A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence

[Jim Choate]

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 at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------