A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution probable cause for lethal force in self-defence? No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Wannabe lawyer Jimbo wrote:
Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution [sic] probable cause for lethal force in self-defence?
No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass.
Oh really? Try that experiment on your own car. Side windows shatter into a thousand pieces at the touch of a center punch. A fire extinguisher is decidedly overkill for the job. In any event, the test--at least in the US--for the use of deadly force includes the concepts of reasonable fear of death OR GREAT BODILY INJURY. Believe it or not, being blinded by a swarm of glass shards is considered great bodily injury. Please, Jimbo, take the LSAT so we can see how much smarter you are than your posts otherwise indicate. S a n d y P.S. Any Austin Cypherpunks have a fire extinguisher and know where Inchoate parks his car?
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Oh really? Try that experiment on your own car.
Actually I've seen windows break (and broken my fair share) on cars multiple times. Some from wrecks, some from gunshot (a .38 will bounce off a windshield for example) some from other things. I even once had a D based rocket fired directly into the windshield of a 68 Cougar, it was much larger and going a hell of a lot faster than a fire exstinguisher. It didn't go through the window. Didn't even break it.
Side windows shatter into a thousand pieces at the touch of a center punch. A fire extinguisher is decidedly overkill for the job.
A center puch (which focuses the force into a small area) isn't a fire extstinguisher. And windows are DESIGNED to break into a thousand little pieces, it absorbs the force of the impact. That way you don't get the sorts of car accident results that were so common in the country up through the 60's when the safety(!!!!) glass was put in all cars (admittedly Genoa isn't in the US). Things like no heads, amputated arms, chopped off noses and ears, etc. You should dig up some of the old safety crash films from that time and compare them to what happens today.
In any event, the test--at least in the US--for the use of deadly force includes the concepts of reasonable fear of death OR GREAT BODILY INJURY.
A fire extinguisher stuck in a window does none of the above.
Believe it or not, being blinded by a swarm of glass shards is considered great bodily injury.
I doubt seriously anyone would be blinded (and I'm blind in one eye from being struck with a 2x4 so I can speak from 1st person, yes it's great bodily injury. It's not justification for lethal force). -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jimbo backpedaled:
I doubt seriously anyone would be blinded...
Self-defense is justified on the reasonable fear of great bodily harm. Whether you in your lawyer wannabe mind set "doubt" it or not is irrelevant. 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.
yes it's great bodily injury. It's not justification for lethal force.
As usual, you are wrong again. Under the laws of most--if not all--US jurisdictions, it is. If you don't think so, fine, just sit there like a jerk with you gun in your hand and let the nice rioter have a go at your car window.
...I've seen windows break (and broken my fair share) on cars multiple times. Some from wrecks, some from gunshot...I even once had a D based rocket fired directly into the windshield of a 68 Cougar...I'm blind in one eye from being struck with a 2x4...
Wrecks, gunshots, rocket attacks and 2x4s, huh? Wake up Jimbo; can't you see that the universe is trying to tell you something? That ringing sound you keep ignoring is the clue-phone, Jimbo. S a n d y
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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Not-a-lawyer wrote:
Sorry, no backpedaling here... I stand behind my previous statements on this topic.
Good idea. If you were to stand in front of it, you'd probably lose the other eye.
We're not talking about 'self-defence' here...
No, we're talking 'self-defense', this is the US, not the UK.
...we're talking 'deadly force'. Not 1-to-1. Nice strawman though.
Jimbo, you ignorant slut, do you even know what a "straw man" argument is? DEADLY FORCE may be used in SELF-DEFENSE when one is in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. That's black-letter law. (There are some refinements, such as "to oneself or another," but they are not germane to the instant hypothetical of someone trying to bash you with a fire extinguisher through your car window.)
Couldn't pay me to be a lawyer.
Don't know about 'couldn't, but I certainly wouldn't. Your verbal reasoning skills suck.
I do know what sort of law I want my country to have and...
"...don't confuse me with the fact"?
I've really got better things to do with my time than some silly elementary school bully schtick you're emotionally attached to.
Yeah, we can see that by the quantity and quality of your posts. God, what a chicken shit way to turn tail. You've got all kinds of monetary offers to take the LSAT and you wimp out.
If you'll pay the bill and somebody can identify the weight of the extinguisher and the model of the car...
Cluck, cluck, cluck. The victim in the car doesn't get to know what sort of extinguisher the rioter will use. After take a long paragraph to blame the victim Jimbo asserts:
A broken arm or hand is not 'great bodily harm' by any definition (except a self-serving one perhaps).
Actually, it would fall under the definition of "great bodily harm," whether you think so or not. This is not a self-serving definition, you idiot, just a legal one that you happen to disagree with.
Amateurs with no experience around those sorts of environments really should keep their mouths shut about how that stuff works.
Yup Jimbo, you're right about that.
No, the cops panicked...
You really should become a lawyer or even a judge. You seem to already have figured this one out by ESP or something. Wow, I'm fucking impressed with your legal acumen.
And then there is the point that at no time is the police officer relieved of their sworn duty to protect the citizens, including the rioters.
Is THAT what cops swear to? I'd like to see a citation on that piece of bullshit. There is established case law in the US that says the police have no specific duty to protect anyone.
Self-defence is NOT a sufficient release (there is a term for this policy but it escapes me, I know where to find it though and I'll share it tomorrow).
How convenient. Now don't you forget to "share" that with us tomorrow Little Jimmie.
This is a perfect example of why the standard police psych requirement of 'likes to be in charge'...
Did you pull that out of your ass or someone else's?
A police officers primary responsiblity is not to save their own life but to spend it to save another.
This guy is a laugh riot. Where does he dig this stuff up? What a moron. S a n d y
At 7:18 PM -0700 7/23/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Not-a-lawyer wrote:
No, the cops panicked...
You really should become a lawyer or even a judge. You seem to already have figured this one out by ESP or something. Wow, I'm fucking impressed with your legal acumen.
And then there is the point that at no time is the police officer relieved of their sworn duty to protect the citizens, including the rioters.
Is THAT what cops swear to? I'd like to see a citation on that piece of bullshit. There is established case law in the US that says the police have no specific duty to protect anyone.
The kid who fired was not a Cop. He was (near as I understand) the rough equivalent of a National Guardsman.
Self-defence is NOT a sufficient release (there is a term for this policy but it escapes me, I know where to find it though and I'll share it tomorrow).
How convenient. Now don't you forget to "share" that with us tomorrow Little Jimmie.
This is a perfect example of why the standard police psych requirement of 'likes to be in charge'...
Did you pull that out of your ass or someone else's?
A police officers primary responsiblity is not to save their own life but to spend it to save another.
No Jim, the primary responsibility of a Police Officer is to enforce the law, which really isn't relevant in this case, since the shooter apparently wasn't a cop. He was a soldier. And what is the primary responsibility of a soldier? Well, in Basic Training I was informed that my basic task was to seek out the enemy and destroy him. Which is why using Soldiers in peace keeping missions is a really, really boneheaded move.
