Slashdot Mirror
Real-Life Gadgets For Real-Life Superheroes
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."
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."
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
I usually just bring guns and beer.
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..
Only less believable.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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, 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 like shit if it was some drunk teenager out out trying to steel some money, but I can't take the risk.
Thank God you can generally shoot someone if they break into your house and not have to deal with criminal proceedings, though it's still undesirable because the "ma baby din't do nothin'" family will sue your ass.
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.
Am I the only one thinking of the latest South Park episodes?
Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
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?
Captain Sticky! To the StickyMobile!
Off to the Super Hero Retirement Home in the sky...
http://jamesewelch.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/san-diego-super-heroes/
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
To me, these all look like indications of sad, empty, delusional lives.
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.
Why doesn't one of these Super Heroes use their REAL power, and trap their opponent under the "Cone of Dorkdom"?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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.
According to some very quick research, 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.
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.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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.
"A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
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.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
You are still permitted to defend yourself from physical assault in Canada. But Canadian law requires that a person retreat from a person who has unlawfully entered your home, to the extent that such retreat can be accomplished safely. Possessions, even ones own home, however valuable such things might be, are ultimately replaceable. People are not. There is no statistical evidence to support the idea that attempting to stop a burglar oneself will reduce the chance that somebody gets hurt - in fact, there is is an abundance of evidence to support exactly the opposite notion.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
... not the same thing as breaking and entering. Breaking and entering is a more serious crime, and a reasonable person would probably rightly fear for their life if someone broke into their house while they were in it. And in that situation, is it realistic to be able to wait for the police to show up? I don't think so.
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
Canadian province crime rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#Crime_statistics_by_province_and_territory
El Paso would fall right in the middle of Canada's provinces for most offences.
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.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
If Mexicans had guns then we'd not have to worry about the Mexicans with guns.
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.
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.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
Well then you suck as a super-villain, because you are actually performing a public service, and get no monetary reward for your efforts.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You mislinked, the El paso numbers are here:
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_08_tx.html
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, I have no links handy to a formal analysis but anyone can take the UCR numbers from the FBI site above and do the math themselves to verify. (Something I did by hand a couple of months back in another web forum).
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
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 if being carried by a masked individual acting like a superhero - or a nutcase).
Yes, once guns enter the mix, things get decidedly more dangerous. However, to claim that a taser or light weapon is useless is a not correct. Those items may be useful, or may not (and I say this as a black belt martial artist, so I do have some training in this situation). It completely depends on the specific instance. At that point, it really becomes a personal choice: do you rescue someone from an armed assailant at risk to your own life? It is a question easily debated by us sitting behind computer keyboards, and one in which all the answers we could come up with are just options. Your choice will be different than mine, which may be different from the heroes.
However, you claim about undercover cops is invalid in America. Undercover cops (in plainclothes and without a badge) do not arrest people alone. They have uniformed police officers conduct the arrest (or participate in the arrest) specifically for that reason. In a lot of cases, the undercover officer isn't even present, to protect his identity.
For a person to maintain his or her safety, you are correct, it is best to carry a concealed weapon you are familiar with and avoid trouble. However, to be a good citizen, helping those in need requires people like those mentioned in the article, especially as police departments are no longer under any requirement to protect and server the citizenry (just for the record, I respect the police that do so without that requirement). I have a good bit of respect for these people doing what it seems like our government has given up attempting. I only wish more people had respect for those that do so, whether they wear a uniform, a mask, or a T-shirt and blue jeans.
Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive
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.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
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.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
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.
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.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
True, and I agree with you. But in the end your definition of reasonable might not be shared by the police and the prosecutor's office. And if they convince the jury to see it their way, well, you're in trouble.
For example, 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 endangerment, as the law only allows a proportionate response (ie. he could only pull a gun if they pulled a gun first). (Caveats: I don't know the current status of the charges. Also, none of the reports mention any witnesses besides the family, and at least one report has him firing into both the lawn and the air.)
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.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
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?