Real-Life Gadgets For Real-Life Superheroes 391
cylonlover writes "Yes, there are real-life superheroes. And no, we're not just referring to firefighters, paramedics, and other heroic people whom we're used to seeing come to the rescue of others. We're talking about costume-wearing, identity-concealing, cool-name-having people who fight crime, pollution, or other evils in their own communities, on their own time, and at their own risk. Many of them actually patrol the city streets, ready to intervene if they see trouble brewing – and being ready includes having the right tools. Given that none of these people have Bruce Wayne's budget, Gizmag takes a look at some of the real-world gadgets they use as they go about their crime-fighting duties."
speaking of "Waiting for Superman" ... (Score:2)
(mmm, this thread will make a mess :S)
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the gadgets to make a sensible and readable article?
Every once and a while I get the idea that I should actually read some of the articles I'm commenting on. Then I do and it's this kinda chopped up mess with pictures that don't match the copy and reporting that just *almost* tells you something about the subject and I remember why the hell I never read this crap.
And I'm a real-life Supervillian (Score:2)
I troll around the Starbucks with my laptop running the Firesheep add-on to jack people's facebook sessions and post lewd links to their status!
Muwhahahahahahaaaa!!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well then you suck as a super-villain, because you are actually performing a public service [lamebook.com], and get no monetary reward for your efforts.
Trying to find the words... (Score:3, Insightful)
When I went to click on the link, in my mind was a curious tension of expectations. Would it be like Jay and Silent Bob in "Mallrats"? Like the various teenagers in "Kickass"? Like the moderately-capable guys in hockey pads in "The Dark Knight"? Or something entirely different altogether, some wonderful and amazing surprise of how people can leverage technology and creativity as force multipliers to do good?
However, after reading this and looking at the gear, all that comes to mind is..."What a bunch of douchebags. Ugh."
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking "Guardian Angels".
So, basically, same thing.
Re:Trying to find the words... (Score:4, Funny)
"Right now, the suit is still largely on the drawing board...We are just finishing up the ideation phase and beginning design and prototyping.”
Still, this part gives me an entertaining mental image of some superhero trying to get tech from his supplier, only to be met with a Dilbertesque sequence of overhyped marketing, corporate buzzwords, and eventual disappointment.
Speaking for myself (Score:5, Funny)
As a long time mecha head (Score:2)
I wish them luck on the power armor.
This is like "kick-ass" (Score:3, Funny)
Only less believable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's believable. I mean, I believe that stuff like this exists, and idiots buy it. I'd say, it is like "kick-ass" only with much less kick and much more ass.
Coon and Friends? (Score:5, Funny)
Am I the only one thinking of the latest South Park episodes?
My list is: (Score:2)
A Heckler & Koch UMP, a Benelli M4 and knuckle dusters, on the side.
The stuff in TFA is a bunch of toys, FTFA:
Laser Wand: a toy Harry Potter wand, retrofitted with a 95mW green laser module – useful for pointing things out to the police, or letting troublemakers know they’re being watched
Knock the troublemaker down with a round from the Benelli, and follow it up with a spray from the H&K . . . the troublemaker will now know that he is being watched. Approach the troublemaker with caution, and apply the knuckle dusters liberally . . .
Re: (Score:2)
And then go to jail. I think that's the bit they are trying to avoid. You see the first time you kill someone you go to jail. The one and only exception being if you can prove that person was an active threat to your life or the life of someone else. Use of deadly force in crime prevention is limited to cases where the crime is placing someone in active danger or (in some states) break-ins to your own home (not someone elses).
sad (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
article sucks (Score:2)
It sounds like the guys in the article are just barely a step past LARPers in crazy.
There really are masked vigilantes out there, one in Virginia I read about a few months ago and a group in southern Florida.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any "Masked Villains" out there to fight against these crazy masked Vigilantes?
Can I become my own version of "Dr. Horrible" and video blog about trying to take over the world and whatnot?
I am assuming since Masked Vigilantes SEEM to be legal then by logic I would assume that becoming a masked Villain whose goal is to take over/destroy the world in an overly complicated scheme would be legal as well.
