What would you do during a Bad Guy Attack

[Janx]

Well, nonpolitically speaking, I learned a long time ago in Econ & Law classes (at different institutions) that nonviolent crime in the USA has a FAR greater impact on society than violent crime does. It's not even close.

Thats true. Enron cratered because of financial shenanigans. A couple of dudes stealing* some money hosed thousands of employees, shareholders, etc.

*they got money by means they should not have engaged, therefore they stole it.

Nobody got stabbed or whacked with a hammer. No bad guy to bravely tackle and take out.

Kind of sad really. The larger scope crime isn't the scary one we really worry about.

imagine a wallstreet crime movie where Bruce Willis goes all McClane vs. a bunch of white collars with nary a shot fired despite bruce being all ready to kick butt and chew bubblegum.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The Eddie Murphy movies Trading Places and Tower Heist kinda do that...though without true action hero action (they're both comedies, after all).

 

[Rackhir]

I think my desire is that per the 1st half of the second ammendment, more of us civillians should be capable of defending ourselves, rather than rely on police.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State

Er what does a well regulated militia for purposes of defending the state against Redcoats or Native American attacks have to do with protecting ourselves in the place of police? Who are arguably intended to be that militia.

You keep using the words "2nd Amendment", but they don't seem to mean what you think they do.

As the saying goes, it's not a crime if you don't get caught. Police effectively do not have jurisdiction where they are not present. Therefore, at the incident event, the civillians are the police and should be prepared to defend and assist their fellows.

This may be no more than mounting an orderly escape (like a fire drill), but it also means the able using force to resist an attack so more people survive.

The problem with everyone being ready to resort to violence at the drop of a hat, is that, well people will resort to violence at the drop of a hat. That doesn't really seem like an improvement to me personally.

Self reliance and being willing to help your neighbors or strangers is a good thing, but vigilante action almost invariably leads to all sorts of abuses. Laws exist for a reason and we have standards of evidence, because when you just start killing people out of hand. People "everyone" knows are "bad" guys, well people start taking advantage of that to settle petty scores and minorities they don't like. etc...

Dirty Harry and movies like that are nice fantasies, but not such a good idea in the real world.

It also sends a message to attackers that even the common citizenry is willing to resist to their dying breath.

Yeah! Because we're living under constant threat of Invasion! Er. wait last time was the War of 1812, just shy of two hundred years ago. No wait the English did invade us again in the 1960s. Who exactly are we supposed to be afraid of invading again?

BTW, how's your approach working for Afghanistan? They sound like pretty much the embodiment of the kind of approach you are advocating...

I much prefer living in an America where the reason the Canadians don't attack is because they know every American has a gun and will defend our soil with excellent marksmanship and heroic valor.

Well at least we can agree on the evils and treachery of those dammed Canucks! Coming to the US and stealing all of our Stand Up comedian and TV News Anchor jobs!

 

[Janx]

Self reliance and being willing to help your neighbors or strangers is a good thing, but vigilante action almost invariably leads to all sorts of abuses. Laws exist for a reason and we have standards of evidence, because when you just start killing people out of hand. People "everyone" knows are "bad" guys, well people start taking advantage of that to settle petty scores and minorities they don't like. etc...

vigillante justice strikes me as civillians seeking out bad guys.

self defense and self reliance with guns means dealing with the immediate threat at the scene of the crime and no further.

I'd rather the cops arrive at the scene and 20 people point at the dead bad guy and say "he came in and started shooting, but we took him out." Then some survivors say "I don't know what happened, he started shooting, we all ran away, and then he got away."

Where you think my idea would make America like Iraq, I think Iraq sucks because the average citizen is cowed into bowing down before those willing to do violence to force their will.

I would rather folks who say they couldn't imagine doing violence to another to be prepared to fight if the situation warrants it, than those with no inhibition of using violence to geting their way.

 

[Jack7]

If at all possible I'd attack him from behind. If possible I always attack from behind. There's no such thing as a man who can see in all directions, especially when busy assualting others, and there's no such thing as the man who cannot be killed.

I've actually seen attacks where one guy attacks multiple victims (though not in the way you described) and I've seen it carried off mostly successfully simply because most people think and react first regarding their own vulnerabilities and not on the vulnerabilities of the attacker.

But every attacker has a multitude of very real vulnerabilities and they become apparent quickly when you get used to the idea.

Most victims think first on their own mortality. But the other guy is simply another man with a weapon. He's perfectly doable, you remember that.

He'll bleed, and he'll break, and he'll spook, and he'll shock, and he'll freeze, and he'll die. You hit him right where he ain't covered. Which is most places, most of the time.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

OTOH, as American law enforcement has pointed out, it can be rather hard to gain control of a situation when you roll up to a reported shooting in progress...and everyone on scene has a handgun. Sorting goats from sheep could wind up with a high body-count.

 

[Janx]

Good point about cops not being able to tell the difference. That could be darned annoying to say the least

 

[Rackhir]

vigillante justice strikes me as civillians seeking out bad guys.

