Manximus Aururaneus Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 7 minutes ago, quilp said: Is it a lone wolf attacker or a pack of wolves? One or more? This is kind of crucial, wouldn't you say? At that moment, would one be thinking of one's own personal safety or go in, er, guns blazing? Some people, like those blokes on the bridge, can flip a switch and get stuck in without quarter, an almost animalistic response, some are more hesitiant. Fight or flight. A person is one or the other. And It's not really a question that can be answered unless it happens to you. I reckon PK would roll up his guardian, toss aside the rather agreeable luxury zimmer and get stuck right in. To me, it's not a difficult question.. but let's say one wolf, one dead hostage so far, you're the only person on the scene able to help. He's about to take a swing at the neck of No2 - He has a sword, you have a gun, what do you do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Oh come on, MA. Bang bang all the way. Though I might shoot to disable him then cut his head off, slowly, after blunting the blade of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manximus Aururaneus Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Just now, quilp said: Oh come on, MA. Bang bang all the way. Though I might shoot to disable him then cut his head off, slowly, after blunting the blade of course... I agree, but let's see what others have to say............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said: I agree, but let's see what others have to say............ Being painfully honest I'd GTFO. (As fast as my by then full colostomy bag would permit!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 26 minutes ago, quilp said: Fight or flight. A person is one or the other. And It's not really a question that can be answered unless it happens to you. I reckon PK would roll up his guardian, toss aside the rather agreeable luxury zimmer and get stuck right in. You really are completely clueless. As MA undoubtedly knows "Fight or Flight" has absolutely no bearing on what happens next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 So what's your POA corporal..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manximus Aururaneus Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 13 minutes ago, P.K. said: You really are completely clueless. As MA undoubtedly knows "Fight or Flight" has absolutely no bearing on what happens next. I can be blunter than that P.K. - With 99 pairs of terrified eyes looking at their one and only hope, flight does not enter my mind, not even for one millisecond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manximus Aururaneus Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 4 minutes ago, quilp said: So what's your POA corporal..? It's not a tactical question Quilp, it's a moral one (and a very difficult moral one for some, I do not criticise them for that). But Barnier's clock eez ticking...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 I can’t see how this is even a question. If someone declares war on you personally or your society you have a moral duty to try and kill them in whatever manner is most expedient. If someone assaults you but doesn’t intend to kill you then you should stop the assault without killing them, if possible. These are different questions to the one about the state imposing the death penalty in peacetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manximus Aururaneus Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 3 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: I can’t see how this is even a question. If someone declares war on you personally or your society you have a moral duty to try and kill them in whatever manner is most expedient. If someone assaults you but doesn’t intend to kill you then you should stop the assault without killing them, if possible. These are different questions to the one about the state imposing the death penalty in peacetime. Swoosh. 98 left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Sorry but you are creating a deliberately simplistic scenario which pushes your agenda and are not understanding why people aren’t instantly agreeing with you. It’s so simple. Of course I’d be the saviour of these people and effortlessly blow his brains out. But this misses out all the real world nuance which makes being in this situation complex. Most people run and to pretend you’d be the hero in a millisecond is so internet armchair warrior as to be untrue. PK has as far as I’m aware carried a weapon in Northern Ireland and is aware how training and adrenaline interact when placed in extremis. I’ve not and have no idea if I’m a hero in a millisecond. I’d hope to be but am aware reality is very different than internet hard man hypotheticals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Manximus Aururaneus said: To me, it's not a difficult question.. but let's say one wolf, one dead hostage so far, you're the only person on the scene able to help. He's about to take a swing at the neck of No2 - He has a sword, you have a gun, what do you do? Neither you nor the police officer who shot the nutter on London Bridge have any legal dispensation to kill someone. Is your gun legally held and are you entitled to have it with you at the time? The police officer was lawfully entitled to be in possession of a weapon. He is schooled in its use and circumstances but has no licence to kill. The state or public body he serves the Met is subject to the human rights act importing the European Convention into domestic law. The right to life is the only absolute right in the Convention. The armed officers are responsible for their actions and must make individual choices and decisions. The circumstances of the shooting will be examined like any other killing and a decision made whether or not to prosecute. One or two police have been accused in recent times having shot someone. The human rights law allows the state to take life in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others. That includes police protecting their own right to life and that of their colleagues which also means they can choose to shoot but it is their decision alone. The nutter with a fake bomb vest can be shot as the police must see the risk as real and by shooting him or rendering him incapable the officer is upholding his own rights and freedoms ie he and colleagues will not be blown up. So if you skewer a terrorist with a narwhal tusk and he dies or whatever the CPS will take a view just as they have done with such as women killing a man attempting to rape them likewise burglars being killed by householders when themselves under attack and in fear of being killed. A police officer shooting a dangerous man armed with knife and bomb vest will be investigated like any other allegedly justifiable killing... The above is how I recall it from reading a briefing paper or English law publication in Tynwald library years ago now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 As per, the usual Two-Pint Terminators come out of the wood work trying to out "John McCLane" or "jack Bauer" each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 3 hours ago, Manximus Aururaneus said: Could you please have a go at answering the following hypothetical question so that I can try to understand your stance. It is hypothetical (accepted), it puts you on the spot (accepted) It is highly unlikely to happen in real life (accepted). So with all those caveats; Imagine that there is a lone wolf attacker(s). He has 100 totally innocent victims kneeling down, handcuffed, in front of him. Age decending order, he starts to behead them ( Bit like Beatles did). You turn up, the only uncuffed individual, you are armed - you alone can take him out. No communication to outside assistance. What would your actions be? It is down to you entirely as to the fate of the remaining 99 - what would your actions be? 1. Wonder where the hell I had got this gun from; 2. Quickly realise I have no idea how to use it let alone check to see if the dammed thing is loaded and that there is no "safety catch" on; 3. Wonder where the hell my mobile phone went; 4. Wave the gun in the direction of the guy with the sword and hope like hell he doesn't realise I have no idea how to use it; 5. Realise that the person writing the scenario can only see one solution and therefore that it is a load of nonsence; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 36 minutes ago, manxman1980 said: 1. Wonder where the hell I had got this gun from; 2. Quickly realise I have no idea how to use it let alone check to see if the dammed thing is loaded and that there is no "safety catch" on; 3. Wonder where the hell my mobile phone went; 4. Wave the gun in the direction of the guy with the sword and hope like hell he doesn't realise I have no idea how to use it; 5. Realise that the person writing the scenario can only see one solution and therefore that it is a load of nonsence; My first question would be how one person managed to handcuff 100 people without being being jumped on and over powered? Then I would ask how he managed to carry 100 pairs of hand cuffs? Then I would ask what medication the person asking the question is on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.