Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mika on December 07, 2011, 11:14:13 am
-
Ahahahhaha!
I happened to come across one of the funniest links in recent days, 10 truly ridiculous crimes (http://listverse.com/2010/07/16/10-truly-ridiculous-criminal-acts/)
Suicide bomber watching **** for the first time in a theater forgetting that he already set the timer is something, but the funniest thing is that two guys have actually tried to mug Chuck Norris with knives. That's right, THE Chuck Norris. The description of events after the arrival of the police force is rather hilarious...
-
mugging Chuck Norris?
no you don't.
-
You don't **** with chuck.
-
The bone head that tired to karate chop his way through a pride of lions takes the cake for me.
-
The bulkhead dent was hammered out and repainted.
HAHA
Oh Somali Pirates...
As for Chuck Norris, even more hilarious.
-
The whole Somali pirate thing does show impressive restraint, considering someone might actually have been injured by the RPG attack... they are probably lucky they weren't just blown away. I'm guessing a combo of 1) too much paperwork to bother doing that and 2) the training the US military does for appropriate level of force in response to a threat, considering it's almost like a 7-year old running up and kicking a martial arts student... not exactly a 'fair' fight... although, they did ask for it, and they could have done mortal harm to US forces, so I'd say they're still lucky, probably more #1 than #2, at least for the three on the skiff.
-
The whole Somali pirate thing does show impressive restraint, considering someone might actually have been injured by the RPG attack... they are probably lucky they weren't just blown away. I'm guessing a combo of 1) too much paperwork to bother doing that and 2) the training the US military does for appropriate level of force in response to a threat, considering it's almost like a 7-year old running up and kicking a martial arts student... not exactly a 'fair' fight... although, they did ask for it, and they could have done mortal harm to US forces, so I'd say they're still lucky, probably more #1 than #2, at least for the three on the skiff.
They probably gave up before the Navy could figure out a solution that was cost effective for getting rid of them.
-
Yeah, those silkworms are kinda expensive, and the torpedoes ain't cheap, either.. 7,500 20-mil rouns a min gets expensive too. 50-cal shouldn't have been too expensive, though... :drevil:
-
The whole Somali pirate thing does show impressive restraint
The thing that impresses me is that the Sea Whiz not only successfully engaged the RPGs with little or no warning, but took down three out of four of them. They're not the sort of targets it was designed for.
-
How did an RPG just "dent" it?
-
Dude. Warships are made out of tough stuff. RPGs are kind of old-fashioned and aren't very effective against modern tank (and apparently ship) armor. They're used more against trucks and "soft" vehicles like that. To blow holes in ships now, we use stuff like torpedoes and anti-ship missiles. Check out the sizes of those versus the size of an RPG.
-
How did an RPG just "dent" it?
It could have failed to go off. The RPG-7 is an old design, and despite its wide production and the fact multiple companies around the world are still making new ones, those that see use in the third world could be as much as fifty years old and are rarely stored in ideal conditions. (The first operational models were delivered in 1961.) Equally, while the RPG-7 is designed to get wet, it's not designed to deal with salt water, and anyone who's spent time aboard a ship can tell you salt water is shockingly corrosive stuff.
It may have been an HE/Frag round (the reusable nature of the RPG-7 and its use as a squad support weapon means it has HE/Frag and Thermobaric rounds available), in which case the quality of steel used in warship construction would have giggled at it. The USN still makes ships out of light-armor quality steels.
And lastly, the Sea Whiz could have clipped it or its shots passed so close to the rocket in flight as to cause it to tumble so it struck the ship with the side of the projectile or even the back; if a HEAT round does not go off facing the object it is intended to penetrate, it is useless.
-
also its possible the projectile was a dud, its not like people in 3rd world countries have access to first rate ammo. its even possible they were sold training round with no warhead at all.
-
The whole Somali pirate thing does show impressive restraint
The thing that impresses me is that the Sea Whiz not only successfully engaged the RPGs with little or no warning, but took down three out of four of them. They're not the sort of targets it was designed for.
(http://i40.tinypic.com/14l7gjn.png)
-
The whole Somali pirate thing does show impressive restraint
The thing that impresses me is that the Sea Whiz not only successfully engaged the RPGs with little or no warning, but took down three out of four of them. They're not the sort of targets it was designed for.
(http://i40.tinypic.com/14l7gjn.png)
:wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka:
point defense is what it does!
-
(http://i40.tinypic.com/14l7gjn.png)
If this forum had plusrep, you'd get all of mine for the next few weeks. :P
-
(http://i40.tinypic.com/14l7gjn.png)
i don't know if it's my sleep-deprived delerium or it really WAS that funny, but i just cried laughing for a good 3 minutes.
-
RPGs are not a thing to laugh at... Pretty much every currently used APC/IFV can be taken out even with old RPG-7 while more modern versions are not named 'MBT LAW' without a fairly valid reason... Just because untrained religious fanatics using 50 year old RPGs can not take out modern tank with them does not mean RPGs would have been outdated.
As for armor, it would have required something close to old battleship armor to actually stop even old RPG-7 from penetrating had it been using the HEAT warhead (which penetrates, depending from model, around 25 to 75 cm of steel). Though getting a single neatly drilled hole into the ships side well above waterline would have hardly changed anything.
-
if anything im wanking to the capabilities of our point defense systems :D
also gatling guns <3 best thing since nukes
-
What were they thinking? Attacking a military frigate, indeed one of the dumbest things a pirate could do. That's not 16th century, and even then, only pirate lords like Henry Morgan could ever think of attacking military vessels. Seems like they watched too much "Pirates of the Caribbean". :) Phalanx CIWS wasn't designed for such small targets, but it did a formidable job anyway. And while RPG-7 is capable of damaging modern tanks and APCs, these are mostly "mission kills" (thread damage, in most cases) or crew injuries. Only PG-7VR (tandem warhead) is capable of dealing damage to modern armor, and these warheads are less than common. They most likely used OG-7V warheads (frags) or PG-7V (outdated HEAT variant). I guess that it was the latter, considering that there was a small dent (I doubt frag would get through a bulkhead).
-
And in other news, barely educated pirates from a third world hellhole are not versed in the proper use and training of military hardware. Additionally, I'm getting reports from the field that they may be ignorant of the latest advances in US warship technology.
More at 11.
-
And in other news, barely educated pirates from a third world hellhole are not versed in the proper use and training of military hardware. Additionally, I'm getting reports from the field that they may be ignorant of the latest advances in US warship technology.
More at 11.
Since when do you need to be educated to know that attacking a warship with nothing more than a couple rifles and grenades is a terrible idea?
-
Apparently since these Somali pirates tried it?
-
I guess that they got used to big commercial vessels and thought a military frigate to be just another odd looking freighter (somehow failing to notice the cannons, MGs and a freakin' CIWS...). They couldn't have been so stupid to attack a frigate knowing what it really is, right? Anyway, they got exactly what they deserved. :)
At least the guys who tried to mug Chuck Norris had a slightly plausible excuse. It can really be hard to believe he can be so badass in real life, though checking it like that is still a height of stupidity. :)
-
I like how well chuck kicked their asses. Not just broken bones, but bones that protruded from the skin. Chuck was quite serious in showing that his combat skills are all too real.
-
The sad thing is, if that happened today, he'd probably get sued by the guys whose asses he kicked. Then again, any Texas judge would laugh it right out of court.
-
But... they were in the act of threatening his life with knives. :wtf: Suing for injuries sustained while burgling someone's house I can understand (though maybe not agree with), but I can't imagine them having a case if he did anything less than shoot them.
-
The law is filled with moronic loopholes that enable criminals to press charges against their victims. I'm not sure what else to say on the matter, besides that if a burgular is robbing you, if you don't want him to sue... make sure he can't once you've dispatched him.
:blah:
-
except then the state presses charges. worse ones.
-
The law is filled with moronic loopholes that enable criminals to press charges against their victims. I'm not sure what else to say on the matter, besides that if a burgular is robbing you, if you don't want him to sue... make sure he can't once you've dispatched him.