Real-Life Gadgets... (Score:2)
*Really*? What do they expect to defend against? (Score:2, Troll)
What do these, uh, "heroes" hope to do or defend against? Do they *really* think that slingshot is useful for *anything* in an urban setting?
What's going to happen when one of them encounters someone who is really serious, and the "hero" finds himself on the wrong end of a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think of it this way. While I never wish this on anyone, let's talk again after you've been mugged at gunpoint. Then you'll see clearly where a firearm is not a penis poofer but a device that allows you to choose your life over that of your mugger's.
Do you think this guy was thinking about the size of his penis when he defended himself against a mugger who shot at him?
http://www.examiner.co
Re:*Really*? What do they expect to defend against (Score:5, Insightful)
I often see this postulated, but as someone who has served in the military, in a combat zone, and has a couple of black belts, I've never seen concealed firearms as being particularly effective defense against muggings. Typically speaking, if you're being mugged, the bad guy has his gun out, trained on you. He's also nervous as fuck (since muggers tend to be the lowest level of street criminal). In the time it takes to draw, aim, and fire a pistol you'll be dead. As someone who has taught self defense, and spent more than his fair share time in self defense classes, the most common advice given to people regarding muggings is "give them your money". Something on the order of 95% or 98% of muggers (it's been a while since I taught this stuff) just want the money and they leave. The chances that you've encountered one of the other 5% are much smaller than the chances that you'll survive an attempt to defend yourself against an armed opponent.
Now for home defense there's a completely different case. Typically in that situation you have time to get your gun out and put yourself on at least equal footing with the intruder. There's *some* argument for the use of firearms in home defense situations, but in personal defense situations typically by the time you realize you need the gun it's too late.
Re:*Really*? What do they expect to defend against (Score:5, Interesting)
Well if you care to search back far enough (2004-2005) you can find my posts right here on Slashdot talking about my deployment. I guess it's not proof, but it's as good as you'll get on an Internet forum. I suppose it's possible that I falsified a year and half of posts (subtly of course, it's not like I mention it every post or anything) just so I could appeal to authority several years later, but probably not likely. I'll admit that it goes more to "I've used deadly weapons in real life" than anything else, soldiers don't carry concealed and muggings weren't exactly a big worry....
I have black belts in Tae kwon do and Shaolin-do (which is a completely bogus martial arts "tradition", but a reasonably effective fighting style). My Tae kwon do instructor was a former cop, so the instruction tended to the more... practical. Especially in the self defense focused classes.
I'll never say that it's completely impossible that you'll ever find yourself in a position to use that gun. It would be stupid for me to claim that. I will say that the number of situation where you are likely to be able to use it to effectively defend yourself is not going to be high. You are probably more likely to get yourself hurt or killed trying to use it at an inappropriate time.
I'm not trying to insult you personally here. I don't know you any more than you know me. Maybe you've had police, military, or private security training. Maybe you're just smarter than the average bear and won't make "typical" mistakes. For you, personally, your stance may make perfect sense. But for the the average use case of the average person with no particular training or experience... A concealed firearm is probably not ever going to help them and is perhaps slightly more likely to be harmful to them.
Just my opinion. I've already made claim to knowing perhaps a bit more than the average person about the topic, but I'll never say I'm an expert. What I do know is pretty old. I haven't actively studied martial arts in nearly a decade and I'm several years out of the military. It's no skin off my nose if you disagree, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't actively accuse me of lying.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/10/23/Horse_shoot.ART_ART_10-23-09_A1_SGFF2MR.html
Re: (Score:2)
A taser will still knock someone out, even if they're carrying an assault rifle. The ridiculous arms war on our streets only really applies if you expect the other guy to be wearing some sort of modern ballistics armor. I've never seen a petty thug wearing several thousand dollars worth of body armor when they're out tagging a building; maybe things are just different around here.
Similarly, the laser isn't to "blind" someone; it's merely to let them know that you're there, that you're watching, and have alr
Re: (Score:2)
Really? How do you propose to get close enough to tase someone without getting shot? If you're in a situation where you have to get away from a threat with a firearm, the ideal situation is to retreat or hide so they are no longer a threat. But if you're forced to defend yourself, a taser won't allow you to defend against a firearm unless the firearm is empty.
