On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Jimbo backpedaled:
Sorry, no backpedaling here (how are you liking your bike anyway?). I stand behind my previous statements on this topic.
I doubt seriously anyone would be blinded...
Self-defense is justified on the reasonable fear of great bodily harm.
We're not talking about 'self-defence' here, we're talking 'deadly force'. Not 1-to-1. Nice strawman though.
Whether you in your lawyer wannabe mind set "doubt" it or not is irrelevant.
Couldn't pay me to be a lawyer. I do know what sort of law I want my country to have and as a citizen I have a right and a responsibility to express that and to act toward those ends. If that pisses you off (or bruises your ego to the point of wanting to 'prove' how smart you are in comparison), well so be it. I've really got better things to do with my time than some silly elementary school bully schtick you're emotionally attached to. "I'm right because I made a 97'th percentile on my LSAT!"....yeah, right.
Care to risk your other eye in an experiment? Even though you might "doubt" you would be blinded, I doubt you would run the risk. Neither would someone in a car were you threatening them with a fire extinguisher.
What experiment? You paying the bill? If you'll pay the bill and somebody can identify the weight of the extinguisher and the model of the car I'd be willing to locate one in a junkyard and throw a fire extinguisher through it. I figure it would be worth a giggle or two (pretty low key rush really). I have safety equipment and 5 acres to work on. From simple low-velocity KE interactions the odds of being blinded are nil with standard safety equipment (which is why I ended up blind in one eye, don't have to tell me twice no siree bob). I'm regularly exposed to low to medium velocity particulate flying through the air because of my hobbies (ever seen a plate glass capacitor go when it's driving a .5MV Tesla coil? Woo Woo!!!! Now there's 'deadly force'). I also get exposed to deafness, flame, heat prostration, asphyxiation, poisoning, etc. on a regular basis too. As well as drowning, falls from extreme heights (50 to 4,000+ feet), nitrogen narcosis, large autonomous robots and mechanicals, etc. I used to do 'traditional' full contact TKD also (which raises another point, if a 12 year old can succesfully block a 150+ lb. man in a leap with an arm deflection a 15-20lb. fire extinguisher is nothing). I get off on it. One caveat, Ctl. Tx. is in our regular summer burn ban so no explosives or fire. You should go to srl.org and look at the Austin show ('96) for examples of the sort of shit I like to play with. Or get in touch with one of the Austin Robot Group and ask them about some of the stuff that we used to do on a regular basis at Discovery Hall (they sponsored the SRL show). Don would be a good one. If you can find anybody from DH that still works at the Austin Childrens Museum (sponsored by Dell) they can tell you some stories I'm sure. Why the hell weren't those cops wearing eye protection with all that shit flying around, it was the middle of a riot (I'll bet they had their body armor on). Their stupidity should rest squarely on their shoulders. Why was a vehicle without safety wire allowed anywhere near a known riot location? Hell, putting your hand up would have nullified any 'great bodily harm' potential (eg putting it on the inside of the glass where the extinguisher struck). A broken arm or hand is not 'great bodily harm' by any definition (except a self-serving one perhaps). Amateurs with no experience around those sorts of environments really should keep their mouths shut about how that stuff works. No, the cops panicked. The evidence isn't that they shot the protestor, but rather that they drove over his body in their panic to 'escape'. They lost their composure, they failed as police officers when it really, really counted. I don't believe 'murder' is appropriate but 'manslaughter' and being thrown off the force seem equitable. And then there is the point that at no time is the police officer relieved of their sworn duty to protect the citizens, including the rioters. Self-defence is NOT a sufficient release (there is a term for this policy but it escapes me, I know where to find it though and I'll share it tomorrow). This is a perfect example of why the standard police psych requirement of 'likes to be in charge' is a poor choice for police forces. The instant one of them clearly isn't they have no clue what to do. They resort to the one strategy they need to avoid at all costs - initiating violence. It's like watching a squirrel when my dogs get 'em trapped...round and round she goes until it's vittles time. When you strap that badge on you volunteer to become cannon fodder, the first line of defence (not offence). It is better a police officer gives up their life to save another than to take a life to save their own, that is where the true honor of the badge comes from, not the pistol but rather the willingness NOT to use it. The gun is there for those rare cases when it's necessary to use force to save anothers(!!!) life, not ones own. A police officers primary responsiblity is not to save their own life but to spend it to save another. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------