:blah:
:wtf: Tell me again where you are that if your life is in danger you cannot legally take steps to protect yourself?
-
i once knew this white supremacist chick who was about to get raped by a black dude, she put a bullet through his spine and him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life. the guy got an naacp to hire him a top notch lawyer to sue her for a hate crime. they lost but id hate to live in a world where rapists can sue their victims.
-
I think in such a situation where the criminals press charges. That chuck would probably win the case. After all, it was chuck defending himself at knife point.
Perhaps a jury would think that chuck went too far with the ass whooping? I can see that happening. He was pretty damn brutal to the knife bearers. But, we don't know exactly how the ass whooping occured. All we know is how it started and how it ended. We have no idea if it was necessary for chuck to break all their arms in the fashion that he did, or if he could have eventually knocked them out; because we have no idea how much the knife bearers sucked at knife fighting. One big detail i do suspect however is that chuck kicked their asses in a way that says "look at how brutally i disabled all of you from using a knife, i could have just scrotum-ball-ripped your dicks off instead you dumb ****ers".
In the end, chuck was in the right. I don't think he'd have to worry too much about the criminals pressing charges except in the area of thinking perhaps chuck was too extreme. Other than that, i think chuck would still win the case.
-
if i were gonna mug chuck norris, id nuke him for orbit, even then, there is no way to be sure.
-
if i were gonna mug chuck norris, id nuke him for orbit, even then, there is no way to be sure.
If you were going to make your morning coffee, you'd nuke it from orbit. I mean, come on. This is you.
-
Suing for injuries sustained while burgling someone's house I can understand (though maybe not agree with), but I can't imagine them having a case if he did anything less than shoot them.
Speaking of burglary (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/5224797/Thieves-flee-after-breaking-into-Dolph-Lundgrens-Spanish-home.html).
-
Dear lord...robbing Ivan Drago? :lol:
-
I particularly love how Cracked wrote up the story.
The criminals have yet to be caught, but it's probably punishment enough that each lives with the certainty that one day, he'll bend over the bathroom sink to splash water on his face, lift up his head and in the mirror see that Ivan Drago is standing directly behind him.
Funnily enough it was in a section titled 6 Insane True Stories Too Awesome for a Chuck Norris Movie (http://www.cracked.com/article_18751_6-insane-true-stories-too-awesome-chuck-norris-movie.html)
-
if i were gonna mug chuck norris, id nuke him for orbit, even then, there is no way to be sure.
If you were going to make your morning coffee, you'd nuke it from orbit. I mean, come on. This is you.
im just saying, if theres one person who can stand up to a nuke, its chuck norris.
-
Let's not have the thread descend in a succession of "Chuck Norris is so........." quotes please.
-
With regards to the Somali pirates this wasn't the first time something like this has happened (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/3481868/Somali-pirates-attack-Indian-warship-in-latest-brazen-attack.html). So, yeah, suddenly pirates in Freespace aren't looking so unrealistic, are they? :p
-
In that case the pirate vessel was basically trapped and had no choice other than to fight unless they wanted to surrender. It wasn't as if they decided to attack it deliberately.
-
Might not be new...just found it on ebaumsworld. I'm sure it's fake but it's entertaining!
Orville Smith, a store manager for Best Buy in Augusta , Georgia , told police he observed a male customer, later identified as Tyrone Jackson of Augusta , on surveillance cameras putting a laptop computer under his jacket... When confronted the man became irate, knocked down an employee, drew a knife and ran for the door.
Outside on the sidewalk were four Marines collecting toys for the "Toys for Tots" program. Smith said the Marines stopped the man, but he stabbed one of the Marines, Cpl. Phillip Duggan, in the back; the injury did not appear to be severe.
After Police and an ambulance arrived at the scene Cpl. Duggan was transported for treatment.
The subject was also transported to the local hospital with two broken arms, a broken ankle, a broken leg, several missing teeth, possible broken ribs, multiple contusions, assorted lacerations, a broken nose and a broken jaw...injuries he sustained when he slipped and fell off of the curb after stabbing the Marine.
Now that was a well written Police report.
-
Is that all quoted, or are the first/last lines yours?
I'm sure it's fake but it's entertaining!
Wat. I see nothing implausible there except the "sustained when he slipped and fell off of the curb" bit.
-
"slipped and fell off the curb". Yeah, right.
Anyway, that's what you get for messing with Marines. And considering their esprit de corps, I'm surprised he was still alive...
-
Wat. I see nothing implausible there except the "sustained when he slipped and fell off of the curb" bit.
"slipped and fell off the curb". Yeah, right.
That's the joke... :rolleyes:
-
Is that all quoted, or are the first/last lines yours?
I'm sure it's fake but it's entertaining!
Wat. I see nothing implausible there except the "sustained when he slipped and fell off of the curb" bit.
except that this story has been circling the internet for years with slightly varying details.
-
Is that all quoted, or are the first/last lines yours?
Quoted, I heard about the story, so I Googled it and copied the first plausible version over to here. :yes:
EDIT: Snopes has the real account here, I guess the part at the end might not have been true... more research in progress.
EDIT2: Discussion on the matter, as it happened: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2633548/posts
EDIT3: local news on it: http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/crime-courts/2010-11-26/shoplifting-suspect-stabs-marine
http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/metro/2010-11-29/marine-lauded-heroic-act
Looks like the perp didn't get roughed up after all. Darn. :(
-
Looks like the perp didn't get roughed up after all. Darn. :(
Yes, it truly is a shame that the criminal wasn't unlawfully beaten prior to serving his lawful punishment. How I pine for the days when you could beat the **** out of someone for the flimsiest reason, under the guise of "they probably deserved it".
-
Unlawfully my ass. If you're sitting on the sidewalk, and someone comes up and literally stabs your friend in the back there is no ****ing way you couldn't argue that you were just making sure he wouldn't do the same to you.
-
Except that the injuries in the story are not consistent with self defence. They are consistent with the perp getting kurb stomped in revenge.
-
I should probably have indicated that I took issue with mefustae's second sentence moreso than the first. My mistake.
-
Oh I won't doubt that there is a certain satisfaction to seeing a criminal bite off more than he can chew and get his arse handed back to him. But the injuries in the first version of that story rise well above that.
-
Oh I won't doubt that there is a certain satisfaction to seeing a criminal bite off more than he can chew and get his arse handed back to him. But the injuries in the first version of that story rise well above that.
Precisely my point. If someone attacks you, you take every measure necessary to ensure you own survival and the subjugation of the attacker. But there's a bloody limit to what you should to to him/her, from both a legal and moral point of view. If that story were true, those marines would have been brought of on some serious goddamn charges, and most likely faced a dishonorable discharge for potentially harming the attacker so badly. Think Nicolas Cage's character in Con Air.
-
why are people getting all worked up over a FAKE story?
-
If that story were true, those marines would have been brought of on some serious goddamn charges, and most likely faced a dishonorable discharge for potentially harming the attacker so badly.
Bull****. They were assaulted with a weapon; unless the guy turned and tried to run or took a similar action anything that happened to him up to and including if they had killed him was completely justifiable. Civilians (and in this case military) are not held to the same standards of reasonable force as police because they are not trained to them.
For somebody practicing the Semper Fu of the time, such injuries would be the work of thirty or forty-five seconds and entirely in line with their training. The attacker would not have had the time or the wit left to indicate his surrender. There's a reason why the Marine Corps has had to rework their entire hand-to-hand training regimen in the last few years, it's because the original one was good only for inflicting extreme injury quickly.
Considering the time period, the training of those attacked, and the standards to which non-law-enforcement are held, this is an entirely plausible scenario and while it may not meet your moral definitions of reasonable force, it could well have met the legal ones.
-
My view on situations like this are as such:
You are attacked by an aggressor with a deadly weapon.
Said aggressor uses aforementioned weapon on you/companion.