This guy is a laugh riot. Where does he dig this stuff up? What a moron.
Tim calls it "Choatien Prime".
At 1:20 AM -0700 7/24/01, Petro wrote:
This guy is a laugh riot. Where does he dig this stuff up? What a moron.
Tim calls it "Choatien Prime".
Actually, "Choate Prime," the planet which exists askew of our own reality, and which Jim Choate channels. On Choate Prime, the laws of physics are as Jim Choate channels them to us, the nature of prime numbers is as he describes, law is different from our reality, and their history diverged from ours some centuries ago. (The point of divergence might have been longer ago, but I haven't heard Choate expound on Roman history, so I don't know for sure.) Perhaps Choate Prime only exists in Jim Choate's head...is a puzzlement. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
-- On 24 Jul 2001, at 1:20, Petro wrote:
And what is the primary responsibility of a soldier? Well, in Basic Training I was informed that my basic task was to seek out the enemy and destroy him.
Whch is why using Soldiers in peace keeping missions is a really, really boneheaded move.
But not however as bone headed as throwing a fire extinguisher at a soldier, missing, then picking up the fire extinguisher to have another go just after one guy has whacked the soldier with a two by four, and another has whacked him with a four inch steel pipe. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG 9WO/DF4M7KEFuERCw12la6FrYdJn2JC2eH8zHWgG 4dgHHLJm6v5oLAnpniC37IYnynq9xpNZvRc4pvJfD
At 11:35 PM -0700 7/26/01, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
-- On 24 Jul 2001, at 1:20, Petro wrote:
And what is the primary responsibility of a soldier? Well, in Basic Training I was informed that my basic task was to seek out the enemy and destroy him.
Whch is why using Soldiers in peace keeping missions is a really, really boneheaded move.
But not however as bone headed as throwing a fire extinguisher at a soldier, missing, then picking up the fire extinguisher to have another go just after one guy has whacked the soldier with a two by four, and another has whacked him with a four inch steel pipe.
You'll find no disagreement from me on that.
On 24 Jul 2001, at 1:20, Petro wrote:
And what is the primary responsibility of a soldier? Well, in Basic Training I was informed that my basic task was to seek out the enemy and destroy him.
The primary, perhaps only, effective purpose of a military is to "break things and kill people." I seem to recall a book about the Marine Corp with a Fedex satire motto along the lines of "When it absolutely has to be destroyed overnight!" steve
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Not-a-lawyer wrote:
[...]
We're not talking about 'self-defence' here...
No, we're talking 'self-defense', this is the US, not the UK.
Actually Sandy, it was Italy. I haven't got the faintest ideas what the laws on self-defence are in Italy. And I'm bloody-well sure Jim doesn't either. Whay are you arguing with himn? We saw long ago that, for reasons he may well understand but most of us don't, Jim will never admit that there may be a factual mistake in anything he writes. He always tries to redefine terms, bring up irrelevancies, alter emphases, to make something that looks factually wrong seem as if it might just about have been true in context. If Jim writes 20 things down, 19 of which are true and someone objects to the 1 that is false, any following thread turns into a ducking and weaving semantic flamewar about the one false statement. So a discussion about whether the Italian police were right to shoot someone in Genova turns into an argument about the momentum of model rockets - all because Jim can't bring himself to say something like: "I don't know, I wasn't there, I guess if the police account of what happened is true then they might have been in fear of their lives, so maybe we can't blame them for shooting. On the other hand, maybe the news accounts are faked or exagerated and they were just picking on the guy. I can't tell, I wasn't there and I haven't talked to anyone who was." But the words "I don't know" seem hard for some people to write down :-( Ken Brown (who doesn't know why he is joining the argument, when he has work to do)
Ken Brown wrote:
Sandy Sandfort wrote: [...]
No, we're talking 'self-defense', this is the US, not the UK.
Actually Sandy, it was Italy.
Right, but Jimbo lives in Texas where the word is spelled "defense" not "defence" as it is in England. Just teasing the (ignorant) monkey.
Whay are you arguing with himn? We saw long ago that, for reasons he may well understand but most of us don't, Jim will never admit that there may be a factual mistake in anything he writes...
It is educational (and it amuses me) to draw him out into parading his ignorance and intransigence for all to see. Of course, he won't admit he is wrong directly, but when his stupid notions are repeatedly challenged, he is forced to dig himself in deeper and deeper. This makes it crystal clear to all observers that his arguments have no merit. If he is unchallenged, a few folks might actually think he has something worthwhile to say. So think of it as a public service. Now the real question is, does Jimbo realize he's making an ass out of himself, or does he actually think he's scoring points? If the first alternative is true, it brands him as a detestable moral and intellectual coward. If the second is true, he's far stupider than I would have thought. Of course the two options are not mutually exclusive... The really sad thing about Jimbo is that he stands absolutely alone. Each time I, or someone else, gives him a real good ass kicking, taunt him, tease and humiliate him, NO ONE ever jumps to his defense (or defence, for that matter). I've been told not to feed the trolls, once or twice someone has agreed with a factual part of one of his statements and folks like you have said--in effect--why bother, but no one has ever said anything like, "play nice" or "cut the guy some slack, he's human too" or anything remotely SYMPATHETIC to Jim Choate as a human being. You have to be a pretty wretched human being to evoke that little sympathy However, as I think you realize, that would all change overnight if Jimbo were to show some humility or moral/intellectual honesty. If that were to happen, I would be the first to cut him some slack. As it is, though, I have zero respect or sympathy for him and I will continue to cut him off at the knees without remorse.
Ken Brown (who doesn't know why he is joining the argument, when he has work to do)
What WERE you thinking? :-D S a n d y
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 08:47:19AM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
It is educational (and it amuses me) to draw him out into parading his ignorance and intransigence for all to see. Of course, he won't admit he is
Educational? Only in the study of aberrant thinking. I confess I've baited Choate more than I care to remember, but I'm not sure going out of your way to taunt him is particularly educational or worthwhile. Someone wrote to me yesterday with this note: "poor guy, i dont think he knows how to handle all the attention...and i think he will just ignore you guys and let it passby and continue being himself. too bad, it would in fact be fun to have cpunx mail reduced by that much." -Decan
Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 08:47:19AM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
It is educational (and it amuses me) to draw him out into parading his ignorance and intransigence for all to see. Of course, he won't admit he is
Educational? Only in the study of aberrant thinking.
I disagree. I think by ignore Jimbo's intellectual dishonesty and poor reasoning skills, to some extents gives the appearance of some validity. Only by calling him on his sloppy thinking can we remove the petina of plausibility.
I confess I've baited Choate more than I care to remember, but I'm not sure going out of your way to taunt him is particularly educational or worthwhile.
