meets the polices goal of the encounter, to safely and instantly stop an illegal action and to arrest those guilty of comitting those actions. So other then a feel good, there i shot the bastard cowboy mentality what was gained by using a gun instead of a taser?

Police whip out tasers at the drop of a hat when people talk too loudly at speeches yet they couldnt be bothered to use that technology to stop an assult?

For everyone who says the cop should have used a taser: I read this story in my local paper, as it happened in a city only about an hour and a half away, and from what my paper reported, the cop could NOT have used a taser. The story reported that the officer who left the helicopter was stopped by an electric fence (Turlock is a cow town) about 100 feet from the assailant. It is actually quite surprising that he managed to bring him down with one bullet.

Deputy Rob Latapie, 39, piloting a Sheriff's Department helicopter, spotlighted the scene and saw Aguiar kicking the child "like a soccer ball" and immediately made the decision to land in a cow pasture. Ramar, the flight tactical officer, jumped from the helicopter and ran about 20 yards, his duty weapon drawn, before reaching a set of barbed wire and electric fences. He commanded Aguiar to stop. Aguiar raised his middle finger and kicked the baby again. Ramar fired a single shot, killing Aguiar instantly, police said.

"I'm proud of my flight officer," Latapie said Monday.

"Making a shot like that, under those conditions, in a low-light, high-stress condition, is almost unheard of. There aren't a lot of people who can make a shot like that in daylight at that range."

EDIT: A different paper has now said the distance was near 10 feet. Whether this is a conflicting report or just a type error in my paper, I don't know. The fact remains that barbed wire and electric fences separated the cop from the assailant.

EDIT: A different paper has now said the distance was near 10 feet. Whether this is a conflicting report or just a type error in my paper, I don't know. The fact remains that barbed wire and electric fences separated the cop from the assailant.
well, tbh, the OP article did not state how far the flight officer was from the child-kicking bastard. It only said he ran 20 yards before encountering fences.

thus the quote
"Making a shot like that, under those conditions, in a low-light, high-stress condition, is almost unheard of. There aren't a lot of people who can make a shot like that in daylight at that range."
doesn't mention the distance, only that it was Low-light, high-stress and that a single shot was fired.

can you, however, link to the other article?

Firing a gun in that situation endangers everyone. It endangers the suspect, it endangers the victim and it endangers bystanders. A Taser has the EXACT requirements needed in this situation. It instantly prevents an action from continuing and endangers nobody. And it meets the polices goal of the encounter, to safely and instantly stop an illegal action and to arrest those guilty of comitting those actions. So other then a feel good, there i shot the bastard cowboy mentality what was gained by using a gun instead of a taser?

Police whip out tasers at the drop of a hat when people talk too loudly at speeches yet they couldnt be bothered to use that technology to stop an assult?

firing a weapon endangers the suspect? i sure hope so. and since we weren't there i can't speak for everyone else but i feel confident in guessing that both bystanders (who would get out of the way) and the victim (likely lying on the ground) wouldn't be in danger either.

i don't even know if he had a taser but as this was much more than assault i really don't feel confident in half measures with a deranged person such as that.

i also don't feel shooting someone who is in the process of committing a violent crime as "cowboy", if he was running out of a store carrying a stolen DVD player or something and was shot while fleeing then i'd agree but something like this? as far as i'm concerned the officer was completely justified in what he did. he warned the suspect to stop and he didn't so he acted.

No, not true. One hand sweep across to slap the hand away, and turn the momentum into a turning kick to the ribs.

All that you actually need to do is make sure the shot misses. Beyond that, a few lessons in how and where to strike will put you at an advantage, especially because the person with the gun is likely not expecting to face an opponent in hand to hand combat. Futhermore, most people will be distracted somewhat having just taken a solid kick to the floating ribs. Yes, it's risky, but it's not too tricky to teach.

And you haven't seen how quick and fluid someone can get at a motion like that with a little practice. Most martial arts teach them as a drill style. Start from a simple stance. Hand up and across, follow through with kick and khia (sp?). Done. You drill it, get it into muscle memory. I can still remember most of these from when I did Tae Kwon Do, and that was some time ago.

You can drill with firearms too. Still think the hand and kick is faster than a single squeeze of a trigger? It's physically impossible. The finger has to move a much shorter distance and thus will require less time.

If it was really so viable as anything but a last-resort, you'd have legions of unarmed brutes trained in disarming armed enemies. Hey, no ammunition cost. But it's not viable any more than Zulu warriors are. Guns > Hand.

A taser ends threats just as well and with far less risk. So if your concern is ending threats while managing risk, why SHOULDN'T have they used a taser instead?



Maybe they didn't have one. Most cops these days do, but maybe they didn't. And taser's aren't really easy to use and if they screw up and miss the kid gets even more beaten. They probably showed up figured we have to stop immediately or the kid's gonna die, so they shot him.
And about risk, whiles there is some small risk to the kid from a gunshot (a trained officer at close range likely wouldn't miss by 4 feet), the risk of a taser missing/failing and more pounding on the baby is even greater. Tasers aren't magical godsends that fix everything. Assuming they even had one. Typically several other officers stand by ready with greater force incase a taser doesn't work, which it sometimes doesn't. And when saving someones life, I wouldn't waste any time trying to save the killer. Saving the victim would be my priority.

But the reality is we don't know enough about the situation to pass judgment. However, I would praise the officers actions given the information at hand.

And for the guy talking about disarming a gunmen, have fun with that.
View Post
No, not true. One hand sweep across to slap the hand away, and turn the momentum into a turning kick to the ribs.
If i was a murderer with a gun, I wouldn't let you get close enough to do some ninja moves. You start charging me, bam, your dead. And while in some situations we may be close enough for some reason, you can't count on that every time.