Logic dictates that your life is in immediate danger, as the person has just shown that they a fully capable of using the weapon to inflict harm and/or death.
To protect both yourself and your companion from a deadly threat, (almost*) any means used to remove the threat are valid.
**I say "Almost" only because if you manage to immobilise the threat in such a way to render them unable to act, without killing them, then any further action is unnecessary and unlawful.
Or you could just do this --> :beamz:
-
Bull****. They were assaulted with a weapon; unless the guy turned and tried to run or took a similar action anything that happened to him up to and including if they had killed him was completely justifiable. Civilians (and in this case military) are not held to the same standards of reasonable force as police because they are not trained to them.
Absolute complete and utter tosh. There's a difference between not held up to the same standards and not held up to any standards whatsoever.
Cases have been brought several times over similar sitations. The simple fact that the story is fake and that the marines managed to apprehend the culprit without having to inflict anywhere near that level of damage proves that it would be completely unnecessary to do so.
-
Cases have been brought several times over similar sitations.
Please, tell us about these cases.
-
**I say "Almost" only because if you manage to immobilise the threat in such a way to render them unable to act, without killing them, then any further action is unnecessary and unlawful.
They're 100% as dangerous as they were when they tried to stab you, up until the point you vaporize them.
-
They're 100% as dangerous as they were when they tried to stab you, up until the point you vaporize them.
Thanks for that, Nu... wait, you're not nuke!
-
Cases have been brought several times over similar sitations. The simple fact that the story is fake and that the marines managed to apprehend the culprit without having to inflict anywhere near that level of damage proves that it would be completely unnecessary to do so.
Please, cite examples. It's actually quite hard to get convicted if some guy stabs you and runs and you shoot him, much less he assaults you and doesn't actually do something that renders him a clear non-threat. The legal bar is lower already, juries lower it still further.
Simply because it's not necessary doesn't make it not legal or morally allowable. Assault with a deadly weapon doesn't always provoke lethal force, but it is legally and morally justifiable to use it when assaulted with a weapon.
-
Really? So if this happened...
- Guy stabs my friend.
- I pull out a gun.
- Guy sees the gun, drops the knife, and runs.
- I shoot him in the back, fatally.
you don't see anything wrong with that?
...and suppose he only attempted to stab my friend. Then what?
-
if they are coming at you head on it is completely different to kill in self defense than if they are fleeing. that would be an act of revenge as opposed to self defense. the legal system also frowns on non-leathal maiming shots, such as knee capping. from a legal standpoint you are better off doing a doubletap to the chest and killing the guy than just trying to stop him.
-
Really? So if this happened...
- Guy stabs my friend.
- I pull out a gun.
- Guy sees the gun, drops the knife, and runs.
- I shoot him in the back, fatally.
you don't see anything wrong with that?
...and suppose he only attempted to stab my friend. Then what?
Suppose my balls. You need to find legal precedent, not suppose it. Did I miss a link to the actual article or something?
edit: So IRL the marines really didn't seem to be out of line at all. Let's suppose that the fictitious account is true for a moment. How is that relevant to shooting someone in the back? Unless I'm mistaken I don't think NGTM-1R was trying to justify absurd unnecessary actions (eg following your rapist to his house, locking him in and burning it down just to make sure it doesn't happen again before the police arrive). There's a big difference between defending yourself from an armed assailant and shooting someone in cold blood. Your supposition is a little absurd since it's outside the confines of self defense and the fake article didn't say whether or not the man was still a threat.
tl;dr: Well what if the the guy that dropped the knife was running to go get his powered armor and tactical nukes?
-
Really? So if this happened...
- Guy stabs my friend.
- I pull out a gun.
- Guy sees the gun, drops the knife, and runs.
- I shoot him in the back, fatally.
you don't see anything wrong with that?
...and suppose he only attempted to stab my friend. Then what?
Are we in Texas?
-
You recognize that the behavior in my example is absurd! Good, have a cookie.
-
You recognize that the behavior in my example is absurd! Good, have a cookie.
I'll grant you that if you grant me it was irrelevant.
-
Really? So if this happened...
- Guy stabs my friend.
- I pull out a gun.
- Guy sees the gun, drops the knife, and runs.
- I shoot him in the back, fatally.
you don't see anything wrong with that?
...and suppose he only attempted to stab my friend. Then what?
Your example is stupid. Provide me one useful to the situation at hand and we may discuss it.
-
In cases of self defence where the original perpetrator is badly harmed you're going to have to have a trial in order to determine if excessive force was used. You can argue that conviction might not be secured (I don't happen to agree with you cause at least in the UK I can think of a few cases which made the news) but first I want to know if you're seriously trying to claim that such a case wouldn't even reach trial.
-
In cases of self defence where the original perpetrator is badly harmed you're going to have to have a trial in order to determine if excessive force was used.
The state can (and often does) decline to prosecute. A truly scrupulous district attorney may pursue the case to the grand jury and ask for their opinion as to the justifiable nature of the force used, particularly if somebody got killed.
It's entirely in the hands of the prosecutor. If they judge that the possibility of conviction is remote (and in the case described, assault with a deadly weapon on a servicemember the odds aren't good, and less so once somebody takes the stand and explains the old LINE system they would probably have been trained to), they can and probably will opt not to go to trial. If new evidence offering better odds of conviction surfaces later they will then have not wasted their one shot.
On the page the law is a much purer thing.
-
So there you go, at last you're now admitting that the state sometimes does prosecute. So now the issue is whether the state would prosecute in this case. That's something that by the very fact that each case is taken on merits, is impossible to prove in either direction. You could get a DA who feels there is a case or a DA who feels that there isn't. Since this is a hypothetical case there is no way to judge what the DA might have choosen to do no matter which way you want to assert it.
And that is assuming I belive your assertion that Marines can't hit someone without nearly killing them.
-
And that is assuming I belive your assertion that Marines can't hit someone without nearly killing them.
Of course they can and often do. However, with:
1) Training in lethal combat (time taken to disable / destroy opponent before moving to the next is life or death in the field of combat)
2) Fight or flight instinct which is trained to normally default to fight, as well as the huge adrenaline spike when in a situation where yours or your buddy's life / health is in jeopardy.
3) Four such trained individuals backing each other up, as they are trained to do
4) The necessity to make sure that the target is no longer a threat when possible (sure, you broke his arm; but he can use the other quite well if he has a concealed sidarm / another knife, so break his other arm and he's no longer a threat, unless you can successfully pin him so that he is no longer a threat)
etc... all in a matter of seconds
-
So there you go, at last you're now admitting that the state sometimes does prosecute. So now the issue is whether the state would prosecute in this case. That's something that by the very fact that each case is taken on merits, is impossible to prove in either direction. You could get a DA who feels there is a case or a DA who feels that there isn't. Since this is a hypothetical case there is no way to judge what the DA might have choosen to do no matter which way you want to assert it.
And that is assuming I belive your assertion that Marines can't hit someone without nearly killing them.
It's a lot less likely than you think. There's a lot of red tape you need to go through to prosecute people in the military, and judging how the marines 1) weren't the aggressors and 2) were assaulted while doing charity work I couldn't imagine anyone actually being willing to take the effort to press charges.
-
Unless it happened in Texas. :drevil:
-
Really? So if this happened...
- Guy stabs my friend.
- I pull out a gun.
- Guy sees the gun, drops the knife, and runs.
- I shoot him in the back, fatally.
you don't see anything wrong with that?
...and suppose he only attempted to stab my friend. Then what?
Your example is stupid. Provide me one useful to the situation at hand and we may discuss it.
Real life situation number one. You're walking down an alleyway after work, you encounter a mugger. He wants crack. So he's going to put his arm over your shoulder in a typical mugger stance. So the first thing you want to do? Step one, get wrist control. So you grab his wrist, and you feel it back. So now you have wrist control, where you can feel that you have control over where his body goes. Now, step number two, you pull out your gun. It's very important, that you pull out your gun
-
It's a lot less likely than you think. There's a lot of red tape you need to go through to prosecute people in the military, and judging how the marines 1) weren't the aggressors and 2) were assaulted while doing charity work I couldn't imagine anyone actually being willing to take the effort to press charges.
