Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
-- On 27 Jul 2001, at 8:26, Ray Dillinger wrote: > > > This guy holding up the fire extinguisher two handed, on > > > the other hand, looks like he was intent on using it for a > > > battering ram -- to push in someone's face with it or > > > something. James A. Donald: > > There is a photograph of the fire extinguisher flying through > > the air at slightly above the level of the window of the > > police car. Looks to me as if it was intended to go through > > the rear window, but is in fact about to bounce off the upper > > edge of the rear window. I interpret this as a photograph of > > a previous throw from longer range, though one poster has > > claimed it reflects the fire extinguisher flying OUT of the > > police car. On 28 Jul 2001, at 14:02, Black Unicorn wrote: > Cite to the photo please? http://www.ballhausplatz.at/genua.htm --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG DQAI7wHPPTS3z1c83acoWE4SNB9/B7KNA/BH5R5 4HKiDZjqXDVtSBbRm7qA9d8apsdQoQ+TaTxxCYqCf
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Cite to the photo please? - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ray Dillinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 1:20 PM Subject: Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence > -- > On 27 Jul 2001, at 8:26, Ray Dillinger wrote: > > This guy holding up the fire extinguisher two handed, on the other > > hand, looks like he was intent on using it for a battering ram -- > > to push in someone's face with it or something. > > There is a photograph of the fire extinguisher flying through the air at slightly above the level of the window of the police car. Looks to me as if it was intended to go through the rear window, but is in fact about to bounce off the upper edge of the rear window. I interpret this as a > photograph of a previous throw from longer range, though one poster has claimed it reflects the fire extinguisher flying OUT of the police car. > > --digsig > James A. Donald > 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG > ckoZYS4R5Mj+swwHPvwEN/QzQK7HXXjSj5/ZFOp8 > 4TQIqT1Gm/H7HMvVY53JamctRbOyCOp5nNPtAQpdH >
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
-- On 27 Jul 2001, at 8:26, Ray Dillinger wrote: > This guy holding up the fire extinguisher two handed, on the other > hand, looks like he was intent on using it for a battering ram -- > to push in someone's face with it or something. There is a photograph of the fire extinguisher flying through the air at slightly above the level of the window of the police car. Looks to me as if it was intended to go through the rear window, but is in fact about to bounce off the upper edge of the rear window. I interpret this as a photograph of a previous throw from longer range, though one poster has claimed it reflects the fire extinguisher flying OUT of the police car. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG ckoZYS4R5Mj+swwHPvwEN/QzQK7HXXjSj5/ZFOp8 4TQIqT1Gm/H7HMvVY53JamctRbOyCOp5nNPtAQpdH
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
>On 24 Jul 2001, at 1:20, Petro wrote: > > And what is the primary responsibility of a soldier? Well, in > > Basic Training I was informed that my basic task was to seek > > out the enemy and destroy him. The primary, perhaps only, effective purpose of a military is to "break things and kill people." I seem to recall a book about the Marine Corp with a Fedex satire motto along the lines of "When it absolutely has to be destroyed overnight!" steve
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >-- > >The rear window had been smashed in when they whacked the cop with the four inch >steel pipe, or when they whacked the cop with the two by four timber. so there was no >problem with chucking it underhand and sideways. Plenty of room. One is naturally >inclined to chuck large heary objects in this >fashion, because it is difficult to sling them overhand. In order to sling it in >frontwards, he would have had to chuck it in one handed, and it was too heavy for >that. In order to chuck it, he needed both hands, and in order to chuck it with both >hands, he needed to chuck it sideways. > >You try chucking a great big fire extinguisher. Unless you are Arnold, you will >chuck it in the same fashion. I have two brothers. Early in their college career, one of them got drunk, and for the sheer hell of it started bowling overhand. The manager of the lanes at the student union was disinclined to try kicking him out personally, so he called my other brother to come get him out... This was possible because at that time all three of us had a lot of experience chucking large heavy objects (and the arms/shoulders to prove it) because we had been operating a firewood business to pay for tuition. If you can get a grip on a large, heavy object which is long (like a chunk of a log, or a fire extinguisher) You can often throw it further and harder one-handed and underhand than you can two-handed and sideways, because the swing gets the far end going a lot faster and that translates into