Re: Why we can\'t reach the speed of light?
Ozarker,
you said - "It is not necessary to be a trained martial artists to do great damage
with any object. People are stabbed to death by amateurs every day."
Yeah but probably not with an object easily recognized as a dipstick and not likely through a closed car window.
"I wouldn't let him get close enough to me to determine what it was he
had in his hand…"
That wouldn't play too well in court would it? I would think that a judge and 12 farmers would want someone willing (eager?) to use lethal force to have enough visual acuity to recognize a dip stick and the presence of mind to realize it did not automatically constitute a clear and present mortal danger to their safety behind a car window and that unless some overt act or some violent precursor to bodily harm, such as striking the vehicle or other demonstrative act that the armed "defender" might use as justification to pull his weapon and demand the individual cease and desist.
"I wouldn't let him get close enough to me to determine what it was he
had in his hand…"
I think most folks wouldn't have difficulty recognizing a dipstick at 100 ft but even then if you pulled your weapon and brought it to bear AND waited to see what developed AND let the "target" approach (with your window down of course) you could make a determination of his intent, especially after you tell him to freeze and drop it.
"nor would I just sit in my car with the windows up and
doors locked. That will put one at a tactical disadvantage. "
OK, If you had opened your door and taken a defensive position behind it and brought your weapon to bear and ordered your "assailant/target" to freeze and drop it, you could have then assessed the "tactical" situation with plenty of safety to you. Not likely a guy with a dipstick could "get to you" in this scenario, even if he were a martial arts whiz.
I would hope that you would be looking for a way to control the situation and not be trying to find any justification however flimsy to kill someone. Especially in a situation where you are armed and can use your car or car door (if you want to establish a good shooting position).
"He would get
one opportunity to drop whatever he had in his hand and, failing to do
that, would get a .45 "double tap" to the chest. Problem solved............"
And of course the "target" has normal hearing, speaks English and … Some of us might feel better if you didn't put two in the center of mass because he didn't instantly drop his dipstick on the ground. Maybe it would play better in court too if you didn't drop him too far away from you (he is moving at a normal walk and probably froze or retreated when he saw the gun, if you didn't fire immediately on bringing your weapon on target). Lethal force is supposed to be the last resort to protect yourself.
"Sorry but I have no use for fools like the one you described. "
Yeah, but is stupidity and youth sufficient justification for summary execution? Who else would you include in your eugenics program?
"They present a significant danger to themselves and others around them. The only
reason they are still alive is because they haven't pulled a stunt like that
on someone larger and more deranged than they are or an off-duty police
officer. "
Yeah, a lot of teenagers fit that description but does that qualify them for summary execution?
I know a lot of law enforcement folk and although there is a tendency for the "badge and gun" to attract some folks with less desirable traits, most of them are pretty stable individuals who are not likely to shoot a kid for being stupid unless stupid includes pulling a water pistol that looks just like a Glock or something of that genre in a situation where further evaluation cannot safely be made..
"I would have no problem at all telling a judge that I shot a man who got
out of his car at a light, pulled some object from under his hood, was
approaching me with it in his hand and refused to stop and drop it when
ordered to do so. "
I think you are projecting some wishful thinking into the scenario and are rewriting it. IT wasn't "SOME" unknown object, being summer at 1730 there was good lighting and it was easily seen to be a dipstick (OK a dipstick carrying a dipstick). I'm sure that if the driver had pulled a gun my buddy would have peed his pants, thrown his hands up, run away, or some combination of the above and never given a reason for the use of lethal force.
"Your friend got the reaction he wanted."
He got the reaction he wanted, for the guy to quit blowing his horn like a New Yorker, this was laid back OKC in 1962.
"He caused the man in the other
car to react with fear. I suppose that is funny to you but, depending on
the level of fear he felt, it is also justification for the use of deadly force.
grievous bodily harm. The fact that he locked the doors and rolled up the
windows is evidence that he probably had that type of fear. "
You can't have it both ways, rolling up the windows and locking the doors in fear AND jumping out of the car with a drawn weapon to shoot a kid for being young and stupid.
"There are times and a places for fun and games. The middle of an
intersection isn't one of then."
Absolutely TRUE TRUE TRUE. I knew as reasonable men we could agree on some of this. 17 year old kids away from home do incredibly stupid and sometimes unthinking and dangerous things. Of course this was a different era. I'm not exaggerating to say that back then a brief fistfight might break out in lieu of exchanging insurance and driver's lisc info at the scene of a disputed fender bender, and then both drivers get in and depart with no further action, no cops, no guns, no lawsuits…
Now then I'm sure the "gun crowd" will want to lynch me for suggesting that the solution to every difficulty in life ISN'T lethal force. Before you flame me, consider what the PR value is of taking a public position that comes across as "eager to kill" as opposed to "cool evaluation with lethal force as a LAST resort" This is the kind of stuff that pushes the fence sitters into the gun control/gun confiscation camp. This does not help maintain our second amendment rights.
Again, before anyone flames me for being anti-gun, consider a couple things…1. I am and have been a member in good standing of NRA for quite a while (although I do get tired of the politics) 2. I am lisc for concealed carry and virtually never leave the house without a little something, usually .45 ACP Glock. I like to think that IF the situation warranted it that I would put enough hot lead in the center of mass to eliminate any chance of further hostilities with the other party(ies). I try to avoid situations that MIGHT require self defense and choose to reserve the application of lethal force for an unavoidable last resort situation.
I agree completely with you, Ozarker, regarding dropping someone who continues to advance toward my aimed weapon after being directed to stop, irrespective of any potential language barrier (the muzzle of a .45 is universally translated). That, however was never in the scenario which sparked this exchange.
I would also bet $100 dollars to a stale doughnut that if we had this chat in person, we would have never had a cross word and would most likely ended up in agreement with little or no reservations but unfortunately communications via this medium leaves a lot to be desired (at least I struggle with it but fail more than some).
Patrick