Actually if you reread the story, they were. They intervened to do the police's job, stopping a fleeing suspect in a shoplifting. Had they simply stepped aside and allowed the perp to run, no one would have been stabbed at all.
Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't interfere in situations like that but if you do, and someone is badly beaten up as a result, and you aren't batman, there is a reasonable chance that some DA is going to think there is an issue of vigilantism here that does need to be answered.
-
Actually if you reread the story, they were. They intervened to do the police's job, stopping a fleeing suspect in a shoplifting. Had they simply stepped aside and allowed the perp to run, no one would have been stabbed at all.
Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't interfere in situations like that but if you do, and someone is badly beaten up as a result, and you aren't batman, there is a reasonable chance that some DA is going to think there is an issue of vigilantism here that does need to be answered.
Your entire arguments thus far concerning this story are based on your knowledge of the law as it operates in the UK (and to a somewhat similar extent, other Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia).
American laws, particularly "castle" and self defence laws, differ by state and can be widely different from what you and I view as the norm. America ADA's and DA's also have much wider discretion in the decision to prosecute than your typical Crown counsel. So NGTM-1R's argument that this hypothetical would not be prosecuted is not only possible, in some states it might even be plausible.
-
Actually if you reread the story, they were. They intervened to do the police's job, stopping a fleeing suspect in a shoplifting. Had they simply stepped aside and allowed the perp to run, no one would have been stabbed at all.
Now I'm not saying that people shouldn't interfere in situations like that but if you do, and someone is badly beaten up as a result, and you aren't batman, there is a reasonable chance that some DA is going to think there is an issue of vigilantism here that does need to be answered.
Not quite. I honestly don't know which, but in some states it would be perfectly legal for the marines to detain the thief. Of course, that doesn't permit them to savagely beat the criminal, but if the criminal then assaulted them (as in the story in question) they would be allowed to defend themselves.
edit: well sort of. Of course if they let the criminal go there would've been no stabbing (which is the gist of what you were going at), but that doesn't matter legally. Unless the marines decided to detain the thief by breaking his legs, this is a legal case of self-defense in states that allow citizen's arrest. I'd be able to be more specific on the intricacies, but its been a few years since my government class.
-
I'm not arguing that it is illegal for them to stop the thief. What I'm arguing is that there was 4 of them and one thief. If their attempt to perform a citizens arrest has resulted in one of them having a fairly superficial wound while the perp has been badly beaten there is a reasonable chance that the DA might decide there is a case to answer here.
Your entire arguments thus far concerning this story are based on your knowledge of the law as it operates in the UK (and to a somewhat similar extent, other Commonwealth countries like Canada and Australia).
American laws, particularly "castle" and self defence laws, differ by state and can be widely different from what you and I view as the norm. America ADA's and DA's also have much wider discretion in the decision to prosecute than your typical Crown counsel. So NGTM-1R's argument that this hypothetical would not be prosecuted is not only possible, in some states it might even be plausible.
But I'm not arguing that they would definitely be prosecuted. I'm arguing against NGTM-1R's assertion that they wouldn't be. From your argument it seems you actually agree with me.
Unfortunately this guy (http://ittendojo.org/articles/general-4.htm) doesn't quote his sources but he pretty much makes a similar argument and does mention cases of martial artists being prosecuted.
-
I'm not arguing that it is illegal for them to stop the thief. What I'm arguing is that there was 4 of them and one thief. If their attempt to perform a citizens arrest has resulted in one of them having a fairly superficial wound while the perp has been badly beaten there is a reasonable chance that the DA might decide there is a case to answer here.
I really don't think so. Find me precedent and I'll believe you.
EDIT:
One, you've already mentioned the quality of that article as a source. Two:
The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him.
Generally speaking, knife attacks could cause death.
Three: Pointing out that a case could be made is a pretty boring argument considering if the defense wins, it was just as legal as if there were no case at all.
-
Knives are extremely messy weapons, and while the human body is incredibly durable in some aspects, a bladed weapon making a successful cut to the insides of the arms, thighs, neck or a stab to the armpit or kidneys will bleed you out post haste. It's nothing to mess around with and treating an attack with a knife as some minor issue is foolishness, there isn't anything superficial about being stabbed in the back and the potential for death is always looming with a blade, even if the wielder is a moron.
-
the potential for death is always looming with a blade, even especially if the wielder is a moron.
fixed that for you.
Also, the gist I got from this is that the marines stopped the guy, but otherwise didn't do anything to him, and then he stabbed one of them. If that isn't one of the clearest cut cases of self-defense ever, I don't know what is. The extent to which they did or did not injure him is, next to that, pretty damn trivial up to and including (in Texas, at least. loltexas) death.
-
Scotty, you're talking about the true version of the story. I have no issue with that. I'm talking about the fake version in which the perp was very badly beaten and could have easily died as a result of his injuries.
The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him.
Generally speaking, knife attacks could cause death.
You miss the point. The marines had no reason to believe that "unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on them" until they intervened. In that case, "A citizen has the same right as a police-officer to use non-deadly force to effectuate an arrest if he reasonably believes that the alleged criminal has in fact committed the crime." Do you believe that the level of force used in the fake story would be appropriate for a police officer?
-
You miss the point. The marines had no reason to believe that "unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on them" until they intervened. In that case, "A citizen has the same right as a police-officer to use non-deadly force to effectuate an arrest if he reasonably believes that the alleged criminal has in fact committed the crime." Do you believe that the level of force used in the fake story would be appropriate for a police officer?
If a criminal stabbed a police officer he would probably be shot.
(so yes, it's fine)
-
There really is no convincing some people.
-
Scotty, you're talking about the true version of the story. I have no issue with that. I'm talking about the fake version in which the perp was very badly beaten and could have easily died as a result of his injuries.
The general criminal law allows for the use of deadly force anytime a faultless victim reasonably believes that unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on him.
Generally speaking, knife attacks could cause death.
You miss the point. The marines had no reason to believe that "unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on them" until they intervened. In that case, "A citizen has the same right as a police-officer to use non-deadly force to effectuate an arrest if he reasonably believes that the alleged criminal has in fact committed the crime." Do you believe that the level of force used in the fake story would be appropriate for a police officer?
If they beat the **** out of him while taking him into custody then yes it probably would be an issue, maybe not for me personally because despite being socially progressive in most respects I'm decidedly Olde Testament when it comes to justice. If they had killed him in the midst of him using a knife to fight them certainly not. They are trained soldiers suddenly faced with an immensely dangerous life threatening situation, as I mentioned earlier a knife is no joke even in the most amateur of hands. That they didn't break his arm and crush his trachea shows admirable restraint.
-
It's nothing to mess around with and treating an attack with a knife as some minor issue is foolishness, there isn't anything superficial about being stabbed in the back and the potential for death is always looming with a blade, even if the wielder is a moron.
I was looking at it from the point of view of a DA. You have person who was stabbed vs one person who has been life-threateningly beaten. Are you seriously telling me that there is no way you believe someone might look at that incident and believe that things went too far?
Oh and BTW, I've not yet even brought up the point of the highly suspicious police report.
-
There really is no convincing some people.
Anyway, I'm sure that there is at least one attorney somewhere in the states that would be willing to make that case. But that doesn't matter.
And it doesn't matter that the marines didn't have to intervene. That was perfectly legal. The stabbing wasn't.
It doesn't matter if there were 4 marines or 4 battalions of marines. If one got stabbed then the others can legally (by civil law) take measures to protect themselves and the injured.
The police report is probably the best thing you have going for you. Ironically it implies that the marines felt they went too far themselves, and of course one does not get all those injuries tripping on any curb but ones on highway overpasses. While it would make people suspicious enough to investigate, I'd have to say it's a bit beyond the scope of the true problem being discussed.