You got love that the internet assassins got replaced by internet ninjas. Considering I can hit a stationary target easily at 45 feet, I'm quite certain that an unarmed person running straight at me is in more danger from than I am from them. I assure you you'd have to magically dodge 15 rounds. Good luck with that.

(Note: I don't carry a pistol, but I am more than qualified to use one.)

luk! it da majjik tazerz!

Range: 35 feet maximum for the latest model, 20-25 typical for law enforcement, 15 feet max for civilians.
Accuracy: iffy
Safety & nonlethality: debatable
Effectiveness: Good for recent versions, but older models were prone to failure if the target was wearing heavy clothing.

You got love that the internet assassins got replaced by internet ninjas. Considering I can hit a stationary target easily at 45 feet, I'm quite certain that an unarmed person running straight at me is in more danger from than I am from them. I assure you you'd have to magically dodge 15 rounds. Good luck with that.

Pity we aren't talking about those distances now, are we ;)

well, tbh, the OP article did not state how far the flight officer was from the child-kicking bastard. It only said he ran 20 yards before encountering fences.

True, but I read the article first in my local paper, and I thought it said 100 feet, so I wondered if maybe it was a typo and it was really 10 feet. I just found the article online, however, and it does not mention the distance, so maybe I just misread it and confused myself.

This article (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9609774?source=most_viewed), however, shows several diagrams of the incident. It appears the officer was somewhere between 10 and 20 feet away, but the actual distance is impossible to guess.

If it was really so viable as anything but a last-resort, you'd have legions of unarmed brutes trained in disarming armed enemies. Hey, no ammunition cost.

We do that, yes. Or did you seriously think the military only trains people to use weapons ?

But it's not viable any more than Zulu warriors are. Guns > Hand.

At a distance. Again: guns are NOT magic wands. They are merely an efficient weapon at medium range.

At a distance. Again: guns are NOT magic wands. They are merely an efficient weapon at medium range.

Yea, they get weaker the closer you get.

lololol

Yea, they get weaker the closer you get.

Less effective in a real combat situation is slightly more accurate ;)

Why do so many people need to desperately cling to the idea that a gun will protect them against everything and everyone in every situation btw ? Basic selfdefense tactics, which can be learned in a few lessons, are dismissed as "matrix-like ninja capabilities", while noone here seems to doubt they can draw faster than Lucky Luke and will fire at another human at point blank range surely and without hesitation.

Self delusion lowers your chances for survival. Learn how to use a gun for the circumstances where a gun is useful. Learn other combat tactics for other situations. Really, it is not that hard and also good for the bodyshape.

With a forlorn look on my face, I'd retreat to the Vescave and quick don my bullet proof leather cat suit. Raiding my armoury for assault rifles, submachine guns and golden dual pistols, I'd then jump into my helicopter gunship and fly to the scene. Jumping from an altitude of over three hundred feet I'd gun him down with a perfectly aimed barrage of rounds from my pistols before somersaulting and landing perfectly next to the child.

Who I'd then bring back to life by touching his/her chest.



Offline, of course, I don't really know. I doubt I'd be able to do anything about it even if I tried. I'm weak and feeble, and very squeamish about blood.

Pot smokers are clearly just as guilty as all baby-killing maniacs. Gateway drug man.

Totally.

When the most common and popular methods of crime prevention suddenly start looking like Gary Larson's Guide to Equestrian Medicine, that ought to be a clear and distinct warning sign.

You can drill with firearms too. Still think the hand and kick is faster than a single squeeze of a trigger? It's physically impossible. The finger has to move a much shorter distance and thus will require less time.

If it was really so viable as anything but a last-resort, you'd have legions of unarmed brutes trained in disarming armed enemies. Hey, no ammunition cost. But it's not viable any more than Zulu warriors are. Guns > Hand.

Oh, definitely. At any sort of range, the gun is easily better. Just point and shoot, after all. However, all I was doing was taking issue with the opinion that it required some kind of magic kung fu. There's not much skill involved --- you could teach it to someone quickly. Try to use it at anything longer than absolute point blank range, you're dead. Bad luck with the speed, you're dead. But it's more likely to get you somewhere than running if you're already at what is basically melee range.

I'm going to invoke an N+1th time here by asserting that the problem of range in Tasers will be overcome through investment and research into future models (given the support of the governments and police agencies of the world), and that whether or not the cop was within the range of current taser models right here and now is actually incidental to discussing how we could change how future events of this sort could be handled.

Which is not the topic of this thread, but hey.

Less effective in a real combat situation is slightly more accurate ;)

Why do so many people need to desperately cling to the idea that a gun will protect them against everything and everyone in every situation btw ? Basic selfdefense tactics, which can be learned in a few lessons, are dismissed as "matrix-like ninja capabilities", while noone here seems to doubt they can draw faster than Lucky Luke and will fire at another human at point blank range surely and without hesitation.

Self delusion lowers your chances for survival. Learn how to use a gun for the circumstances where a gun is useful. Learn other combat tactics for other situations. Really, it is not that hard and also good for the bodyshape.

The same problems involved in drawing a weapon exist with using your hands. As someone who has felt and heard a bone break, who has felt and heard someone choke, I'm quite certain that people balk when it comes to doing those as well.

It's utterly stupid to suggest it's easier for a person to defend themselves by hand than with a gun. And as far as distance, here everyone except the guy killing the baby could choose their distance and in that situation a gun would be favored (if you had no other choice). The fact is, this guy, in this situation, had NO CHANCE against a gun and I don't care what kind of ninja skills he had.