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

[Jon Beets]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Choate" <ravage at ssz.com>
To: <cypherpunks at 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.

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..

> > 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.

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