a lot of power for the throw. You can also throw the sucker overhand, but you have to start by lifting it high in front of you, then swinging it down, turning sideways, bringing it up behind you, and releasing it over your head - as my brother discovered he could do with bowling balls. This guy holding up the fire extinguisher two handed, on the other hand, looks like he was intent on using it for a battering ram -- to push in someone's face with it or something. He didn't have room for the big underhand swing, nor the full-circle followed by overhand release, nor even really for the sideways chuck. One thing that his arms and posture suggest to me is that it's actually lighter than you've been guessing -- if it were heavy I'd expect to see a little more tension. Perhaps it was already discharged, thus only about 5-7 pounds? Bear
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Over here in Europe, the Carabinieri are still big news. People aren't so much focussing on the dead man (maybe because it does look like self-defence) but on what the apparent revenge taken by the police and/or carabinieri on others after the main business was over. The IMC is getting the most attention. There are supposed eye-witness reports from people associated with various Christian and Green organisations, who claim they were no-where near the violence, in fact avoided the streets because of the violence, yet were picked on by the cops afterwards. BBC account: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1459000/1459466.stm There has been a radio interview, broadcast a number of times, with a man who claims that the cops lined up to take kicks at him as he lay on the floor. Very effective, as he breaks down and cries part way through as he says he was convinced he was going to die. Says he blacked out, and woke up again, only to be kicked in the head again. Is still in hospital with a punctured lung amongst other things. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1458000/1458347.stm) These guys are not young thugs out for a fight, most of them are thirties, some older, and they are mostly well-educated people with jobs. In other words they probably have friends who are lawyers and journalists (well, some of them are journalists themselves). So they probably know how to make a fuss that their own governments will notice. Whether or not the Italian government will pay any attention is another matter (Although the city government in Genova itself seems to now be objecting to what went on). There are also rumours (maybe no more than that - http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,7369,528210,00.html)) about collaboration between police, right-wing organisations, and the Italian government. If you believe all this then there seems to have been an element of Italian military who took the opportunity to put the frighteners on just about anyone they didn't like - Greens, pacifists, trade unions, socialists, whatever. Berlusconi is a famously dubious piece of work - friends with fascists (real ones, not just the ordinary authoritarian conservatives that lefties like me love to call "fascists" as an insult); and he has an egregious monopoly on Italian broadcasting. How independent are "private" TV stations and newspapers when the guy who runs them is also the man in charge of the government? Big government (and big business, which is always in bed with big government and often has more in common with big government than it does with small business) need protests to keep them awake. Without protest they become managerial, think they can make decisions for everyone else and just get away with it. At best they like to "consult", in other words, they call a meeting, send some minor bureaucrats to take minutes, let the people say what they want, then do what they were going to do anyway. The protest, the demonstration, if necessary the riot, is the other side of the democratic coin. If the people just take orders, then the government will carry on just giving orders. Of course in Italy nowadays big government and big business are the same people. Ken While we're at it, http://www.lanterna.provincia.genova.it/eng/realizzazione/index.htm is a webcam on a lighthouse at the entrance to the harbour at Genova, just in case you fancy some Mediterranean sunshine :-)
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
At 11:35 PM -0700 7/26/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >-- >On 24 Jul 2001, at 1:20, Petro wrote: >> And what is the primary responsibility of a soldier? Well, in >> Basic Training I was informed that my basic task was to seek >> out the enemy and destroy him. >> >> Whch is why using Soldiers in peace keeping missions is a >> really, really boneheaded move. > >But not however as bone headed as throwing a fire extinguisher at a soldier, missing, >then picking up the fire extinguisher to have another go just after one guy has >whacked the soldier with a two by four, and another has whacked him with a four inch >steel pipe. You'll find no disagreement from me on that.