Let's ignore the rather stupid question of "Would they investigate?" for a moment and assume they do, and let's also make it interesting and assume the thief died: In most states, using lethal force in self-defense is permissible if you can reasonably show that lives were in danger and there was nothing else you could have done. In this case it depends on the fight. If the thief was disabled before the marines killed him then SD does not apply because the thief ceased to be a threat. On the other hand if he was killed on the first blow after the stabbing, then I'm willing to bet that SD would apply.
Now lets say the thief died the next day because of his wounds. Now the results of the case are determined solely by how much pounding occurred after the thief was disabled. The less there is the better the case the marines have.
Now lets just go assume the thief survived, albeit bruised badly. The same results as above. Things really only change if you take out the knife and stabbing.
-
the stamp of wank looms over this thread.
-
Now lets just go assume the thief survived, albeit bruised badly. The same results as above. Things really only change if you take out the knife and stabbing.
What do you mean by that last sentence?
Cause it seems that you're saying that whether it is SD or not depends on how much of the beating was inflicted after he was no longer a threat but that last bit is confusing.
-
It's nothing to mess around with and treating an attack with a knife as some minor issue is foolishness, there isn't anything superficial about being stabbed in the back and the potential for death is always looming with a blade, even if the wielder is a moron.
I was looking at it from the point of view of a DA. You have person who was stabbed vs one person who has been life-threateningly beaten. Are you seriously telling me that there is no way you believe someone might look at that incident and believe that things went too far?
Oh and BTW, I've not yet even brought up the point of the highly suspicious police report.
The highly suspicious police report doesn't exist quite frankly it's immaterial to what happened to the suspect, that's an Internal Affairs issue.
If the Marines had tried to take him into custody using appropriate force then he pulled out a knife and stabbed one of them that changes the scenario. They are no longer taking into custody a criminal they are dealing with a life threatening situation. At that point they need to eliminate the threat and if they had fallen back on their training more then likely the suspect would have been mauled or killed. I should make the distinction though, injuries sustained while they are taking him down are a different matter then putting the boots to him afterward.
-
(http://f.asset.soup.io/asset/2516/9167_0f28.jpeg)
Stumbled On that. What are the chances? Lol. Anyway, what do you guys think? Photoshop?
-
Now lets just go assume the thief survived, albeit bruised badly. The same results as above. Things really only change if you take out the knife and stabbing.
What do you mean by that last sentence?
Cause it seems that you're saying that whether it is SD or not depends on how much of the beating was inflicted after he was no longer a threat but that last bit is confusing.
Sorry, without a knife he could still be belligerent, but fists are much less of a dangerous weapon than a knife and you'd have a really hard time justifying any injuries inflicted, and almost no chance of justifying the injuries inflicted in the story. You could argue that it appeared as though he was reaching for a weapon he had in his pocket or something, but that's hardly a defense I'd want to use.
-
@Polpolion
The marines had no reason to believe that "unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on them" until they intervened.
Thus your comment that
If a criminal stabbed a police officer he would probably be shot.
is irrelevant.
-
Either I just can't seem to see your reasoning or you didn't read all of Kara's post (and the better part of this page).
-
you **** with the wrong people and you get ****ed, its as simple as that. whos the jury gonna believe, 4 charity collecting marines, or one knife wielding theif.
-
Notice how the argument focuses on the marines, but after a brief discussion, steers clear of Chuck Norris, whose beatdown was a lot more vicious than the marines one.
Why is this?
-
Because if someone is in the act of attacking you (with deadly force), there are no limits to what you can do, including lethal force. This is especially true in Texas and my home state of Colorado, where it is lawful to kill someone if they invade your home.
The argument here is that the assailant appeared to be in the act of fleeing when he himself was attacked - potentially an act of revenge rather than of self-protection.
EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION OF POST.
-
@Polpolion
The marines had no reason to believe that "unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on them" until they intervened.
Thus your comment that
If a criminal stabbed a police officer he would probably be shot.
is irrelevant.
Bull****. That turns the entire theory of responsibility for criminal acts on its head. If you drive drunk and kill somebody it's still homicide. If you're starving and steal from a store to feed yourself it's still theft. If you jack crap from a store and get stopped by four uniformed United States Marines (because they typical do charity work like that in dress blues, looks damn snappy), you have a choice to surrender quietly, but instead you pull out a knife and stab one.
At that point they are entitled to defend themselves. Their previous actions do not matter. You were not legally attacked, and certainly not in any way that justifies assault with a deadly weapon or attempted homicide. You are stabbing them because you do not want to go to jail. That is not a legal right.
-
I perceive some ambiguity here.
You miss the point. The marines had no reason to believe that "unlawful force which will cause death or grievous bodily harm is about to be used on them" until they intervened. In that case, "A citizen has the same right as a police-officer to use non-deadly force to effectuate an arrest if he reasonably believes that the alleged criminal has in fact committed the crime." Do you believe that the level of force used in the fake story would be appropriate for a police officer?
Polpolion, you answered whether it would be appropriate after he had stabbed a (hypothetical) police officer.
But considering the context of Karajorma's question ("You miss the point." ... "until they intervened."), it seems more likely he was asking whether it would be appropriate prior to him stabbing the officer. Which is (probably) not how it would have happened, if the scenario in the article were true, but whatever; that's how I read it.
Karajorma can clarify.
@NGTM-1R: I said his comment was irrelevant, not wrong.
-
Well, what really happened was that mr. jackson needed the laptop he couldn't afford to keep himself alive. He use to be a very wealthy stock broker and company share holder. He was kidnapped one night on his way home to his loving family, but was captured, and became part of many clandestine and pointless experiments at yucca flats that changed him forever. He has an insatiable urge for ingesting certain brands of laptops to live. Such an insatiable urge, that he ran out of finances to afford to stay alive legally. So he was forced to steal. He was desperate to live another day. So he brought a knife with him to keep the booty that he designated his. About to die from lack of plastic, silicon, lithium ion battery. He was only thinking with his instincts since he was about to die right there. His only thought was getting out of there to save his own life. Which meant getting away from people trying to stop him at any odds.
A marine stopped him after he stabbed this marine that was in his way of flight. Now mr. jackson doesn't get to eat enough laptops to generate enough power to open a portal to middle earth and liberate the sword of gondor to hopefully prolong or end his life while trying. At least with the sword to slay the scientists that did this to him. A great desperate man got stopped.
-
Polpolion, you answered whether it would be appropriate after he had stabbed a (hypothetical) police officer.
But considering the context of Karajorma's question ("You miss the point." ... "until they intervened."), it seems more likely he was asking whether it would be appropriate prior to him stabbing the officer. Which is (probably) not how it would have happened, if the scenario in the article were true, but whatever; that's how I read it.
Karajorma can clarify.
If this were the case then it's Karajorma's post that would be irrelevant. This is a discussion on the limits of force used in self defense, not the limits of force used in apprehending a criminal.
-
Somone should have just shot him in the knee with an arrow, I've heard it a really effective way of stopping people.
-
If this were the case then it's Karajorma's post that would be irrelevant. This is a discussion on the limits of force used in self defense, not the limits of force used in apprehending a criminal.
No, that's where you keep being wrong. This was never initially about self defence. It was about making a citizen's arrest and the limits of force applicable there. People seem to keep forgetting that the suspect had ALREADY produced the knife. He did not surprise the marines with it. He did not pull it out and stab someone with it after he was stopped. The limits of force allowed when affecting a citizen's arrest are pretty much the same or lower than they are for a police officer.
Notice how the argument focuses on the marines, but after a brief discussion, steers clear of Chuck Norris, whose beatdown was a lot more vicious than the marines one.
Why is this?
Because the Chuck Norris case is self defence. He was attacked, outnumbered and there is no evidence he did anything beyond defending himself. In the case of the marines, they placed themselves in that situation.