And also keep in mind that the modus operandi is *not* "shoot
Re:*Really*? What do they expect to defend against (Score:4, Insightful)
Ruke,
You're not incredulous at all. Let me start by suggesting that you read the links I provided above - those were all cases where civilians who were armed were able to protect their lives with their firearms. The most recent research by the FBI indicates that there are many, many more incidents - as many as hundreds per day - where the mere display of a firearm by an "intended victim" makes a criminal change his mind very quickly. A taser does not have the same "scare factor" as a firearm.
I can't speak in generalizations about concealed carry permit holders, but I can talk about those whom I know. When you get a license to carry a lethal weapon, your attitude and manner changes. You look to avoid dangerous situations. You don't let stuff bother you so much any more. But most importantly, you become FAR more aware of your surroundings. The posters in this threadlet who indicated that a firearm won't help you much in a mugging are correct to a certain extent - someone who surprises you by jumping out and demanding money at gunpoint is a bad situation. But you tend to watch people a lot more, on the street, to ascertain if they are a threat or not... you look for people hiding, etc. So those surprises are probably less likely to happen to you.
You could make a conscious effort to have the same kinds of mannerisms without carrying a firearm - and that's a great way to conduct yourself even if you don't want the responsibility of having a deadly weapon on you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For one, these heroes perform the exact same service as a neighborhood watch. A constantly vigilant community is by far the best deterrent to crime.
Second, most crimes against property are committed by unarmed felons against empty homes, cars, and the like. In a lot of communities in America, a criminal carrying a weapon during a crime is an extra charge filed against them (even if there is no one to use it against). So a slingshot, taser, or light weapon is very effective against such criminals (especially
Not super? (Score:2)
Wouldn't these be Masked Heros instead of Super Heros?
Also, none of the Heros looked beefy or badass. More like neighborhood watch weirdos. I suggest a better workout, more calorie intake, and developing better less-than-lethal crowd control type weapons. Chances are non-lethal will just make them mad.. and changes are also good that you won't be dealing with just one.
all imo, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Feel safe now? (Score:2)
Re:Feel safe now? (Score:4, Insightful)
More guns in the hands of law abiding people will just turn the law abiding citizens into criminals because owning a gun makes you instinctively want to use it on another human being for no reason whatsoever.
Yes, that's why me, my father, my grandfather, 2 of my great uncles, my uncle, my college roommate, many of my friends, and countless other classmates have all shot at people. No, most of those who legally own guns treat them as what they are: objects that easily kill if mishandled or abused. RESPONSIBLE gun ownership is perfectly safe. However, people like you like to lump all of us with the McVeighs or Harris and Klebolds. I am not going to even pull on someone unless they break into my house or threaten me with a weapon of their own. And if you do threaten me, or my family, you better have the balls and know-how to use your weapon. Because I assure you I do with mine.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't that having a gun makes you more prone to use it, it is that the need to use a gun makes you more prone to have it.
Not a good idea (Score:2)
Master Legend's gun (Score:2)
looks somethink like Jamie from Mythbusters build to shoot cans of coke!
Every Poser in a Parka. (Score:2)
"Real Life Super Heroes"?
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Oh, come on! How many of these people have actually prevented a crime, stopped a crime in action, or caught a perpetrator of a crime? Compare to how many have been beaten senseless trying? Compared to how many who have witnessed a crime, and were too chicken to do anything about it?
Reading through Wikipedia's "article" on "RLSH", I find a couple who do things that are honestly good. The lady who goes to bars to keep overly-drunk women from going home with loser
Re: (Score:2)
You can get into trouble in Canada for trying to Defend yourself or others?
That totally sucks.
Re:Oh common.. (Score:5, Informative)
It really does!
I'm from Canada.. and I've never been in the situation, but as I understand it even if someone breaks into your living room, WHILE YOU ARE THERE, you can still get in trouble for using "excessive force" if you seriously injure the person. If you have a gun (for say, hunting).. even pointing it at the person will land _you_ in trouble. The laws are even murky is he has a gun (did you really think he was going to use it?). It's quite insane!