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
-- > In addition the fact that a previous protestor had put a board through the > window only goes to demonstrate the high level of emotional disruption > these officers were exposed to. Panicking is not justification for making > a wrong decision. > > Deadly force was not in any way justified. A well armed cop had just been slammed twice by a two by four and once by a four inch steel pipe. A protester was about to hurl a fire extinguisher at him. He shot the guy Justified or not, would not you have done the same? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG DwNy9Z3xWH7jI3ImfeUlX3wCsnPfQLmLguxcpDQl 4iR1ONYmJc10dQINKL0u1En/dpYJkbOFxzZY9pANT
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
-- On 24 Jul 2001, at 0:14, Andrew Woods wrote: > If you look at the Reuters image of Carlo holding the fire extinguisher, > he's holding it below head-level. In my opinion, that leaves three options: > Carlo was going to chuck the extinguisher underhand (and sideways to the > vehicle, so it would've bounced off) at a low velocity The rear window had been smashed in when they whacked the cop with the four inch steel pipe, or when they whacked the cop with the two by four timber. so there was no problem with chucking it underhand and sideways. Plenty of room. One is naturally inclined to chuck large heary objects in this fashion, because it is difficult to sling them overhand. In order to sling it in frontwards, he would have had to chuck it in one handed, and it was too heavy for that. In order to chuck it, he needed both hands, and in order to chuck it with both hands, he needed to chuck it sideways. You try chucking a great big fire extinguisher. Unless you are Arnold, you will chuck it in the same fashion. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG TrErF0pXmwrM9VpPj44NvC5XyHEaFb8NY20PqtIO 4NZ8BtIOAhWgajGsJGnMuLUi9Wlme6GjBMRTJfIya
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
-- On 24 Jul 2001, at 1:20, Petro wrote: > And what is the primary responsibility of a soldier? Well, in > Basic Training I was informed that my basic task was to seek > out the enemy and destroy him. > > Whch is why using Soldiers in peace keeping missions is a > really, really boneheaded move. But not however as bone headed as throwing a fire extinguisher at a soldier, missing, then picking up the fire extinguisher to have another go just after one guy has whacked the soldier with a two by four, and another has whacked him with a four inch steel pipe. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 9WO/DF4M7KEFuERCw12la6FrYdJn2JC2eH8zHWgG 4dgHHLJm6v5oLAnpniC37IYnynq9xpNZvRc4pvJfD
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
the newchotian philosophy: reductio ad absurdum. phillip > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Choate > Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 5:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self > defence > > > > > Spirit, Blood, and Treasure > The American cost of battle in the 21st century > D. Vandegriff, ed. > ISBN 0-89141-735-4 > > "Minimal Force: The mark of a skilled warrior" > John Poole > pp. 107 > > The particular principle that is behind it is called, > > 'principium inculpatae tutelae' > > > -- > > > Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: > God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. > > B.A. Behrend > >The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate >Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] >www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 >-~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > >
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Yes I saw that pic too... Again we can't assume anything other than what we see in the pics But even below head level it can be thrown fairly hard like a medicine ball Or it could have been lifted over his head after the picture was taken... Or someone could even argue they thought it might be rigged explode... Etc... I still stand by my belief that the Police felt threatened and were justified. Again basing all this on the little info we all have Jon Beets Pacer Communications - Original Message - From: "Andrew Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jon Beets" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 3:14 AM Subject: Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence > If you look at the Reuters image of Carlo holding the fire extinguisher, > he's holding it below head-level. In my opinion, that leaves three options: > Carlo was going to chuck the extinguisher underhand (and sideways to the > vehicle, so it would've bounced off) at a low velocity, or Carlo was > holding the fire extinguisher out in front of him as DEFENSE, or he was > merely holding a fire extinguisher. It's not clear how much time elapsed > between the picture of Carlo alive, and the next image, which is him lying > on the ground with his brains all over the ground. However, the gun is can > be seen and it's pointed at his head, so I assume it wasn't very long. > There's an image of Carlo under the land rover, with the cop who shot him > covering or wiping his face. Neither man in the jeep were wearing gas masks > with face shields, but every other carabinieri member seen in the series is > wearing them. > The other thing that may not have been mentioned is that there were > Carabinieri within 30 feet of the land rover, and that Carlo was in the > Green Zone, supposedly the safe area for protests. There are pictures of > about 10 fellow members of law enforcement a short distance away, including > one with both hands on his forehead area. He appears anguished. > There's an image of Carlo under the land rover, with the cop who shot him > covering or wiping his face. > there's a PDF on indymedia.org with the pictures i'm talking about at > http://italia.