Okay. We disagree on this subject. I can live with that. :-D S a n d y
Spirit, Blood, and Treasure The American cost of battle in the 21st century D. Vandegriff, ed. ISBN 0-89141-735-4 "Minimal Force: The mark of a skilled warrior" John Poole pp. 107 The particular principle that is behind it is called, 'principium inculpatae tutelae' -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
the newchotian philosophy: reductio ad absurdum. phillip
-----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@Algebra.COM]On Behalf Of Jim Choate Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 5:50 PM To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com Subject: RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Spirit, Blood, and Treasure The American cost of battle in the 21st century D. Vandegriff, ed. ISBN 0-89141-735-4
"Minimal Force: The mark of a skilled warrior" John Poole pp. 107
The particular principle that is behind it is called,
'principium inculpatae tutelae'
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
B.A. Behrend
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Inchoate tried to dazzle us with his foot work:
The particular principle that is behind it is called,
'principium inculpatae tutelae'
Yeah sure, the protector must be above reproach (loose translation of the idiom), but that doesn't say anything about self-sacrifice you twit. To be "without blame" (a more precise translation) only mean to have not acted in an unfair way. Shooting guys who are trying to bash you with a steel cylinder is not unfair, it's just good sense. S a n d y /| |/ \ / \ \ / \ \ / \ \ /_______\/ | | | | | o | | | //// | | | ||||| | | | (.)~(x) | | | | O | | | | (_=_) | | | |_| | | | | | |WHERE IS | | | DILDO? | | |_________|/
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@ssz.com> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:58 PM Subject: RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Oh really? Try that experiment on your own car.
Actually I've seen windows break (and broken my fair share) on cars multiple times. Some from wrecks, some from gunshot (a .38 will bounce off a windshield for example) some from other things. I even once had a D based rocket fired directly into the windshield of a 68 Cougar, it was much larger and going a hell of a lot faster than a fire exstinguisher. It didn't go through the window. Didn't even break it.
Side windows shatter into a thousand pieces at the touch of a center
There are two types of windows on most American cars... The first is the front windshield.. It has a film in it that keeps it generally in one piece unless enough force is put through it. As a firefighter we like this windshield since it is easily removed with a sharp knife around the seal (its gotta be removed before you can remove the top of the car). The side windows are another matter, they are made to shatter so that there are no large shards that may seriously injure someone... A model rocket does not really count as a good test on the strength of the window since most model rockets do not have the weight needed to damage much anything even with a D engine.. A .38 will bounce off water if shot at the right angle.. However it will not bounce off a windows, at any fair distance, if shot perpendicular to the winshield... All that aside you are assuming that the Italian vehicles have the same type glass we do in our American cars.. punch.
A fire extinguisher is decidedly overkill for the job.
A center puch (which focuses the force into a small area) isn't a fire extstinguisher. And windows are DESIGNED to break into a thousand little pieces, it absorbs the force of the impact. That way you don't get the sorts of car accident results that were so common in the country up through the 60's when the safety(!!!!) glass was put in all cars (admittedly Genoa isn't in the US). Things like no heads, amputated arms, chopped off noses and ears, etc.
No that was not why safety glass was put in cars.. It was put in cars stop flying glass.... http://www.howstuffworks.com/question508.htm
You should dig up some of the old safety crash films from that time and compare them to what happens today.
I have probably seen all of the most popular ones.. I also have some videos of emeregencies that I actually responded too.
In any event, the test--at least in the US--for the use of deadly force includes the concepts of reasonable fear of death OR GREAT BODILY INJURY.
A fire extinguisher stuck in a window does none of the above.
Believe it or not, being blinded by a swarm of glass shards is considered great bodily injury.
I doubt seriously anyone would be blinded (and I'm blind in one eye from being struck with a 2x4 so I can speak from 1st person, yes it's great bodily injury. It's not justification for lethal force).
How did the police really know it was a fire extinguisher.. It could have been a bomb for all they knew.. However I can tell you this.. If someone was coming at me with a 15lb metal object with the intent to hurl it at my head and I had a gun in my hand I would not hesitate to shoot with intent to kill... These people went from being protestors to being criminals by their own actions..... Jon Beets Pacer Communications
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 23 July 2001 16:58, Jim Choate wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Oh really? Try that experiment on your own car.
Actually I've seen windows break (and broken my fair share) on cars multiple times. Some from wrecks, some from gunshot (a .38 will bounce off a windshield for example) some from other things. I even once had a D based rocket fired directly into the windshield of a 68 Cougar, it was much larger and going a hell of a lot faster than a fire exstinguisher. It didn't go through the window. Didn't even break it.
A "D based rocket" is no great amount of force. If it was light enough to go as fast as you say, then it wouldn't go through plate glass, much less a windshield.
Side windows shatter into a thousand pieces at the touch of a center punch. A fire extinguisher is decidedly overkill for the job.
A center puch (which focuses the force into a small area) isn't a fire extstinguisher. And windows are DESIGNED to break into a thousand little pieces, it absorbs the force of the impact. That way you don't get the sorts of car accident results that were so common in the country up through the 60's when the safety(!!!!) glass was put in all cars (admittedly Genoa isn't in the US). Things like no heads, amputated arms, chopped off noses and ears, etc.
You should dig up some of the old safety crash films from that time and compare them to what happens today.
In any event, the test--at least in the US--for the use of deadly force includes the concepts of reasonable fear of death OR GREAT BODILY INJURY.
A fire extinguisher stuck in a window does none of the above.
On the contrary, someone throwing a fire extinguisher at me - window glass, safety glass, or barred gate - does create a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. Not necessarily because the fire extinguisher will ever reach me, but because I have rather clear evidence that someone intends on causing that harm somehow or another. If they don't, then why are they throwing fire extinguishers?
Believe it or not, being blinded by a swarm of glass shards is considered great bodily injury.
I doubt seriously anyone would be blinded (and I'm blind in one eye from being struck with a 2x4 so I can speak from 1st person, yes it's great bodily injury. It's not justification for lethal force).
Your opinion. My opinion is that if anyone wants to hit me with a 2x4, fire extinguisher, baseball bat, whatever, then they'd better expect to be hit by anything I have handy, up to and including .45 chunks of lead travelling at 400 fps.
-- ____________________________________________________________________
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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
- -- Matt Beland matt@rearviewmirror.org http://www.rearviewmirror.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE7XO6vBxcVTa6Gy5wRAvgQAKCa+iuCwVMkNVlyMqLLppHZe+7OiACg8+i7 jiyE78CpKTBwalEAxRMCUDo= =9I6D -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Matt Beland wrote:
A "D based rocket" is no great amount of force. If it was light enough to go as fast as you say, then it wouldn't go through plate glass, much less a windshield.