-
No, that's where you keep being wrong. This was never initially about self defence. It was about making a citizen's arrest and the limits of force applicable there. People seem to keep forgetting that the suspect had ALREADY produced the knife. He did not surprise the marines with it. He did not pull it out and stab someone with it after he was stopped. The limits of force allowed when affecting a citizen's arrest are pretty much the same or lower than they are for a police officer.
This doesn't make a difference legally. The fact that the marines knew he had a knife before they stopped him doesn't magically make them any less privileged to defend themselves.
Alternatively, from a less legally strict standpoint, the marines were still at perfect liberty to disarm the thief without any intention of actually arresting him. Self-defense laws usually apply when you see that someone else could be in danger too. This point is going a bit beyond the scope of the story, though.
EDIT: and I still have yet to see any good precedent that would lead me to believe the marines did anything unlawful.
Another edit: Claiming that the thief stabbing the marines was self-defense is a poor argument, not that anyway was thinking about saying that. At best it's something the story can't tell you.
-
Self defence doesn't apply when you are committing a felony so I don't know why you'd even bring it up.
As for a precident. Not quite the same thing, but a lot of the elements are in the same ballpark
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Citizens-Arrest-with-TASER-lands-man-in-jail-119518784.html
-
in that situation use of a taser was not warranted. he could have just written down the license plate number, either the cops or more likely his insurance company would have found the guy.
-
Well it's better than the last link, but a lot of the elements that could make this a bad example weren't really addressed in the fictitious story. To be precise in knowing, we'd need to know the manner in which the marines stopped the thief, whether or not it was felony theft (depends on thief's criminal record), whether or not it was felony assault (probably not), felony battery (probably not, stabbing notwithstanding) details of the fight, etc. If the marines followed the thief as much as Wise did in your example there would be a stronger case against the marines. And a much stronger case if we suppose there were no knife and the thief only tried to "to take a swing at" them.
If there were no felony commit initially by the thief I'd still say there is a low chance of prosecution of the marines given the circumstances I stated somewhere else, though prosecution is very possible (as shown in your example). Still, in this case both parties would still be charges as stabbing is likely felony battery. For those of you that started this discussion, note that I doubt the charges on the marines would be for excessive violence in self-defense, but for whatever mistakenly citizens arresting someone is in Georgia. (there is no duty to retreat in Georgia IIRC)
With that, I can safely say we've exceeded what the story can do for us. :p Let's hope I don't edit-storm this post, too.
-
Self defence doesn't apply when you are committing a felony so I don't know why you'd even bring it up.
Even that case is ambiguous at best, and also useless to the point in question. If somebody takes one swing at you, you can't taser him for it. The law is structured to react against escalation. The first person to reach for a weapon had better be in fear of their life or it's not considered justified.
We are discussing assault with a deadly weapon first. (Unless you think the Marines beat the guy up and then he stabbed them? Four Marines let him get a knife out and stab one of them while he was getting beaten up? These don't sound very plausible.) The response was made without weapons, no matter how devastating it might be.
What exactly is your objection now? I can't honestly tell anymore.
-
All this is getting rather intense, so here's a picture of a sleeping fox cub to help ease the tension.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2562755238_6ba58f8348.jpg)
-
All this is getting rather intense, so here's a picture of a sleeping fox cub to help ease the tension.
Ubuntu self-defense: bombard someone with sleeping fox cubs.
-
What exactly is your objection now? I can't honestly tell anymore.
Another edit: Claiming that the thief stabbing the marines was self-defense is a poor argument, not that anyway was thinking about saying that. At best it's something the story can't tell you.
Self defence doesn't apply when you are committing a felony so I don't know why you'd even bring it up.
I really can't see why you'd have trouble following that. No one made that argument or even one remotely close to it so I can't see why it was even brought up in the first place.
-
All this is getting rather intense, so here's a picture of a sleeping fox cub to help ease the tension.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3045/2562755238_6ba58f8348.jpg)
The fox didn't help. What if we got something raunchier. Like horny barbara walter :cool:
(http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/5410/barbarawalters.png)
-
I think it may perhaps shed some light that one fact seems to be overlooked:
The thief pulled the knife before he exited, meaning he was exiting the scene of his crime with a deadly weapon, after having caused a rather loud ruckus, which the Marines may or may not have witnesses. If they did not witness it, then for all they knew, this criminal had just brutally stabbed several people and was now making his escape.
That puts a possible different light on it, no?
-
The pictures aren't working!
It's time to bust out the big guns.....May your chosen gods have mercy on you all.........
What do you call a thief that got curb stomped?
(http://static.desktopnexus.com/thumbnails/117662-bigthumbnail.jpg)
-
Can I state for the record that holding a multi-page argument about a hypothetical scenario from an urban legend is pretty much a special kind of stupid? :p
-
Can I state for the record that holding a multi-page argument about a hypothetical scenario from an urban legend is pretty much a special kind of stupid? :p
Right, because the hypothetical scenario is what's important. To hell with the underlying commentary on our legal system. We're all a special kind of stupid.
-
Can I state for the record that holding a multi-page argument about a hypothetical scenario from an urban legend is pretty much a special kind of stupid? :p
Right, because the hypothetical scenario is what's important. To hell with the underlying commentary on our legal system. We're all a special kind of stupid.
My previous post supports that fact for me, and I embrace it. :D
-
I really can't see why you'd have trouble following that. No one made that argument or even one remotely close to it so I can't see why it was even brought up in the first place.
Because it's what the Marines are doing and why it's legal.
Which we've documented heavily.
So I have no idea what you're objecting to by this page. At all.
-
I really can't see why you'd have trouble following that. No one made that argument or even one remotely close to it so I can't see why it was even brought up in the first place.
Because it's what the Marines are doing and why it's legal.
Which we've documented heavily.
So I have no idea what you're objecting to by this page. At all.
Karajorma wasn't objecting to anything with that, he just said it was unnecessary for me to have said "Another edit: Claiming that the thief stabbing the marines was self-defense is a poor argument, not that anyway was thinking about saying that. At best it's something the story can't tell you."
-
Yes, but with the self-defense argument established, then why are we even here? Why's he still posting?
He appears to have a continuing objection but I simply don't see what it is.
-
Except that you haven't established self-defence to begin with. As I keep saying this was a case of a citizen's arrest. There is a completely different set of legal precidents covering that. For instance you're assuming that the marine got stabbed before the thief got injured. If any of the injuries happened first then we're looking at a completely different case.
-
Except that you haven't established self-defence to begin with. As I keep saying this was a case of a citizen's arrest. There is a completely different set of legal precidents covering that. For instance you're assuming that the marine got stabbed before the thief got injured. If any of the injuries happened first then we're looking at a completely different case.
I must not be understanding you correctly either because I recall pointing out that the fact that the marines arrested the thief does not waive their right to defend themselves from him. It's still self-defense. How can you claim that citizen's arrest means that this isn't self-defense? Even if the thief got injured before the marine got stabbed, how would that change anything?
-
Again you miss the point. The marines chose to put themselves in harm's way effecting a citizen's arrest. If they've gone further and injured the guy before he stabbed one of them that's even more evidence that they shouldn't have been trying to effect a citizen's arrest in the first place.
Anyway, when it comes down it, things are quite simple. I don't believe those injuries are consistent with someone acting in self defence and they definitely aren't consistent with someone making a citizen's arrest, you do. Given that the case was never real there is no way to know what would have happened.
-
Clearly, we'll have to make it a real case so we can finally settle this. Four of you go join the marines, then I'll rob a store and we'll see what happens.
-
Again you miss the point. The marines chose to put themselves in harm's way effecting a citizen's arrest. If they've gone further and injured the guy before he stabbed one of them that's even more evidence that they shouldn't have been trying to effect a citizen's arrest in the first place.
So you honestly believe that four regular guys, let alone four Marines, are going to let somebody pull a knife in the middle of beating him? That's not plausible in the slightest as I already said. If he's waving the knife around threateningly, then their case gets stronger as not only were they acting in self-defense, but can also claim the defense of others.
Police are held to higher standards than citizens in this and they routinely accept a degree of injury in someone who resists.