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/carlo-photofile.pdf. Most > of this analysis is paraphrased from the pdf, but it seems reasonable. > this may be a repeat of the powerpoint presentation post, but it's more > cross-platform. > > At 05:35 PM Monday 07/23/2001, you wrote: > >Uhhh yes it will go through the safety glass.. Look at the pics.. One person > >had already put piece of lumber through it.. That was about a 15lb > >extinguisher... From what I can tell from the photos the protester DID > >intend harm to the police. Of course none of us were there so its really > >hard to know the truth.. > > > >Jon Beets > >Pacer Communications > > > >- Original Message - > >From: "Jim Choate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:18 PM > >Subject: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence > > > > > > > > > > Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution probable > > > cause for lethal force in self-defence? > > > > > > No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass. > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: > > > God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. > > > > > > B.A. Behrend > > > > > >The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate > > >Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > > >-~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > > > > > - > Andrew Woods > Pokerspot.com Customer Support
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Spirit, Blood, and Treasure The American cost of battle in the 21st century D. Vandegriff, ed. ISBN 0-89141-735-4 "Minimal Force: The mark of a skilled warrior" John Poole pp. 107 The particular principle that is behind it is called, 'principium inculpatae tutelae' -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > Not-a-lawyer wrote: [...] > > We're not talking about > > 'self-defence' here... > > No, we're talking 'self-defense', this is the US, not the UK. Actually Sandy, it was Italy. I haven't got the faintest ideas what the laws on self-defence are in Italy. And I'm bloody-well sure Jim doesn't either. Whay are you arguing with himn? We saw long ago that, for reasons he may well understand but most of us don't, Jim will never admit that there may be a factual mistake in anything he writes. He always tries to redefine terms, bring up irrelevancies, alter emphases, to make something that looks factually wrong seem as if it might just about have been true in context. If Jim writes 20 things down, 19 of which are true and someone objects to the 1 that is false, any following thread turns into a ducking and weaving semantic flamewar about the one false statement. So a discussion about whether the Italian police were right to shoot someone in Genova turns into an argument about the momentum of model rockets - all because Jim can't bring himself to say something like: "I don't know, I wasn't there, I guess if the police account of what happened is true then they might have been in fear of their lives, so maybe we can't blame them for shooting. On the other hand, maybe the news accounts are faked or exagerated and they were just picking on the guy. I can't tell, I wasn't there and I haven't talked to anyone who was." But the words "I don't know" seem hard for some people to write down :-( Ken Brown (who doesn't know why he is joining the argument, when he has work to do)
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 08:47:19AM -0700, > Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > It is educational (and it amuses me) > > to draw him out into parading his > > ignorance and intransigence for all > > to see. Of course, he won't admit he is > > Educational? Only in the study > of aberrant thinking. I disagree. I think by ignore Jimbo's intellectual dishonesty and poor reasoning skills, to some extents gives the appearance of some validity. Only by calling him on his sloppy thinking can we remove the petina of plausibility. > I confess I've baited Choate more > than I care to remember, but I'm > not sure going out of your way to > taunt him is particularly > educational or worthwhile. Okay. We disagree on this subject. I can live with that. :-D S a n d y
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 08:47:19AM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > It is educational (and it amuses me) to draw him out into parading his > ignorance and intransigence for all to see. Of course, he won't admit he is Educational? Only in the study of aberrant thinking. I confess I've baited Choate more than I care to remember, but I'm not sure going out of your way to taunt him is particularly educational or worthwhile. Someone wrote to me yesterday with this note: "poor guy, i dont think he knows how to handle all the attention...and i think he will just ignore you guys and let it passby and continue being himself. too bad, it would in fact be fun to have cpunx mail reduced by that much." -Decan
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