The criminal.. well he's just a missunderstood victim of society, we can rehabilitate him with your tax dollars!
Personally I think once someone decides to break into your home, you have every right to bludgeon him to death with a crow bar. Maybe if that was a potential outcome of breaking into someones house, people wouldn't do it so often.. ..I'm not bitter or anything..
Re: (Score:2)
If not exaggerated, that is mind-numbingly fucked up. I understand it to be about the same way in the UK, but I didn't realize Canada had drank the kool-aid on this one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Captain Sticky! To the StickyMobile! [flickr.com]
Off to the Super Hero Retirement Home in the sky...
http://jamesewelch.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/san-diego-super-heroes/ [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
How do you know they are not there to do bodily harm? Most non-violent criminals won't bother entering an occupied home so you should assume that someone breaking in to an occupied home will do harm to the inhabitants.
Of course, we can always just wait for the police to "protect and serve" us.
Re:Oh common.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you know they are not there to do bodily harm?
How do you know they are? Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
Most non-violent criminals won't bother entering an occupied home
Citation, else anecdotal.
Living in fairy land (Score:4, Insightful)
How do you know they are not there to do bodily harm?
How do you know they are? Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
I'm sorry but you're living with the fairies here. The cold brutal practical truth is that by the time someone has proven without a doubt that there is imminent and certain life-threating intent, you are dead. Someone breaking into your house has demonstrated a willingness to break the law and risk prison time. What's a few more years for taking a life? They don't think they'll get caught anyway. And your life isn't as precious to thema s theirs seems to be to you.
If someone breaks into my home and threatens my family, I'll defend them with any means at my disposal. If I find an opportunity to incapacitate them non-lethally without increasing the rise, sure I'll use it. But I won't be waiting for my family to be raped or killed so I can feel justified using force.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unless you can prove, without a doubt, that you are acting in self-defence because there is actual, imminent and certain life-threatening events, you should not be firing a gun at someone with the intent to kill.
They've broken into my home, and that is all I need for proof. What the hell else should I do to confirm they desire to kill/rape/attack me or my family? Ask them politely?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oh common.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If they're breaking into an occupied private residence, it's pretty reasonable to assume they're a helluva lot more than a mere "trespasser." Trespassing is what I do when I go explore abandoned industrial buildings. It's not breaking into some family's home at 2 a.m. Best case scenario, that is a "thief." Much worst case scenarios include "kidnapper," "rapist," and "murderer." And I'm not particularly inclined to give the guy who's breaking into my house the benefit of the doubt.
Trespassing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Trespassing... (Score:4, Insightful)
The answers are no and maybe. Breaking and entering is not a capital offence, but if you're breaking into someone's house, then you bloody well better understand that the "fight or flight" fear reflex is not predictable and that you are invading another animal's lair, possibly occupied, possibly one where young are reared.
All the "laws" of civilisation - the ones you're breaking yourself if you're a burglar - mean nothing if you make the mistake of tripping an otherwise peaceful person's natural instinct to defend their territory and/or loved ones. Any law that doesn't take this into account is itself unjust and inhumane.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, aren't you being a bit of a drama queen if you get that scared when someone breaks into your house. I mean, odds are they're just there to steal a few things and will leave you unharmed [dailymail.co.uk], right?
Just kidding. If someone breaks into my house and I have the chance, I'll shoot them multiple times center of mass. I'm risking allowing something like that to happen to my family if I don't, and I can't take that risk. By the act of breaking into my house, he's assuming the risk - I won't. Sure, I'll feel
Re:Oh common.. (Score:5, Informative)
Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why doesn't one of these Super Heroes use their REAL power, and trap their opponent under the "Cone of Dorkdom"?
Re:Oh common.. (Score:5, Funny)
Why doesn't one of these Super Heroes use their REAL power, and trap their opponent under the "Cone of Dorkdom"?
It's not a cone.
It's a dodecahedron.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most US states follow the castle doctrine to some extent. If someone breaks into your home and you feel threatened, you can use deadly force in defense. Some states extend the area to private property and vehicles. I know Texas, Florida and Mississippi have this kind of law, not sure about anywhere else.