20 N-s for a D. Figure a rocket that weighs about a pound. It's about .2s after launch (it was launched horizontaly and about 30 ft. away). -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
C'punks, Notice how reverently Inchoate argues the minutia of the "extinguisher" topic? The reason is obvious. That argument boils down to disputed facts and personal opinion. It's a lot more comfortable than confronting the objective LSAT challenge. Funny, how he can argue the relative impact of rockets and fire extinguishers ad nauseam, but is so uncharacteristically silent about the HUNDREDS of dollars he has been offered to show some nominal degree of verbal reasoning ability on an objective test. Gee, I'd have thought he would have jumped at the chance to humiliate his tormentors by acing that puppy. Well, I guess we all know why he won't take--or even really discuss--this true test of his thinking ability. S a n d y
-----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@lne.com]On Behalf Of Jim Choate Sent: 23 July, 2001 21:12 To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com Subject: RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Matt Beland wrote:
A "D based rocket" is no great amount of force. If it was light enough to go as fast as you say, then it wouldn't go through plate glass, much less a windshield.
20 N-s for a D. Figure a rocket that weighs about a pound. It's about .2s after launch (it was launched horizontaly and about 30 ft. away).
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
B.A. Behrend
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 6:58 PM -0500 7/23/01, Jim Choate wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Oh really? Try that experiment on your own car.
Actually I've seen windows break (and broken my fair share) on cars multiple times. Some from wrecks, some from gunshot (a .38 will bounce off a windshield for example) some from other things. I even once had a D based rocket fired directly into the windshield of a 68 Cougar, it was much larger and going a hell of a lot faster than a fire exstinguisher. It didn't go through the window. Didn't even break it.
It's not size, it's Mass. What size was the extinguisher? It wasn't mentioned in any of the reports I saw, but I was picturing a rather large (25 pound PKP or CO2 sized extinguishers) one. If that is the case, it contains rather more energy, even when thrown, than a .38.
Side windows shatter into a thousand pieces at the touch of a center punch. A fire extinguisher is decidedly overkill for the job.
A center puch (which focuses the force into a small area) isn't a fire extstinguisher. And windows are DESIGNED to break into a thousand little
No, it isn't. It's a lot less force concentrated into a small area.
In any event, the test--at least in the US--for the use of deadly force includes the concepts of reasonable fear of death OR GREAT BODILY INJURY.
A fire extinguisher stuck in a window does none of the above.
Really. Ever been hit by one of them? Given the mass of one (assuming it was one of the bigger ones), it most certainly could cause bodily injury--but that isn't really the point. And let's not even talk about what could have happened would the neck of a pressurized extinguisher break. You are in a crowd of hostile people. You are there because you were ordered up by your government, not because it's part of your normal job. You are young. You are more than a little scared (ever been in the middle of a protest that is running up against police force? It's not a peaceful situation). Suddenly some masked nitwit throws something big and heavy at you. You don't know what it is. You've been hearing shit all day like "Revolution is the only solution", you have no idea what these people are up to. You've read shit on the internet about these "black blocks" and "street actions", and your nervous. And all of the sudden the window shatters (maybe you get hit with glass, maybe you don't, doesn't matter). Thing is, *you* didn't initiate force. The masked man did. And he's not wearing some sort of goofy holloween mask, he's dressed like a freaking bank robber. It is very easy to understand why a shit scared 20 year old started shooting. It's hard to understand why supposedly rational people condemn him and wish to excuse the actions of some idiot hooligan. Free speech stops with *THREATENING* others, much less any sort of initiation of violence. Did the kid in the Mask deserve to die? Yes. Not so much for throwing the extinguisher, but for terminal stupidity.
Believe it or not, being blinded by a swarm of glass shards is considered great bodily injury.
I doubt seriously anyone would be blinded (and I'm blind in one eye from being struck with a 2x4 so I can speak from 1st person, yes it's great bodily injury. It's not justification for lethal force).
It is at minimum because once someone in a protest starts something like that, it usually grows. Further more, getting glass in ones eyes *CAN* blind you, depending on the force with which it hits gets in, etc. Glass, expecially in the eyes, is very difficult for a doctor to find and extract, and it's *really* sharp, so if it gets to the back of the eye (where the nerves are), I can see it doing a great deal of damage.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 06:18:47PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution probable cause for lethal force in self-defence?
No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass.
I second the call for Jim to volunteer his car for projectile testing. Besides, wasn't the window open? -Declan
At 03:15 PM 7/23/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 06:18:47PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution probable cause for lethal force in self-defence?
No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass.
I second the call for Jim to volunteer his car for projectile testing.
A-yup.
Besides, wasn't the window open?
If not already broken, see the link I just sent. Reese
At 01:18 PM 7/23/01, Jim Choate wrote:
Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution probable cause for lethal force in self-defence?
No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass.
Safety glass isn't used in much of the rest of the world. Can your computer handle a powerpoint presentation? If yes, click on the link. Here are 15,000 words worth of how wrong you are, Choate: http://italy.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/giuliani_sequence.ppt Don't mind the propaganda at the bottom of the images, just look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions. The shooting occurred at the back of the vehicle, where not even US vehicles have safety glass (and the window was already broken out). Reese
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Reese wrote:
Don't mind the propaganda at the bottom of the images, just look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions. The shooting occurred at the back of the vehicle, where not even US vehicles have safety glass (and the window was already broken out).
Wrong, my Bronco has safety glass all around. So did my Mustang GT. My 86 Isuzu Pup also has safety glass all around. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
At 04:24 PM 7/23/01, Jim Choate wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Reese wrote:
Don't mind the propaganda at the bottom of the images, just look at the pictures and draw your own conclusions. The shooting occurred at the back of the vehicle, where not even US vehicles have safety glass (and the window was already broken out).
I was thinking laminated safety glass, which is only used for windshields in the US.
Wrong, my Bronco has safety glass all around. So did my Mustang GT. My 86 Isuzu Pup also has safety glass all around.
But they do not have laminated safety glass all around. I'll quote Jon Beets: At 04:14 PM 7/23/01, Jon Beets wrote:
There are two types of windows on most American cars... The first is the front windshield.. It has a film in it that keeps it generally in one piece unless enough force is put through it. As a firefighter we like this windshield since it is easily removed with a sharp knife around the seal (its gotta be removed before you can remove the top of the car). The side windows are another matter, they are made to shatter so that there are no large shards that may seriously injure someone...
And shatter they do, quite easily. I shattered a side window in a truck simply by slamming the door too hard, once. The window was fully up, btw. Reese
Uhhh yes it will go through the safety glass.. Look at the pics.. One person had already put piece of lumber through it.. That was about a 15lb extinguisher... From what I can tell from the photos the protester DID intend harm to the police. Of course none of us were there so its really hard to know the truth.. Jon Beets Pacer Communications ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@ssz.com> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:18 PM Subject: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution probable cause for lethal force in self-defence?
No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass.
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
B.A. Behrend
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
While it's true the hole would have reduced the cushion impact of breaking the glass it would not have eliminated it. NATO says it takes a transfer of approx. 85 Joules to kill. Figure out the velocity that takes for 15 lbs.. Compare to the velocity possible in this incidence. In addition the fact that a previous protestor had put a board through the window only goes to demonstrate the high level of emotional disruption these officers were exposed to. Panicking is not justification for making a wrong decision. Deadly force was not in any way justified. On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Jon Beets wrote:
Uhhh yes it will go through the safety glass.. Look at the pics.. One person had already put piece of lumber through it.. That was about a 15lb extinguisher... From what I can tell from the photos the protester DID intend harm to the police. Of course none of us were there so its really hard to know the truth..