If you look at the Reuters image of Carlo holding the fire extinguisher, he's holding it below head-level. In my opinion, that leaves three options: Carlo was going to chuck the extinguisher underhand (and sideways to the vehicle, so it would've bounced off) at a low velocity, or Carlo was holding the fire extinguisher out in front of him as DEFENSE, or he was merely holding a fire extinguisher. It's not clear how much time elapsed between the picture of Carlo alive, and the next image, which is him lying on the ground with his brains all over the ground. However, the gun is can be seen and it's pointed at his head, so I assume it wasn't very long. There's an image of Carlo under the land rover, with the cop who shot him covering or wiping his face. Neither man in the jeep were wearing gas masks with face shields, but every other carabinieri member seen in the series is wearing them. The other thing that may not have been mentioned is that there were Carabinieri within 30 feet of the land rover, and that Carlo was in the Green Zone, supposedly the safe area for protests. There are pictures of about 10 fellow members of law enforcement a short distance away, including one with both hands on his forehead area. He appears anguished. There's an image of Carlo under the land rover, with the cop who shot him covering or wiping his face. there's a PDF on indymedia.org with the pictures i'm talking about at http://italia.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/carlo-photofile.pdf. Most of this analysis is paraphrased from the pdf, but it seems reasonable. this may be a repeat of the powerpoint presentation post, but it's more cross-platform. At 05:35 PM Monday 07/23/2001, you wrote: >Uhhh yes it will go through the safety glass.. Look at the pics.. One person >had already put piece of lumber through it.. That was about a 15lb >extinguisher... From what I can tell from the photos the protester DID >intend harm to the police. Of course none of us were there so its really >hard to know the truth.. > >Jon Beets >Pacer Communications > >- Original Message - >From: "Jim Choate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:18 PM >Subject: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence > > > > > > Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution probable > > cause for lethal force in self-defence? > > > > No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass. > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: > > God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. > > > > B.A. Behrend > > > >The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate > >Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 > >-~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- > > - Andrew Woods Pokerspot.com Customer Support
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
C'punks, Notice how reverently Inchoate argues the minutia of the "extinguisher" topic? The reason is obvious. That argument boils down to disputed facts and personal opinion. It's a lot more comfortable than confronting the objective LSAT challenge. Funny, how he can argue the relative impact of rockets and fire extinguishers ad nauseam, but is so uncharacteristically silent about the HUNDREDS of dollars he has been offered to show some nominal degree of verbal reasoning ability on an objective test. Gee, I'd have thought he would have jumped at the chance to humiliate his tormentors by acing that puppy. Well, I guess we all know why he won't take--or even really discuss--this true test of his thinking ability. S a n d y > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Jim Choate > Sent: 23 July, 2001 21:12 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self > defence > > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Matt Beland wrote: > > > A "D based rocket" is no great amount of force. If it was light > enough to go > > as fast as you say, then it wouldn't go through plate glass, > much less a > > windshield. > > 20 N-s for a D. Figure a rocket that weighs about a pound. It's about > .2s after launch (it was launched horizontaly and about 30 ft. away). > > > -- > > > Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: > God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. > > B.A. Behrend > >The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate >Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] >www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 >-~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- >
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 09:21:59PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > NATO says it takes a transfer of approx. 85 Joules to kill. 1. It all depends on where and how it's applied. Give me a scalpel and I suspect I can kill you with far less than 85 Joules. 2. Even if we dismiss point #1 above and assume for the same of argument death was impossible, serious injury, blinding, etc. was possible. And use of deadly force seems appropriate in cases where you have a reasonable belief that you're about to be seriously injured, even crippled. Although Choate does make one point, and that's the guy getting run over once or twice. Once I can understand -- the police vehicle seems like it's up against a wall in the front. Twice seems unusual and worth an explanation. -Declan
A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution probable cause for lethal force in self-defence? No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