Re:Oh common.. (Score:5, Informative)
According to some very quick research [self-defender.net], you're allowed to respond with as much force as is required to defend yourself (presumably enough to halt the assault), including lethal force if you have reasonable grounds to believe you're at risk of death or 'grevious bodily harm'. You might call that a murky area, but it seems quite reasonable to me.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
And this comment will never be modded up. People will continue to debate the merits of a completely imaginary version of Canadian law, based on right wing pro gun myths. Right wingers love Canada. They can just make up anything they like about evil socialist Canada and no one will contradict them. Apparently, many American right wingers are actually from Canada, and can describe life in Canada in authoritative terms. They will tell you all about their grandfather dying in line waiting medical for treatment
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This actually isn't true for all jurisdictions, so depending on what state you are in, you might wind up with criminal charges. Certain states (for example, New York) impose a duty to retreat upon parties in danger. That is to say, if you are being attacked, you have a duty to retreat to a safe place. Only when you no longer can retreat (i.e., you are either cornered or you are in your home) can you resort to self defense.
Re: (Score:2)
And some states let you kill people who are about to break something that doesn't belong to you.
At least, that's what the statute says.
The case law probably has a line drawn somewhere between throwing a rock through a window and burning your grain silo.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For example [cbslocal.com], the guy in Long Island who, back in September, was confronted at his home by 20 or so violent gang members threatening to kill his family. He fired four rounds into a lawn from his legally owned AK-47, scaring the gang members away. He was initially charged with felony reckless end
Re: (Score:2)
Thank fucking god I live in Florida. Here, someone breaks into your house, "duty to retreat" laws go out the window. In other words, someone breaks into my home, I am not law bound to retreat from my home, and can defend it using lethal kill you dead force. God bless the fucking USA (at least some states, that is).
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer to avoid a "two men enter, one man leaves" type scenario altogether thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, if you use "excessive force". If someone breaks in and starts stealing your shit and you punch them in the face, tackle them to the ground, tie them up and immediately call the cops to come pick him up, you're committing citizens arrest. That is completely legal.
If you shoot them in the kneecap, then you're using excessive force. If they walk onto your lawn and you try to do the above: excessive force. If you threaten to murder them (ie. pointing a gun at them) excessive force. The excessive force
Re: (Score:2)
As other posters have pointed out, it's legal to use whatever force you need to defend yourself, but you'd be crazy to do so if you can run away instead.
"we can rehabilitate him with your tax dollars"
Rehab is a heck of a lot cheaper than jail. Get over this biblical eye-for-an-eye thing, and start thinking about harm-minimisation. Do you know how many tax dollars are spent keeping people behind bars?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm from Canada as well, and while the law states one thing, the reality is something else. Basically as long as you don't kill the guy there isn't a cop in the country that will testify or press charges against you, and that guy really needs the police officers testimony to get anywhere with any sort of charges.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you're so afraid of civilisation and see every threat in terms of OH GOD SOMEONE'S ABOUT TO RAPE ME AND KILL MY FAMILY then perhaps you ought to move to Texas rather than dragging Canada down with you.
Actually more a fear of lack of civilization that fear of civilization. The odds of raped and killed in a state bordering Mexico is probably, what, a hundred, maybe a thousand times higher than in a more civilized area like Canada or some place in Europe.
Also our mass media "news" is primarily focused on keeping us scared to keep us under control. Works great w/ respect to starting wars and stuff, but there are side effects like this.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually more a fear of lack of civilization that fear of civilization. The odds of raped and killed in a state bordering Mexico is probably, what, a hundred, maybe a thousand times higher than in a more civilized area like Canada or some place in Europe.
No. Just...no.
Yes, there's a drug war between gangs in Mexico that is slaughtering a lot of bystanders. That in no way means people from Mexico are any more violent than anywhere else.
El Paso crime rate (across the border from Juarez): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Crime_statistics_by_province_and_territory [wikipedia.org]
Canadian province crime rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Crime_statistics_by_province_and_territory [wikipedia.org]
El Paso would fall right in the middle of Canada's pro
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You mislinked, the El paso numbers are here:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_08_tx.html [fbi.gov]
Homicide rate in El Paso in 2009 is 1.9 per 100,000 versus a range of 0 to 6.5 for the various canadian provinces (in 2006).