-- ____________________________________________________________________ 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 --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 09:21:59PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
NATO says it takes a transfer of approx. 85 Joules to kill.
1. It all depends on where and how it's applied. Give me a scalpel and I suspect I can kill you with far less than 85 Joules. 2. Even if we dismiss point #1 above and assume for the same of argument death was impossible, serious injury, blinding, etc. was possible. And use of deadly force seems appropriate in cases where you have a reasonable belief that you're about to be seriously injured, even crippled. Although Choate does make one point, and that's the guy getting run over once or twice. Once I can understand -- the police vehicle seems like it's up against a wall in the front. Twice seems unusual and worth an explanation. -Declan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Declan McCullagh" <declan@well.com> To: "Jim Choate" <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> Cc: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 10:39 PM Subject: Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 09:21:59PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
NATO says it takes a transfer of approx. 85 Joules to kill.
1. It all depends on where and how it's applied. Give me a scalpel and I suspect I can kill you with far less than 85 Joules.
2. Even if we dismiss point #1 above and assume for the same of argument death was impossible, serious injury, blinding, etc. was possible. And use of deadly force seems appropriate in cases where you have a reasonable belief that you're about to be seriously injured, even crippled.
Although Choate does make one point, and that's the guy getting run over once or twice. Once I can understand -- the police vehicle seems like it's up against a wall in the front. Twice seems unusual and worth an explanation.
-Declan
Absolutely.. People make mistakes... People also do things on purpose.. I am just not the kind of person that automatically assumes someone does anything on purpose... I have been in alot of intense situations in my career as a firefighter in the Air Force and I can honestly say people will do the most stupid things you would have ever imagined in intense situations. I would be interested to find out what the investigation turns up after this.. Jon Beets Pacer Communications
Over here in Europe, the Carabinieri are still big news. People aren't so much focussing on the dead man (maybe because it does look like self-defence) but on what the apparent revenge taken by the police and/or carabinieri on others after the main business was over. The IMC is getting the most attention. There are supposed eye-witness reports from people associated with various Christian and Green organisations, who claim they were no-where near the violence, in fact avoided the streets because of the violence, yet were picked on by the cops afterwards. BBC account: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1459000/1459466.stm There has been a radio interview, broadcast a number of times, with a man who claims that the cops lined up to take kicks at him as he lay on the floor. Very effective, as he breaks down and cries part way through as he says he was convinced he was going to die. Says he blacked out, and woke up again, only to be kicked in the head again. Is still in hospital with a punctured lung amongst other things. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1458000/1458347.stm) These guys are not young thugs out for a fight, most of them are thirties, some older, and they are mostly well-educated people with jobs. In other words they probably have friends who are lawyers and journalists (well, some of them are journalists themselves). So they probably know how to make a fuss that their own governments will notice. Whether or not the Italian government will pay any attention is another matter (Although the city government in Genova itself seems to now be objecting to what went on). There are also rumours (maybe no more than that - http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,7369,528210,00.html)) about collaboration between police, right-wing organisations, and the Italian government. If you believe all this then there seems to have been an element of Italian military who took the opportunity to put the frighteners on just about anyone they didn't like - Greens, pacifists, trade unions, socialists, whatever. Berlusconi is a famously dubious piece of work - friends with fascists (real ones, not just the ordinary authoritarian conservatives that lefties like me love to call "fascists" as an insult); and he has an egregious monopoly on Italian broadcasting. How independent are "private" TV stations and newspapers when the guy who runs them is also the man in charge of the government? Big government (and big business, which is always in bed with big government and often has more in common with big government than it does with small business) need protests to keep them awake. Without protest they become managerial, think they can make decisions for everyone else and just get away with it. At best they like to "consult", in other words, they call a meeting, send some minor bureaucrats to take minutes, let the people say what they want, then do what they were going to do anyway. The protest, the demonstration, if necessary the riot, is the other side of the democratic coin. If the people just take orders, then the government will carry on just giving orders. Of course in Italy nowadays big government and big business are the same people. Ken While we're at it, http://www.lanterna.provincia.genova.it/eng/realizzazione/index.htm is a webcam on a lighthouse at the entrance to the harbour at Genova, just in case you fancy some Mediterranean sunshine :-)
At 9:21 PM -0500 7/23/01, Jim Choate wrote:
While it's true the hole would have reduced the cushion impact of breaking the glass it would not have eliminated it.
NATO says it takes a transfer of approx. 85 Joules to kill.
That's ridiculous. There are far too many variables involved in delivering a fatal wound for anyone to be able to reduce it to a single number. 85 Joules delivered where and how? That seems to come to about 62-63 foot pounds, about the muzzle energy of a .22 long rifle out of a 2 inch barrel (65 pounds) and more than the energy of a .32 short-colt (54 pounds). I would say that neither is adequate to reliably do the job, nor is either "sub-lethal".
Figure out the velocity that takes for 15 lbs.. Compare to the velocity possible in this incidence.
Assuming that the protestor can achieve 20 FPS with a 15 pound weight, he's generating 93+ foot pounds at terminus. That's 13 miles per hour. I'd bet he could get closer to 25-30 miles an hour which would be over 300 foot pounds, which puts it around the energy delivered by a 9mm Parabellum. Check my math, I'm not good at it. Now, as I indicated above, just because there is adequate energy to do the job if well placed, doesn't mean there's enough to do the job if it falls on your foot. As well, it may be nominally inadequate, but still be lethal if delivered *just* right. The .22LR has killed a lot of people, and I'd bet the .32 short has done one or two.
In addition the fact that a previous protestor had put a board through the window only goes to demonstrate the high level of emotional disruption these officers were exposed to. Panicking is not justification for making a wrong decision.
Huh? When one is in a panic state, one by definition is not thinking clearly, otherwise one would not be panicking.
Deadly force was not in any way justified.
It most certainly was.
--
In addition the fact that a previous protestor had put a board through the window only goes to demonstrate the high level of emotional disruption these officers were exposed to. Panicking is not justification for making a wrong decision.
Deadly force was not in any way justified.
A well armed cop had just been slammed twice by a two by four and once by a four inch steel pipe. A protester was about to hurl a fire extinguisher at him. He shot the guy Justified or not, would not you have done the same? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG DwNy9Z3xWH7jI3ImfeUlX3wCsnPfQLmLguxcpDQl 4iR1ONYmJc10dQINKL0u1En/dpYJkbOFxzZY9pANT
At 8:35 PM -0500 7/23/01, Jon Beets wrote:
Uhhh yes it will go through the safety glass.. Look at the pics.. One person had already put piece of lumber through it.. That was about a 15lb extinguisher... From what I can tell from the photos the protester DID intend harm to the police. Of course none of us were there so its really hard to know the truth..