- Original Message - From: "Jim Choate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:58 PM Subject: RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > > > Oh really? Try that experiment on your own car. > > Actually I've seen windows break (and broken my fair share) on cars > multiple times. Some from wrecks, some from gunshot (a .38 will bounce off > a windshield for example) some from other things. I even once had a D > based rocket fired directly into the windshield of a 68 Cougar, it was > much larger and going a hell of a lot faster than a fire exstinguisher. > It didn't go through the window. Didn't even break it. There are two types of windows on most American cars... The first is the front windshield.. It has a film in it that keeps it generally in one piece unless enough force is put through it. As a firefighter we like this windshield since it is easily removed with a sharp knife around the seal (its gotta be removed before you can remove the top of the car). The side windows are another matter, they are made to shatter so that there are no large shards that may seriously injure someone... A model rocket does not really count as a good test on the strength of the window since most model rockets do not have the weight needed to damage much anything even with a D engine.. A .38 will bounce off water if shot at the right angle.. However it will not bounce off a windows, at any fair distance, if shot perpendicular to the winshield... All that aside you are assuming that the Italian vehicles have the same type glass we do in our American cars.. > > Side windows shatter into a thousand pieces at the touch of a center punch. > > A fire extinguisher is decidedly overkill for the job. > > A center puch (which focuses the force into a small area) isn't a fire > extstinguisher. And windows are DESIGNED to break into a thousand little > pieces, it absorbs the force of the impact. That way you don't get the > sorts of car accident results that were so common in the country up > through the 60's when the safety() glass was put in all cars > (admittedly Genoa isn't in the US). Things like no heads, amputated arms, > chopped off noses and ears, etc. No that was not why safety glass was put in cars.. It was put in cars stop flying glass http://www.howstuffworks.com/question508.htm > > You should dig up some of the old safety crash films from that time and > compare them to what happens today. I have probably seen all of the most popular ones.. I also have some videos of emeregencies that I actually responded too. > > In any event, the test--at least in the US--for the use of deadly force > > includes the concepts of reasonable fear of death OR GREAT BODILY INJURY. > > A fire extinguisher stuck in a window does none of the above. > > > Believe it or not, being blinded by a swarm of glass shards is considered > > great bodily injury. > > I doubt seriously anyone would be blinded (and I'm blind in one eye from > being struck with a 2x4 so I can speak from 1st person, yes it's great > bodily injury. It's not justification for lethal force). How did the police really know it was a fire extinguisher.. It could have been a bomb for all they knew.. However I can tell you this.. If someone was coming at me with a 15lb metal object with the intent to hurl it at my head and I had a gun in my hand I would not hesitate to shoot with intent to kill... These people went from being protestors to being criminals by their own actions. Jon Beets Pacer Communications
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
At 9:21 PM -0500 7/23/01, Jim Choate wrote: >While it's true the hole would have reduced the cushion impact of breaking >the glass it would not have eliminated it. > >NATO says it takes a transfer of approx. 85 Joules to kill. That's ridiculous. There are far too many variables involved in delivering a fatal wound for anyone to be able to reduce it to a single number. 85 Joules delivered where and how? That seems to come to about 62-63 foot pounds, about the muzzle energy of a .22 long rifle out of a 2 inch barrel (65 pounds) and more than the energy of a .32 short-colt (54 pounds). I would say that neither is adequate to reliably do the job, nor is either "sub-lethal". > >Figure out the velocity that takes for 15 lbs.. Compare to the velocity >possible in this incidence. Assuming that the protestor can achieve 20 FPS with a 15 pound weight, he's generating 93+ foot pounds at terminus. That's 13 miles per hour. I'd bet he could get closer to 25-30 miles an hour which would be over 300 foot pounds, which puts it around the energy delivered by a 9mm Parabellum. Check my math, I'm not good at it. Now, as I indicated above, just because there is adequate energy to do the job if well placed, doesn't mean there's enough to do the job if it falls on your foot. As well, it may be nominally inadequate, but still be lethal if delivered *just* right. The .22LR has killed a lot of people, and I'd bet the .32 short has done one or two. >In addition the fact that a previous protestor had put a board through the >window only goes to demonstrate the high level of emotional disruption >these officers were exposed to. Panicking is not justification for making >a wrong decision. Huh? When one is in a panic state, one by definition is not thinking clearly, otherwise one would not be panicking. > >Deadly force was not in any way justified. It most certainly was.
