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."
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..
Am I the only one thinking of the latest South Park episodes?
Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.