Or are you saying he pulled the knife with two broken arms?
-
Again you miss the point. The marines chose to put themselves in harm's way effecting a citizen's arrest. If they've gone further and injured the guy before he stabbed one of them that's even more evidence that they shouldn't have been trying to effect a citizen's arrest in the first place.
Anyway, when it comes down it, things are quite simple. I don't believe those injuries are consistent with someone acting in self defence and they definitely aren't consistent with someone making a citizen's arrest, you do. Given that the case was never real there is no way to know what would have happened.
It's becoming more and more apparent that you know nothing about self defense and citizen's arrest laws in Georgia.
-
Which we've documented heavily.
So you're all furnishing documents?
-
So you honestly believe that four regular guys, let alone four Marines, are going to let somebody pull a knife in the middle of beating him? That's not plausible in the slightest as I already said. If he's waving the knife around threateningly, then their case gets stronger as not only were they acting in self-defense, but can also claim the defense of others.
Have you even read the original statement? Or anything I've said?
He didn't pull a knife. He left the store brandishing a knife. What about that are you not understanding?
It's becoming more and more apparent that you know nothing about self defense and citizen's arrest laws in Georgia.
You know what, I think I've realised the fundemental assumption you guys are making. It was such an obvious one that I couldn't believe you didn't see it so it's never been mentioned. Let's reverse that.
Let's say this wasn't self defence. Let's say this is a Rodney King. Let's say that the marines attempt a citizen's arrest, one of them gets stabbed and in revenge the marines give him two broken arms, a broken ankle, a broken leg, several missing teeth, possible broken ribs, multiple contusions, assorted lacerations, a broken nose and a broken jaw.
Keeping everything else the same are you SERIOUSLY claiming that a self defence plea would work here? And if you're not, ask yourself what is different apart from your assumption (not in evidence in the original story) that this wasn't revenge?
-
Okay, did people not see the link to (http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/crime-courts/2010-11-26/shoplifting-suspect-stabs-marine) the news article jr2 posted a few pages ago, where it's pretty clear that the a$#*|3 in question wasn't particularly roughed up, they basically just knocked him down and sat on him 'till the fuzz showed up? And also, the guy who got stabbed didn't even notice until they'd already subdued him? And in true marine tradition was more upset over his uniform shirt being damaged than over actually being stabbed...
-
If the marines can convince the jury the thief was a threat, it doesn't matter.
-
Okay, did people not see the link to (http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/crime-courts/2010-11-26/shoplifting-suspect-stabs-marine) the news article jr2 posted a few pages ago, where it's pretty clear that the a$#*|3 in question wasn't particularly roughed up, they basically just knocked him down and sat on him 'till the fuzz showed up?
We saw it, we're just more interested in the fictional version where the robber was brutalized a bit.
So the question is, how did the Marines attempt to apprehend the guy? Did they stand in his way and say "stop" or did they try to physically detain him?
If the former, and the bad guy tried to stab them to remove the obstacle, then they would be justified - with their Marine training - in disabling him, brutally. If the latter, then the Marines could be viewed as the aggressors, even when one was stabbed, and there are plenty of lawyers who would take up the case on behalf of the robber.
____
And on the question of the pirates attacking the frigate, I've been thinking about it some. The attack happened at midnight, so it was dark and they probably didn't know exactly what it was at first (link) (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-01/world/navy.pirates_1_pirates-european-union-naval-force-indian-ocean?_s=PM:WORLD=).
The pirates were planning on hitting a freighter, so what kind of weapons would they bring for that? Probably not the prohibitively expensive HEAT rounds (unless they were trying to sink it, which would be the opposite of what they wanted), likely just frag RPGs, for the purpose of intimidating freighter crew and blowing up any who resisted.
That would also explain why they fired 4 rockets from far enough away to be engaged successfully by the CIWS. And if the pirates began to flee after the first RPG was shot down, that could explain the other 3 being fired in an attempt to discourage pursuit.
So in my opinion, that is logically why the RPG only "dented" the ship.
EDIT: Sorry, that looked shorter in my head
-
If the marines can convince the jury the thief was a threat, it doesn't matter.
Hang on a sec. Are you seriously saying that if the marines did beat the crap out of the guy in revenge it should be okay if they can claim he was a threat? Even if he wasn't?
-
If the marines can convince the jury the thief was a threat, it doesn't matter.
Hang on a sec. Are you seriously saying that if the marines did beat the crap out of the guy in revenge it should be okay if they can claim he was a threat? Even if he wasn't?
You keep getting hung up on this "in revenge" business. If the guy is seriously injured, it's significantly more likely than not that the injuries sustained were sustained while he was being disarmed. It would take maybe five seconds to inflict half a dozen broken bones and other injuries described in the fictional account.
-
You keep getting hung up on this "in revenge" business. If the guy is seriously injured, it's significantly more likely than not that the injuries sustained were sustained while he was being disarmed. It would take maybe five seconds to inflict half a dozen broken bones and other injuries described in the fictional account.
I guess the interpretation of the fictional version is exactly that the guy was beaten in revenge for the stabbing, and not implying that he suffered injuries while being disarmed. But that's an interpretation of an interpretation of subtle innuendo in a fictional police report. So we make up our own scenarios to debate.
-
can we rename this to "Truly rediculous THREAD, ...." now?
-
People just need to relax.....
(http://leerburg.com/Photos/dog-kitten.jpg)
OBSERVE AND FEEL WARM AND FUZZY (unless you're Nuke, then you'll just see a couple of as-of-yet, unnuked targets)
-
Post one more of those, and you won't be posting here for a while. One thing this thread definitely doesn't need is your back-seat moderation.
You keep getting hung up on this "in revenge" business. If the guy is seriously injured, it's significantly more likely than not that the injuries sustained were sustained while he was being disarmed. It would take maybe five seconds to inflict half a dozen broken bones and other injuries described in the fictional account.
You keep getting hung up on the fact that in the real story this wasn't about revenge and refuse to consider that the fake one might have been about it.
I happen to disagree with you on the 5 second thing. Yes you can do that damage if you go in intending to do that damage. But as I keep stating you aren't allowed to go in intending to do that damage when making a citizen's arrest.
-
Times really are slow.... :p
-
Practically slo-mo, so you can see it (they are demonstrating the moves on screen, not seriously executing them: ) 1 min, 46 seconds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0SB5xlxJIU
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=QyjpawufDKA
Some sort of clue as to the physical conditioning Marines go through:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CuKfHiX4ks&feature=related
Now, I want you to keep in mind that at the lower levels, you really don't have all these fancy options for disabling / disarming at your disposal. You have been trained to take the enemy down, to maintain your control over the fight when the enemy is down, and to kill him.
Put it this way: if I considered the enemy a threat that must be stopped, my best bet would be to do a move (side-step, let's say to the left of the enemy as he is facing me) out of the way of the knife, throw up a block (forearm) to prevent him from attacking with the knife, somehow transition that into an armbar (grab the arm closest to me with my right hand while using my left arm to lever the arm I just grabbed and throw him to the ground.)
Now, here's the fun part. I've got him on the ground. Hopefully I maintain control of his arm and have him in a pin where he can't move cause of the pain. Cause if he manages to get out of the move and ends up on the ground, I'm thinking the only thing I'm going to want to do to him while he's got that knife is gonna be axe-stomp. Which means, crushed skull. It's a lethal move. Not pretty. Let's hope I hold on to his arm.
That's the kind of thing a Marine would be thinking. There are plenty of other moves, it just depends on the circumstance and what you think increases your chances. I think before the thief realized he was hurt bad enough to surrender, the damage mentioned in the proposed scenario could be done.
EDIT: Here's hammering the basic, basic fundamentals. Looks like the move they are practicing first is the one where you go for the enemy's eyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuG_AXD6frw&feature=related
EDIT2: Yada yada, more vid if you want: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_oafAgt7Ck&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Hmm, some techniques involved in takedowns: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heXRZXRSgwU&feature=related
-
People just need to relax.....