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Not-a-lawyer wrote: > Sorry, no backpedaling here... > I stand behind my previous > statements on this topic. Good idea. If you were to stand in front of it, you'd probably lose the other eye. > We're not talking about > 'self-defence' here... No, we're talking 'self-defense', this is the US, not the UK. > ...we're talking 'deadly force'. > Not 1-to-1. Nice strawman though. Jimbo, you ignorant slut, do you even know what a "straw man" argument is? DEADLY FORCE may be used in SELF-DEFENSE when one is in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. That's black-letter law. (There are some refinements, such as "to oneself or another," but they are not germane to the instant hypothetical of someone trying to bash you with a fire extinguisher through your car window.) > Couldn't pay me to be a lawyer. Don't know about 'couldn't, but I certainly wouldn't. Your verbal reasoning skills suck. > I do know what sort of law I want > my country to have and... "...don't confuse me with the fact"? > I've really got better things to > do with my time than some silly > elementary school bully schtick > you're emotionally attached to. Yeah, we can see that by the quantity and quality of your posts. God, what a chicken shit way to turn tail. You've got all kinds of monetary offers to take the LSAT and you wimp out. > If you'll pay the bill and > somebody can identify the weight > of the extinguisher and the model > of the car... Cluck, cluck, cluck. The victim in the car doesn't get to know what sort of extinguisher the rioter will use. After take a long paragraph to blame the victim Jimbo asserts: > A broken arm or hand is not 'great > bodily harm' by any definition > (except a self-serving one perhaps). Actually, it would fall under the definition of "great bodily harm," whether you think so or not. This is not a self-serving definition, you idiot, just a legal one that you happen to disagree with. > Amateurs with no experience around > those sorts of environments really > should keep their mouths shut about > how that stuff works. Yup Jimbo, you're right about that. > No, the cops panicked... You really should become a lawyer or even a judge. You seem to already have figured this one out by ESP or something. Wow, I'm fucking impressed with your legal acumen. > And then there is the point that > at no time is the police officer > relieved of their sworn duty to > protect the citizens, including > the rioters. Is THAT what cops swear to? I'd like to see a citation on that piece of bullshit. There is established case law in the US that says the police have no specific duty to protect anyone. > Self-defence is NOT a sufficient > release (there is a term for this > policy but it escapes me, I know > where to find it though and I'll > share it tomorrow). How convenient. Now don't you forget to "share" that with us tomorrow Little Jimmie. > This is a perfect example of why > the standard police psych > requirement of 'likes to be in > charge'... Did you pull that out of your ass or someone else's? > A police officers primary > responsiblity is not to save > their own life but to spend > it to save another. This guy is a laugh riot. Where does he dig this stuff up? What a moron. S a n d y
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > Oh really? Try that experiment on your own car. Actually I've seen windows break (and broken my fair share) on cars multiple times. Some from wrecks, some from gunshot (a .38 will bounce off a windshield for example) some from other things. I even once had a D based rocket fired directly into the windshield of a 68 Cougar, it was much larger and going a hell of a lot faster than a fire exstinguisher. It didn't go through the window. Didn't even break it. > Side windows shatter into a thousand pieces at the touch of a center punch. > A fire extinguisher is decidedly overkill for the job. A center puch (which focuses the force into a small area) isn't a fire extstinguisher. And windows are DESIGNED to break into a thousand little pieces, it absorbs the force of the impact. That way you don't get the sorts of car accident results that were so common in the country up through the 60's when the safety() glass was put in all cars (admittedly Genoa isn't in the US). Things like no heads, amputated arms, chopped off noses and ears, etc. You should dig up some of the old safety crash films from that time and compare them to what happens today. > In any event, the test--at least in the US--for the use of deadly force > includes the concepts of reasonable fear of death OR GREAT BODILY INJURY. A fire extinguisher stuck in a window does none of the above. > Believe it or not, being blinded by a swarm of glass shards is considered > great bodily injury. I doubt seriously anyone would be blinded (and I'm blind in one eye from being struck with a 2x4 so I can speak from 1st person, yes it's great bodily injury. It's not justification for lethal force). -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Wannabe lawyer Jimbo wrote: > Does throwing a fire extenguisher > at a auto window constitution [sic] > probable cause for lethal force in > self-defence? > > No. Because the fire extenguisher > won't go through the safety glass. Oh really? Try that experiment on your own car. Side windows shatter into a thousand pieces at the touch of a center punch. A fire extinguisher is decidedly overkill for the job. In any event, the test--at least in the US--for the use of deadly force includes the concepts of reasonable fear of death OR GREAT BODILY INJURY. Believe it or not, being blinded by a swarm of glass shards is considered great bodily injury. Please, Jimbo, take the LSAT so we can see how much smarter you are than your posts otherwise indicate. S a n d y P.S. Any Austin Cypherpunks have a fire extinguisher and know where Inchoate parks his car?