Furthermore, both violent crime and property crime rates have been steadily falling in all of the southern border states. And not just by a small amount, mostly double-digits with some states seeing more than a 50% reduction in certain types of violent crimes over the past decade. Sorry,
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If someone kicks in your front door or crashes through a window, they're not coming in for tea and crumpets. They probably are going to rape you and kill your family. Are there kinder gentler criminals in other countries?
Yes. For example, I know America is a country full of financially responsible people but evil socialist Europe has quite a few people who buy what they cannot afford and sometimes the debt collector knocks a little too hard on the door.
In the U.S., you can justifiably kill someone if they've broken into your house and you could convince a jury that you were in fear of your life.
Oh, self defence applies pretty much everywhere... it is just that the jury in a civilised country understands the difference between, say, pushing down a piece of wood and attempting to kill someone. So, there is quite a chasm between breaking into someone's house and a reas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Let's not kill a man for breaking down a door."
Re: (Score:2)
If I knew you couldn't harm me for breaking in, why wait until you are not home to do it?
I'm a criminal, I don't have to obey the law, but you are not a criminal so you do.
Home invasions are a lot risker when you know the homeowner can legally kill you.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a criminal, I don't have to obey the law, but you are not a criminal so you do.
If you think that the only reason people don't go around raping and killing is because they are law-abiding, you are a sorry human being. You are also a couple of steps away from totalitarianism, because a scoff law who drops litter is dangerous as a serial killer, right?
Home invasions are a lot risker when you know the homeowner can legally kill you.
For the homeowner and the unwelcome visitor, because the number of purpose-built lethal weapons will have gone up from 0 to 2.
Perhaps you would like to check how break-ins in the UK end up with the murder of anyone in the house, and compare
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and we believe his life is valuable enough that you shouldn't be entitled to take it because he tried to steal your computer. "Life is sacred" works both ways.
Re:Oh common.. (Score:5, Insightful)
and we believe his life is valuable enough that you shouldn't be entitled to take it because he tried to steal your computer. "Life is sacred" works both ways.
We don't have time to interview the criminal to find out what his true intentions are. If there is one place where a man should have the right to feel absolutely secure, it should in their own home. No, "life is sacred" does not work both ways. The lives of law abiding people is sacred. The lives of people who agreed to abide by the rules of a civilized society is sacred. The life of those who have broken that trust by breaking into someone's home violating that person's right to remain secure in that home (not merely trespassing on their property) is not sacred.
The castle doctrine that is found in most states in the U.S. guarantees that right to its citizens. The law is there because we are more concerned about the right to life of the law abiding person in their own home, and will not second guess the exact circumstances of a person who defends themselves at home. It is utterly ridiculous for a person to have to prove that there was not a viable escape route, that, in a moment of duress within their own home, they had to have 20/20 hindsight about the circumstance that they were in. How is the person supposed to know that jumping out the window would be safe, that there wasn't some accomplice who went to the backdoor? A person who is awoken at 3AM from a person breaking a window and entering his home has no idea what kind of danger he is in. Regardless of how much he trusts the police, he can't change the fact that the average response time of an officer to a Code 3 situation is around 8 minutes. The fact is that there is never a sure way to know whether retreat is the better option. And given that a person isn't omniscient, we have decided in most of the U.S. that the law is going to remove this ridiculous need for proof from the person trying to defend his life in his own home.
Does this mean that it's a smart idea for a person to run through the house guns blazing if someone breaks into his home? No, of course not. Most experts will tell you that the best course of action is to gather your family, hole up in the bedroom, call the police, and be ready to shoot only if the person breaking into the house attempts to break into that sanctuary. But, because there are an infinite number of circumstances that may arise that takes that option off the table, it is not the government's place to second guess the judgment of the law abiding citizen over that of a criminal.
If it is permissible to kill someone in self defense if they have a gun pointed at you an are ready and willing to shoot, the practical line at which lethal force becomes permissible MUST be at a point before it is too late for the person defending themselves to succeed at doing so. If your line for when it's ok to shoot a person is after they've shot at you, then that line is worthless.