You seem to think that TV and movies are a basis for how people should handle things. It's possible that I am misunderstanding your position, but from my point of view you haven't really thought through the implications of what you are advocating.

A number of years ago, I finally realized why a particular scene in the Dan Akroyd/Tom Hanks "Dragnet" parody, never set well with me. Tom Hanks is torturing this criminal to get a confession, now we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's a bad guy and Tom Hanks, is well Tom Hanks. So you KNOW he's a good person. The scene is played for laughs, but it always bothered me and I finally realized why.

In movies or TV shows, you almost always know who's the good guys and the bad guys. The camera often shows you the bad guys commiting their crimes with gleeful evil and terrifying the hapless innocent. The good guys almost always do the correct thing and resolve the situation successfully.

Real life does NOT work like that. You simply don't always know who's the bad guy and have absolute and unambiguous proof of wrong doing. People do the best they can in a situation and that isn't always the correct thing. Sometimes it makes things much, much worse.

Think of all the stupid things you've ever done or seen a friend do. Think of all the people you see every day doing stupid things or driving recklessly. These are the people you want to place absolute faith in the judgment of and in life and death situations.

Depending on the average citizen to be ready and able to respond with violence in a threatening situation means that you are almost certainly going to wind up with much more violence and people who will use violence in many more situations.

Roger Ebert has a great story that he often tells. About this guy who was bragging about how tough he was and that he carried a gun because "it was a dangerous neighborhood". To which one of his neighbors replied "It would be a lot safer if you moved."

self defense and self reliance with guns means dealing with the immediate threat at the scene of the crime and no further.

I'd rather the cops arrive at the scene and 20 people point at the dead bad guy and say "he came in and started shooting, but we took him out." Then some survivors say "I don't know what happened, he started shooting, we all ran away, and then he got away."

You need to sit down and watch the classic Akira Kurosawa movie "Rashomon". There is a reason cops like nice hard evidence like DNA and fingerprints over "eye witness" reports.

Also situations where you have 20 reliable witnesses who can all clearly state the guy was a criminal performing a criminal action are generally dealt with quite easily and quickly by the courts.

What do you do when it's two people on their own in the middle of the night with no witnesses. One of them is dead and the other says "He attacked me. I was defending myself." That happens a LOT more often.

Where you think my idea would make America like Iraq, I think Iraq sucks because the average citizen is cowed into bowing down before those willing to do violence to force their will.

I would rather folks who say they couldn't imagine doing violence to another to be prepared to fight if the situation warrants it, than those with no inhibition of using violence to geting their way.

My example was actually Afghanistan, not Iraq. Since they do have a tradition of exactly what you are advocating. They are almost all armed and used to defending themselves. They fought tenaciously against the full force of the USSR and have had a tradition of doing so for hundreds of years.

None of that has made it a better place to live by any stretch of the imagination.

My point is the weapons and a willingness to use them don't make a society safe.

Israel has much of the population armed, trained and willing to use them, but until they and the Palestinians are finally willing to at least tolerate each other, it is never going to be "safe" no matter how ready everyone is to defend themselves or how many weapons they have.

Though Iraq also supports my point of view. They had a conscript army so almost all males served and got at least some military training. Households are permitted to have as many pistols as they like and one fully automatic AK-47. In many respects it's NRA fantasy land.

None of that made it any more peaceful.

Canada has more guns and a lower crime rate. Japan has almost no guns and is extremely safe. In short, its the society that makes people safe. Want to minimize crime. Get potential criminals jobs, a stable family and a decent education. People with a good life and a future aren't typically out there murdering and raping.

Well, nonpolitically speaking, I learned a long time ago in Econ & Law classes (at different institutions) that nonviolent crime in the USA has a FAR greater impact on society than violent crime does. It's not even close.

I've long thought we should have the death penalty for frauds and other economic crimes. I figure over a billion dollars is a nice round number. By that point I figure you inflicted at least as much damage as a murder.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Real life does NOT work like that. You simply don't always know who's the bad guy and have absolute and unambiguous proof of wrong doing. People do the best they can in a situation and that isn't always the correct thing. Sometimes it makes things much, much worse.

2 Examples:

1) There have been several instances of undercover cops being shot by uniformed officers who only saw the "guy with a gun pointed at someone else."

2) Jay Leno talks about how he went for a ride with 2 "thugs" he met at a car show...and as they got farther from the show and up into the hills- to show off his car's speed & handling- the more nervous he became. He was relieved when he got pulled over by a black & white...and then to get out of the ticket, the "thugs" showed their badges as well!

Identifying Friends & Foes is tough, serious business.

 

[catsclaw227]

I like these "what-if" scenarios you are throwing out there with regards to TV situations. It gets the gears turning and provokes interesting discussion.

But, why all the mystery about the show and the circumstances? Wouldn't the thread and subsequent posters/readers be aided by simply stating:

"I was watching an episode of Luther and some dude went into an office building, and attacked a bunch of people in a cubicle farm with a hammer and a squirt gun with some kind of acidic liquid."

It would get past all the ambiguity that prevent people from answering the question appropriately from their point of view.