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@ssz.com> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:18 PM Subject: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution probable cause for lethal force in self-defence?
No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass.
First, "safety glass" is said to be "safety" because it tends to hold together instead of shattering into shards. It's not Lexan. Second, anyone who has spent time in a wrecking yard knows things go through safety glass all the time. Third, those of us who are old enough remember that Jayne Mansfield's head went right through the safety glass. Fourth, disputing Choate about the physics of safety glass is as pointless as arguing with him over Gauss's Theorem, prime numbers, the First Amendment, the history of Europe, law, or anything else he has his peculiarly indisyncratic views about. Fifth, if someone is trying to throw a fire extinguisher through either my front window or my side windows, I'm going to defend myself. I expect no less from the carabinieri. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmay@got.net Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
Third, those of us who are old enough remember that Jayne Mansfield's head went right through the safety glass.
They didn't have safety glass in the 50's. Those sort of accidents that got worse into the 60's are the reason they put safety glass in cars. Back in those old days it was 'tempered' which means heat treated to be hard, not shock resistant. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at the Reuters image of Carlo holding the fire extinguisher, he's holding it below head-level. In my opinion, that leaves three options: Carlo was going to chuck the extinguisher underhand (and sideways to the vehicle, so it would've bounced off) at a low velocity, or Carlo was holding the fire extinguisher out in front of him as DEFENSE, or he was merely holding a fire extinguisher. It's not clear how much time elapsed between the picture of Carlo alive, and the next image, which is him lying on the ground with his brains all over the ground. However, the gun is can be seen and it's pointed at his head, so I assume it wasn't very long. There's an image of Carlo under the land rover, with the cop who shot him covering or wiping his face. Neither man in the jeep were wearing gas masks with face shields, but every other carabinieri member seen in the series is wearing them. The other thing that may not have been mentioned is that there were Carabinieri within 30 feet of the land rover, and that Carlo was in the Green Zone, supposedly the safe area for protests. There are pictures of about 10 fellow members of law enforcement a short distance away, including one with both hands on his forehead area. He appears anguished. There's an image of Carlo under the land rover, with the cop who shot him covering or wiping his face. there's a PDF on indymedia.org with the pictures i'm talking about at http://italia.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/carlo-photofile.pdf. Most of this analysis is paraphrased from the pdf, but it seems reasonable. this may be a repeat of the powerpoint presentation post, but it's more cross-platform. At 05:35 PM Monday 07/23/2001, you wrote:
Uhhh yes it will go through the safety glass.. Look at the pics.. One person had already put piece of lumber through it.. That was about a 15lb extinguisher... From what I can tell from the photos the protester DID intend harm to the police. Of course none of us were there so its really hard to know the truth..
Jon Beets Pacer Communications
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@ssz.com> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:18 PM Subject: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution probable cause for lethal force in self-defence?
No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass.
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
B.A. Behrend
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------- Andrew Woods Pokerspot.com Customer Support
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Woods" <andrew@pokerspot.com> To: "Jon Beets" <Jon.Beets@pacer.com> Cc: <cypherpunks@lne.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:14 AM Subject: Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
There are pictures of about 10 fellow members of law enforcement a short distance away, including one with both hands on his forehead area. He appears anguished.
Wow, the propaganda in the .ppt was effective on SOMEONE anyhow. Give that PR guy a cigar, or a raise. Bottom line, never, ever, ever, mess with armed thugs- in whatever form. Not only will you die or be otherwise grievously injured but you will get zero sympathy from anyone with a brain. Do, however, expect to be featured in excellent propaganda- your consolation prize for being under 30 and dead (brain-dead or deaddead). It may even sway the occasional Mr. "Armchair Anarchist" Woods. Who knows, perhaps so much that he sends an e-mail, if he manages to finish it before the evening stock reports come on and distract him, or before the phone rings with some 20something begging him to switch to AT&T because he can get $0.07 a minute on his long distance right this second and at the station he's gotten to in life how could he deny that to himself? In the end it's evolution in action. And good evolution at that. Using any old excuse to pound on some armed Italian para-military types seems more a demonstration to me that these people have nothing real to do than anything else. Mother: "Where ya going Flavio?" Son: "Oh, out with Juliano and Francisco. We're going to go to the mall, maybe catch a movie and then try and catch the last couple hours of the protests and pound on some pigs while we can before the Gwhatever summit leaves." Francisco: "Yeah, don't forget to bring your mask cause I want to smash that damn Starbucks that Sylvia works at too, the one on the corner!" Mom: "That's nice dear. Be home for supper." Many tears shed, many pictures taken, much hand wringing, then, in a month, life goes on. Deal or don't protest violently near armed thugs. "C'mon, shoot me, shoot me, I dare you, pig. Shoot me. Whatcha gonna do? C'mon, you can't do it can you? Can you?" *Bang* -Surprised Look- What a worthless exercise. What a dumbass. The only thing that really upsets me to any degree is that most of the protestors have come into town with the express intent of causing trouble. This means they are generally burning down someone else's neighborhood, not their own. Ah well. Can't have everything.
I agree with your statements regarding confrontation of heavily armed militia men. The email was basically a response to the general conception that he was throwing the extinguisher, a conception which is somewhat contrary to the photographic evidence. The question, given the evidence, is whether the protestors were pounding on the Italian paramilitary, or the paramilitary came to pound on peaceful protestors who stayed in the designated area, and then something went awry. I agree with both Choate (oops) and Petro, that cops should not be trigger happy, and sending soldiers into "peacekeeping" actions is counter to the majority of their training and habits. How can you possibly know the intentions of "most of the protestors"? I suspect (but do not know) the intent of the rowdier 10% of protestors was to disrupt the meeting of the Group of 8 through their actions, not simply to fuck up the city of Genoa. I will ignore your useless ad hominem attack, because you know even less about me than what happened to Carlo Giuliani. At 12:43 AM Tuesday 07/24/2001, Black Unicorn wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Woods" <andrew@pokerspot.com> To: "Jon Beets" <Jon.Beets@pacer.com> Cc: <cypherpunks@lne.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 1:14 AM Subject: Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
There are pictures of about 10 fellow members of law enforcement a short distance away, including one with both hands on his forehead area. He appears anguished.
Wow, the propaganda in the .ppt was effective on SOMEONE anyhow. Give that PR guy a cigar, or a raise.
Bottom line, never, ever, ever, mess with armed thugs- in whatever form. Not only will you die or be otherwise grievously injured but you will get zero sympathy from anyone with a brain. Do, however, expect to be featured in excellent propaganda- your consolation prize for being under 30 and dead (brain-dead or deaddead). It may even sway the occasional Mr. "Armchair Anarchist" Woods. Who knows, perhaps so much that he sends an e-mail, if he manages to finish it before the evening stock reports come on and distract him, or before the phone rings with some 20something begging him to switch to AT&T because he can get $0.07 a minute on his long distance right this second and at the station he's gotten to in life how could he deny that to himself?
In the end it's evolution in action. And good evolution at that.