(http://leerburg.com/Photos/dog-kitten.jpg)
OBSERVE AND FEEL WARM AND FUZZY (unless you're Nuke, then you'll just see a couple of as-of-yet, unnuked targets)
blasphemy! kittens <3.
well maybe the dog, i dont like dogs.
-
stuff
Let me ask you a couple of questions.
1) Why was the perp in the real version of the story uninjured?
2) Why don't policemen learn and use the same techniques?
-
because (usually 1, maybe 2) police officers != 4 marines? and they are never laying in wait for the criminal directly in his/her escape route?
-
1) Marines are trained a little bit in reasonable force, however, in a situation where a deadly weapon is involved, I'm pretty sure most would just throw that right out the window (I would, at least until I was positive that the weapon wasn't a threat any more... you never know, the guy might be flying high as a kite on crack).
2) What do you mean? Why don't policemen learn combined martial arts, marine corps flavor designation: Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP)? I dunno, why don't they learn kung fu? They aren't a SWAT team, they are law enforcement officers. Why don't they learn to shoot a man-sized target in the chest using iron sights at 500 yards like we do?? (ok, they have switched to a 2X ACOG RCO since I went to boot)
EDIT: While I'm at it, why don't they also learn Table 2? Shooting moving targets; rapid reload, dropping multiple targets, etc?
I'm sure they do learn some of these things, but they aren't trained primarily in the mission of the Marine Corps Rifle Squad:
To locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver
-OR-
To repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat
-
A knife was involved and already being brandished in the real situation. So I'm asking you again, why was the perp uninjured?
-
Maybe:
1) lucky
2) Not considered a real threat (feeling of invincibility by the Marines so no real fight / flight decision and no adrenaline spike
3) Marines may not have extensively trained in MCMAP... there is a middle area where you know enough to do serious damage, but not enough to effortlessly disarm most opponents that aren't also schooled in combat. Since one Marine was injured, I'm guessing he may have been Tan or Gray belt. I'm a Tan belt, the minimum required to graduate boot. I took Gray belt in job school, but did not pass the test at the end of the course. You know a lot of good moves, however, you don't really have a lot of real world experience implementing them in combat situations.
Now, if someone started swinging a knife around a Green belt, I'd say that unless the assailant was lucky or trained in martial arts, he's a goner. Green belt teaches killing moves besides the axe stomp. Brown and Black belt, he'd probably just find himself in some sort of wrist lock faster than he could blink, looking stupid and helpless as a kitten for when the cops show up. Unless the perp successfully managed to make the Brown or Black belf feel sufficiently threatened that they decided to end him, in which case he'd end up 1) dead with a broken neck or crushed trachea or 2) flying through the air wondering how he was going to end up landing or 3) being flipped over the defender's back and smashed to the ground, hard, probably with a cracked skull.
Anywho, History had a documentary on MCMAP:
http://www.history.com/shows/human-weapon-archived/videos/human-weapon-marine-corps-martial-arts
(~45 min vid.)
-
Maybe:
1) lucky
2) Not considered a real threat (feeling of invincibility by the Marines so no real fight / flight decision and no adrenaline spike
3) Marines may not have extensively trained in MCMAP... there is a middle area where you know enough to do serious damage, but not enough to effortlessly disarm most opponents that aren't also schooled in combat. Since one Marine was injured, I'm guessing he may have been Tan or Gray belt...
Real Life events, to reiterate, since no-one else seems to care: Ijjit runs out of the store. (How he's running while holding two cameras, a couple games, and a knife without dropping things all over, I don't know, but anyway...) Noise of ijjit running alerts marines. One marine reaches out and clotheslines the ijjit. All marines then take the Ijjit down to the pavement, clear weapon, etc. First marine then notices that, 'hey, that Ijjit cut my shirt! Also, hey! I'm bleeding' Police arrive and remove Ijjit, who likely will feel sore as hell in the morning.
Put it together, it looks like the Ijjit was just an idiot.
2) What do you mean? Why don't policemen learn combined martial arts, marine corps flavor designation: Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP)? I dunno, why don't they learn kung fu? They aren't a SWAT team, they are law enforcement officers. Why don't they learn to shoot a man-sized target in the chest using iron sights at 500 yards like we do?? (ok, they have switched to a 2X ACOG RCO since I went to boot)
EDIT: While I'm at it, why don't they also learn Table 2? Shooting moving targets; rapid reload, dropping multiple targets, etc?
I'm sure they do learn some of these things, but they aren't trained primarily in the mission of the Marine Corps Rifle Squad:
To locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver
-OR-
To repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat
And speaking as a civilian, I think this is a good thing. When that policeman is angry about where a car was parked, I take a little bit of comfort in knowing that his training was oriented towards 'protect and serve' instead of 'destroy the enemy' because it means he's a lot less likely to kill people for minor misdemeanors.
-
I'm sure they do learn some of these things, but they aren't trained primarily in the mission of the Marine Corps Rifle Squad:
To locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver
-OR-
To repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat
And speaking as a civilian, I think this is a good thing. When that policeman is angry about where a car was parked, I take a little bit of comfort in knowing that his training was oriented towards 'protect and serve' instead of 'destroy the enemy' because it means he's a lot less likely to kill people for minor misdemeanors.
This is true. however, there is some comfort in that members of the U.S. Armed Forces, Marines included, are there to defend their country, and swear an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic".
The problem comes when a citizen makes himself the enemy. The tools a Marine has to defend his country by destroying the enemy are a bit overkill for catching a criminal. :snipe:
-
I'm away for one week, return here, and see light-hearted thread mutated to a multi page argument of the old "what is justifiable in self-defence"? This was supposed to be a funny thread, guys...
What it comes to self-defence, it is always blurry. Whatever happens afterwards will mainly be decided by a court, recollecting some of these incidents accurately is almost impossible to begin with. I have been pretty close to getting to answer to court on two occasions, both of them perfectly justifiable and rational from my point of view, but due to limited amount of time to make the decisions (fractions of a second), possibly wrong as well.
Legislation related to it will be blurry as well, generally speaking in Europe the defendant might end up worse in the court than the assailant, if the defendant causes more damage than he has received. What I don't know is if they have considered the worst personalities with this.
-
I happen to disagree with you on the 5 second thing. Yes you can do that damage if you go in intending to do that damage. But as I keep stating you aren't allowed to go in intending to do that damage when making a citizen's arrest.
Maybe you're getting sloppy from arguing with everyone, but this statement is not true.
You are allowed to use reasonable, proportionate force to effect an arrest. That is true for peace officers, and for non-peace officers. A subject brandishing a knife at you with intent or stated willingness to use it (e.g. "I am going to stab you!") is using force intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm... which means you can use the same, less, or more force provided its reasonable.
I work in law enforcement and deal with these scenarios in training all the time. I can promise you that anyone who pulls or has a knife out in my direction before or during the arrest (on duty as a peace officer or off-duty as a citizen is probably going to suffer injuries up to and including broken bones in the course of that arrest simply as a virtue of the force necessary to subdue that individual and ensure my safety - and the courts will back me on that 100%. And in the course of does not mean these things happen unplanned. If I have to deal with a subject holding a knife and refusing to drop it, my training has stuck a plan in my head that purposefully involves me cracking his arm bones with my defensive baton. That's planned in advance, and its perfectly acceptable. That's off-duty too, by the way, except it would involve using a weapon of convenience instead of the more efficient steel pipe work kindly provides me with.
A knife was involved and already being brandished in the real situation. So I'm asking you again, why was the perp uninjured?
Sheer dumb luck and/or negotiation. A lesser level of force was chosen and worked, though that does not imply that a greater level of force would be illegal.
-
Figured I might as well post this since it's amusing as hell.
Man gets arrested and charged (but not convicted) after being attacked by 20 nazis (http://www.cracked.com/article_19585_6-real-acts-self-defense-too-awesome-action-movie.html).