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
At 7:18 PM -0700 7/23/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >Not-a-lawyer wrote: > >> No, the cops panicked... > >You really should become a lawyer or even a judge. You seem to already have >figured this one out by ESP or something. Wow, I'm fucking impressed with >your legal acumen. > >> And then there is the point that >> at no time is the police officer >> relieved of their sworn duty to >> protect the citizens, including >> the rioters. > >Is THAT what cops swear to? I'd like to see a citation on that piece of >bullshit. There is established case law in the US that says the police have >no specific duty to protect anyone. The kid who fired was not a Cop. He was (near as I understand) the rough equivalent of a National Guardsman. >> Self-defence is NOT a sufficient >> release (there is a term for this >> policy but it escapes me, I know >> where to find it though and I'll >> share it tomorrow). > >How convenient. Now don't you forget to "share" that with us tomorrow >Little Jimmie. > >> This is a perfect example of why >> the standard police psych >> requirement of 'likes to be in >> charge'... > >Did you pull that out of your ass or someone else's? > >> A police officers primary >> responsiblity is not to save >> their own life but to spend >> it to save another. No Jim, the primary responsibility of a Police Officer is to enforce the law, which really isn't relevant in this case, since the shooter apparently wasn't a cop. He was a soldier. And what is the primary responsibility of a soldier? Well, in Basic Training I was informed that my basic task was to seek out the enemy and destroy him. Which is why using Soldiers in peace keeping missions is a really, really boneheaded move. >This guy is a laugh riot. Where does he dig this stuff up? What a moron. Tim calls it "Choatien Prime".
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
- Original Message - From: "Declan McCullagh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jim Choate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 10:39 PM Subject: Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence > On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 09:21:59PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > NATO says it takes a transfer of approx. 85 Joules to kill. > > 1. It all depends on where and how it's applied. Give me a scalpel > and I suspect I can kill you with far less than 85 Joules. > > 2. Even if we dismiss point #1 above and assume for the same of > argument death was impossible, serious injury, blinding, etc. was > possible. And use of deadly force seems appropriate in cases where > you have a reasonable belief that you're about to be seriously > injured, even crippled. > > Although Choate does make one point, and that's the guy getting run > over once or twice. Once I can understand -- the police vehicle > seems like it's up against a wall in the front. Twice seems unusual > and worth an explanation. > > -Declan Absolutely.. People make mistakes... People also do things on purpose.. I am just not the kind of person that automatically assumes someone does anything on purpose... I have been in alot of intense situations in my career as a firefighter in the Air Force and I can honestly say people will do the most stupid things you would have ever imagined in intense situations. I would be interested to find out what the investigation turns up after this.. Jon Beets Pacer Communications
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
At 8:35 PM -0500 7/23/01, Jon Beets wrote: >Uhhh yes it will go through the safety glass.. Look at the pics.. One person >had already put piece of lumber through it.. That was about a 15lb >extinguisher... From what I can tell from the photos the protester DID >intend harm to the police. Of course none of us were there so its really >hard to know the truth.. >- Original Message - >From: "Jim Choate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:18 PM >Subject: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence > > >> >> Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution probable >> cause for lethal force in self-defence? >> >> No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass. First, "safety glass" is said to be "safety" because it tends to hold together instead of shattering into shards. It's not Lexan. Second, anyone who has spent time in a wrecking yard knows things go through safety glass all the time. Third, those of us who are old enough remember that Jayne Mansfield's head went right through the safety glass. Fourth, disputing Choate about the physics of safety glass is as pointless as arguing with him over Gauss's Theorem, prime numbers, the First Amendment, the history of Europe, law, or anything else he has his peculiarly indisyncratic views about. Fifth, if someone is trying to throw a fire extinguisher through either my front window or my side windows, I'm going to defend myself. I expect no less from the carabinieri. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote: > Third, those of us who are old enough remember that Jayne Mansfield's > head went right through the safety glass. They didn't have safety glass in the 50's. Those sort of accidents that got worse into the 60's are the reason they put safety glass in cars. Back in those old days it was 'tempered' which means heat treated to be hard, not shock resistant. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Matt Beland wrote: > A "D based rocket" is no great amount of force. If it was light enough to go > as fast as you say, then it wouldn't go through plate glass, much less a > windshield. 20 N-s for a D. Figure a rocket that weighs about a pound. It's about .2s after launch (it was launched horizontaly and about 30 ft. away). -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Reese wrote: > Don't mind the propaganda at the bottom of the images, just look at the > pictures and draw your own conclusions. The shooting occurred at the > back of the vehicle, where not even US vehicles have safety glass (and > the window was already broken out). Wrong, my Bronco has safety glass all around. So did my Mustang GT. My 86 Isuzu Pup also has safety glass all around. -- Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