Using any old excuse to pound on some armed Italian para-military types seems more a demonstration to me that these people have nothing real to do than anything else.
Mother: "Where ya going Flavio?" Son: "Oh, out with Juliano and Francisco. We're going to go to the mall, maybe catch a movie and then try and catch the last couple hours of the protests and pound on some pigs while we can before the Gwhatever summit leaves." Francisco: "Yeah, don't forget to bring your mask cause I want to smash that damn Starbucks that Sylvia works at too, the one on the corner!" Mom: "That's nice dear. Be home for supper."
Many tears shed, many pictures taken, much hand wringing, then, in a month, life goes on. Deal or don't protest violently near armed thugs. "C'mon, shoot me, shoot me, I dare you, pig. Shoot me. Whatcha gonna do? C'mon, you can't do it can you? Can you?" *Bang* -Surprised Look-
What a worthless exercise. What a dumbass.
The only thing that really upsets me to any degree is that most of the protestors have come into town with the express intent of causing trouble. This means they are generally burning down someone else's neighborhood, not their own. Ah well. Can't have everything.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Woods" <andrew@pokerspot.com> To: "Black Unicorn" <unicorn@schloss.li>; "Jon Beets" <Jon.Beets@pacer.com> Cc: <cypherpunks@cyberpass.net> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 2:29 AM Subject: Re: The amazing victory of "protestor" bullshit. Was: Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
I agree with your statements regarding confrontation of heavily armed militia men
What militia men? Hard to agree with a statement I didn't make.
The email was basically a response to the general conception that he was throwing the extinguisher, a conception which is somewhat contrary to the photographic evidence.
You mean your interpretation of same. I shouldn't really need to go into asking why the protestor in question had picked the thing up and continued to hold it if not to throw it. Certainly he wasn't cleaning the streets or looking for a trash bin. Whatever the case, you are no more in his mind than I am and simply asserting that he wasn't going to throw the object doesn't make it so.
The question, given the evidence, is whether the protestors were pounding on the Italian paramilitary, or the paramilitary came to pound on peaceful protestors who stayed in the designated area, and then something went awry.
I think that is hardly the issue. Who cares who started it? All of that presupposes that the protestors were there in the first place, fully aware that armed authorities would be present and that some protestors were likely (certain?) to get violent. After that decision it starts to matter less and less who did what when. I think the issue is that a masked man, who shows up with clear intention to cause at least disruption if not "trouble," probably earned his fate by being present while his comrades, associates or mere spatial neighbors, pounded on armed police men. Wearing a mask and carrying a heavy object probably didn't help much. The _very best_ interpretation is that our departed "protestor" was terminally stupid. Literally.
I agree with both Choate (oops) and Petro, that cops should not be trigger happy, and sending soldiers into "peacekeeping" actions is counter to the majority of their training and habits.
Not sure I understand what the one has to do with the other. Given that the cops endured their vehicle being smashed at, even with weapons drawn, for some time before discharging a weapon, I'm not sure I would rule them "trigger happy" either. Again, "trigger happy" is subject to your personal interpretation and therefore more than somewhat useless. Incidentally, who said anything about soldiers? For the uneducated, the Carabinieri are in fact military police. They are empowered and sworn as officers and complete police training. All Italian police do some riot control training. Comes in handy for the football matches and the world cup. Also for the uneducated, a "peacekeeping action" is generally undertaken by the United Nations in an international conflict. This is "riot control" or "crowd control" an entirely domestic affair.
How can you possibly know the intentions of "most of the protestors"?
I never claimed to know their intentions excepting the obvious- to cause trouble. (This is, of course, what even the most innocent protestors are there to do). Anything above that is your invention. Here was my quote:
The only thing that really upsets me to any degree is that most of the protestors have come into town with the express intent of causing trouble. This means they are generally burning down someone else's neighborhood, not their own. Ah well. Can't have everything.
As the common high school graduate will see, though perhaps the colleges in the valley are less up to snuff, I pointed out that most of them were not from Genoa (a fact widely echoed in media), they were there to cause trouble (i.e. protest) and that they had the effect, therefore, of generally burning down someone else's neighborhood. You don't actually dispute any of these facts, I notice. Only impose your own set of facts and claim, erroneously, that I alleged these instead.
I suspect (but do not know) the intent of the rowdier 10% of protestors was to disrupt the meeting of the Group of 8 through their actions, not simply to fuck up the city of Genoa.
"Some protestors are stupider than other protestors" in other words? Even if so, what does that have to do with any of my points? And what is your point exactly...? That the intent of the other 90% was to sip Lattes and take in the warm Genoa breezes? I don't think so. It was also "to disrupt the meeting of the Group of 8 through their actions." Or at the very least "to smash some pigs while we have the excuse to be lawless." Did it have the effect of "fuck[ing] up the city of Genoa" ? Look at the pictures and tell me what you think. Extra points if you can put a number on the cost of the cleanup to this point. (I'll announce the correct answer in 48 hours to the list).
I will ignore your useless ad hominem attack, because you know even less about me than what happened to Carlo Giuliani.
That's strike four for you. You're striking out quite a lot today. In fact, I know substantially more about you than I know about Giuliani. In any event, I apologize for branding you as a classless armchair anarchist when in fact you probably have the highest tastes in the area of politically inactive seating. (If you want to send me your long distance bill, I'll also apologize for calling you an AT&T customer- I will point out though that certain young parties in the Pacific Northwest will be upset if you don't burn up those minutes calling at all hours of the night though, Mr. Woods- AT&T might be in your best interest). It's also much easier to see your face in the pictures of you I have than it is to se Mr. Giuliani's face. (Most of the blood has drawn out of his by the time his mask is off and his eye is somewhat distorted by its close encounter with a projectile).
If you look at the Reuters image of Carlo holding the fire extinguisher, he's holding it below head-level. In my opinion, that leaves three
Carlo was going to chuck the extinguisher underhand (and sideways to the vehicle, so it would've bounced off) at a low velocity, or Carlo was holding the fire extinguisher out in front of him as DEFENSE, or he was merely holding a fire extinguisher. It's not clear how much time elapsed between the picture of Carlo alive, and the next image, which is him lying on the ground with his brains all over the ground. However, the gun is can be seen and it's pointed at his head, so I assume it wasn't very long. There's an image of Carlo under the land rover, with the cop who shot him covering or wiping his face. Neither man in the jeep were wearing gas masks with face shields, but every other carabinieri member seen in the series is wearing them. The other thing that may not have been mentioned is that there were Carabinieri within 30 feet of the land rover, and that Carlo was in the Green Zone, supposedly the safe area for protests. There are pictures of about 10 fellow members of law enforcement a short distance away, including one with both hands on his forehead area. He appears anguished. There's an image of Carlo under the land rover, with the cop who shot him covering or wiping his face. there's a PDF on indymedia.org with the pictures i'm talking about at http://italia.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/carlo-photofile.pdf. Most of this analysis is paraphrased from the pdf, but it seems reasonable. this may be a repeat of the powerpoint presentation post, but it's more cross-platform.