Re:Oh common.. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm referring to the people saying "anyone breaks into my house and I will straight up shoot him in the face." Basically, unless the person is actively trying to kill you, you can't murder him because he broke into your house as, from what people seem to be saying, America (Texas at least) allows.
States with Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground laws:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming
Keep in mind this includes very liberal states such as California and Illinois, so this does in fact show a general consensus among most of America. Even in states without such laws, convictions for people defending themselves in their own home are very rare, assuming who they shot was a stranger and not someone they knew.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there kinder gentler criminals in other countries?
Pretty much, yes. Random break and enters that result in rape and/or murder happen so rarely in Canada that they're basically a statistical anomaly. When such a thing does happen, it makes national news for a week. I can't speak for other countries, but I suspect the same can be said for most of northern Europe (or any other successful socialist country).
We do get random break-and-enters, but generally if someone's at home, it was due to bad planning on the criminal's part and they run away.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't try it....
Re: (Score:2)
The laws where I live were written to value human life above human property. There's no death penalty so you can't murder someone who you catch breaking the law unless the life of you or a third party is in IMMEDIATE danger because of it.
No castles up north... (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#In_other_countries [wikipedia.org]
Currently, no Canadian Province has implemented either Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground.[35] Under the criminal code of Canada, a very limited version of Castle Doctrine exists that requires the victim to retreat if retreating is possible.
Also, it varies from state to state even in United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine_in_the_United_States#State-by-state_positions [wikipedia.org]
What was the state motto of New Hampshire again? Taking it a bit too literally? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
" Possessions, even ones own home, however valuable such things might be, are ultimately replaceable. People are not."
Why would anyone want to replace a criminal. I consider someone ridding the world of a criminal to be doing a community service. The criminal was beyond aggressive. Rather then target a empty home, they picked one with occupants and put them at risk. Who gives a shit about them?
It's not like they don't understand the risks or know what they are doing is wrong....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming they KNEW the house had an occupant inside. Also, did you just imply that you feel the death penalty is an appropriate response to B + E and theft?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the kind with cell phones that you can use to call the police while the criminal is still inside to come arrest him instead of trying to deal with him yourself desite having no actual law enforcement training.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the phrase they were looking for was "walking around and actually getting laughed at." Real life superheroes don't exist because real life is nothing like comic books, where walking down random streets leads to daily encounters with purse snatchers and in-progress bank robberies. In the real world, finding this kind of crime is hard (that's why even the much larger police force spend very little time catching actual crimes *in progress
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly the greatest value of any weapon is as a deterrent. How many graffiti punks will keep going when shown a business end of a mean looking cannon? It may or may not do much damage or be practical in a fight, but who would want to be the first to find out?
Re: (Score:2)
The more likely scenario is that the "graffitti punk" will also be armed. Most graffitti is gang related.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, L's identity is now known: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alessandro_Juliani [wikipedia.org]
What a great Hero and Role Model!!
"one man's tourist is another man's freebasing freaker"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
to go along with the mandatory refrains.
What? Every super hero is required to have a theme song now? Let me guess, this was hidden in the Health Care bill, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another name might be Vigilantes? (Score:4, Informative)
None of those in the article go out looking for trouble, they go out looking for people in trouble. Generally none of them have ever used their offensive equipment, they rely on contacting the talking problems through, being a witness to any criminal events, scaring the bad guys away by (literally) shining light on their crimes, and, if necessary, contacting the police.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to realize that people like the OP have a problem with people taking responsibility for their neighborhoods in an attempt to make the world a better safer place. They cry vigilante (negative term) to win the argument. Never realizing that these are just neighborhood watch on steroids.
Typically, when one uses the word "vigilante" the connotation is about someone who acts as judge, jury and executioner, not guys walking around with silly names and wearing tights. Never mind the fact that we still can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do people insist on referring to firefighters, paramedics or policemen as heroes? They signed up for a job and get paid to do it. Simple as that, no heroism there. They don't rescue or help people out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because that's their job.
No one forced them to take that job, either. A paycheck doesn't negate the risk to your life when you rush into a burning building to save someone else's life, or get shot at trying to apprehend a criminal.