At 05:35 PM Monday 07/23/2001, you wrote:
Uhhh yes it will go through the safety glass.. Look at the pics.. One
had already put piece of lumber through it.. That was about a 15lb extinguisher... From what I can tell from the photos the protester DID intend harm to the police. Of course none of us were there so its really hard to know the truth..
Jon Beets Pacer Communications
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@ssz.com> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:18 PM Subject: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution
Yes I saw that pic too... Again we can't assume anything other than what we see in the pics.... But even below head level it can be thrown fairly hard like a medicine ball.... Or it could have been lifted over his head after the picture was taken... Or someone could even argue they thought it might be rigged explode... Etc... I still stand by my belief that the Police felt threatened and were justified..... Again basing all this on the little info we all have.... Jon Beets Pacer Communications ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Woods" <andrew@pokerspot.com> To: "Jon Beets" <Jon.Beets@pacer.com> Cc: <cypherpunks@lne.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 3:14 AM Subject: Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence options: person probable
cause for lethal force in self-defence?
No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass.
--
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
B.A. Behrend
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------- Andrew Woods Pokerspot.com Customer Support
-- On 24 Jul 2001, at 0:14, Andrew Woods wrote:
If you look at the Reuters image of Carlo holding the fire extinguisher, he's holding it below head-level. In my opinion, that leaves three options: Carlo was going to chuck the extinguisher underhand (and sideways to the vehicle, so it would've bounced off) at a low velocity
The rear window had been smashed in when they whacked the cop with the four inch steel pipe, or when they whacked the cop with the two by four timber. so there was no problem with chucking it underhand and sideways. Plenty of room. One is naturally inclined to chuck large heary objects in this fashion, because it is difficult to sling them overhand. In order to sling it in frontwards, he would have had to chuck it in one handed, and it was too heavy for that. In order to chuck it, he needed both hands, and in order to chuck it with both hands, he needed to chuck it sideways. You try chucking a great big fire extinguisher. Unless you are Arnold, you will chuck it in the same fashion. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG TrErF0pXmwrM9VpPj44NvC5XyHEaFb8NY20PqtIO 4NZ8BtIOAhWgajGsJGnMuLUi9Wlme6GjBMRTJfIya
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
--
The rear window had been smashed in when they whacked the cop with the four inch steel pipe, or when they whacked the cop with the two by four timber. so there was no problem with chucking it underhand and sideways. Plenty of room. One is naturally inclined to chuck large heary objects in this fashion, because it is difficult to sling them overhand. In order to sling it in frontwards, he would have had to chuck it in one handed, and it was too heavy for that. In order to chuck it, he needed both hands, and in order to chuck it with both hands, he needed to chuck it sideways.
You try chucking a great big fire extinguisher. Unless you are Arnold, you will chuck it in the same fashion.
I have two brothers. Early in their college career, one of them got drunk, and for the sheer hell of it started bowling overhand. The manager of the lanes at the student union was disinclined to try kicking him out personally, so he called my other brother to come get him out... This was possible because at that time all three of us had a lot of experience chucking large heavy objects (and the arms/shoulders to prove it) because we had been operating a firewood business to pay for tuition. If you can get a grip on a large, heavy object which is long (like a chunk of a log, or a fire extinguisher) You can often throw it further and harder one-handed and underhand than you can two-handed and sideways, because the swing gets the far end going a lot faster and that translates into a lot of power for the throw. You can also throw the sucker overhand, but you have to start by lifting it high in front of you, then swinging it down, turning sideways, bringing it up behind you, and releasing it over your head - as my brother discovered he could do with bowling balls. This guy holding up the fire extinguisher two handed, on the other hand, looks like he was intent on using it for a battering ram -- to push in someone's face with it or something. He didn't have room for the big underhand swing, nor the full-circle followed by overhand release, nor even really for the sideways chuck. One thing that his arms and posture suggest to me is that it's actually lighter than you've been guessing -- if it were heavy I'd expect to see a little more tension. Perhaps it was already discharged, thus only about 5-7 pounds? Bear
-- On 27 Jul 2001, at 8:26, Ray Dillinger wrote:
This guy holding up the fire extinguisher two handed, on the other hand, looks like he was intent on using it for a battering ram -- to push in someone's face with it or something.
There is a photograph of the fire extinguisher flying through the air at slightly above the level of the window of the police car. Looks to me as if it was intended to go through the rear window, but is in fact about to bounce off the upper edge of the rear window. I interpret this as a photograph of a previous throw from longer range, though one poster has claimed it reflects the fire extinguisher flying OUT of the police car. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG ckoZYS4R5Mj+swwHPvwEN/QzQK7HXXjSj5/ZFOp8 4TQIqT1Gm/H7HMvVY53JamctRbOyCOp5nNPtAQpdH
Cite to the photo please? ----- Original Message ----- From: <jamesd@echeque.com> To: "Ray Dillinger" <bear@sonic.net> Cc: <cypherpunks@lne.com> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 1:20 PM Subject: Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
-- On 27 Jul 2001, at 8:26, Ray Dillinger wrote:
This guy holding up the fire extinguisher two handed, on the other hand, looks like he was intent on using it for a battering ram -- to push in someone's face with it or something.
There is a photograph of the fire extinguisher flying through the air at
slightly above the level of the window of the police car. Looks to me as if it was intended to go through the rear window, but is in fact about to bounce off the upper edge of the rear window. I interpret this as a
photograph of a previous throw from longer range, though one poster has claimed it reflects the fire extinguisher flying OUT of the police car.
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG ckoZYS4R5Mj+swwHPvwEN/QzQK7HXXjSj5/ZFOp8 4TQIqT1Gm/H7HMvVY53JamctRbOyCOp5nNPtAQpdH
-- On 27 Jul 2001, at 8:26, Ray Dillinger wrote:
This guy holding up the fire extinguisher two handed, on the other hand, looks like he was intent on using it for a battering ram -- to push in someone's face with it or something.
James A. Donald:
There is a photograph of the fire extinguisher flying through the air at slightly above the level of the window of the police car. Looks to me as if it was intended to go through the rear window, but is in fact about to bounce off the upper edge of the rear window. I interpret this as a photograph of a previous throw from longer range, though one poster has claimed it reflects the fire extinguisher flying OUT of the police car.
On 28 Jul 2001, at 14:02, Black Unicorn wrote:
Cite to the photo please?
http://www.ballhausplatz.at/genua.htm --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG DQAI7wHPPTS3z1c83acoWE4SNB9/B7KNA/BH5R5 4HKiDZjqXDVtSBbRm7qA9d8apsdQoQ+TaTxxCYqCf
participants (15)
-
Andrew Woods -
Black Unicorn -
Declan McCullagh -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Jim Choate -
Jon Beets -
Ken Brown -
Matt Beland -
Petro -
Phillip H. Zakas -
Ray Dillinger -
Reese -
Sandy Sandfort -
Steve Schear -
Tim May