Idiot of the Day

[Shale]

The man speaks truth.

I have fired a gun on all of three occasions in my life, and my training is limited to what I learned at the local NRA-sponsored shooting range. It has still been drilled indelibly into my head that there are two things you point a gun at: One, something you plan to shoot at (and like Rob said, "shoot at" means "kill") and two, the ground. In the case of #2, you keep your finger off the trigger anyway, because why tempt fate?

[Yakumo]

What Shale said basically, only replace "NRA-sponsored shooting range" with "Military training".  Except that I've also been deer hunting, but the same thing applies.  There are no circumstances where someone trained in firearms has a gun going off and killing someone that should be treated as an accident.

[metroid composite]

The man speaks truth.

I have fired a gun on all of three occasions in my life, and my training is limited to what I learned at the local NRA-sponsored shooting range. It has still been drilled indelibly into my head that there are two things you point a gun at: One, something you plan to shoot at (and like Rob said, "shoot at" means "kill") and two, the ground. In the case of #2, you keep your finger off the trigger anyway, because why tempt fate?

And yet, if television is to be believed (who knows) then if you're a cop kicking down the door where you believe a murderer is hiding, then you keep the gun pointed in front of you as you sweep the room.

Now, maybe this is how police actually operate, or maybe it isn't.  (In England I'd assume it's not, because last I checked cops aren't issued guns at all in England).  And I'm definitely open to arguments that "guns out" SHOULDN'T be how cops are trained to deal with such a situation.  But assuming this IS how cops are told to deal with such situations, as you just said, pointing a gun at something opens a serious risk of shooting (and thus killing).  And if, as you said, it's reckless behavior to point a gun, then training police in reckless behavior strikes me as the bigger issue here.

But as I said, I haven't a clue how real-world Police are actually trained, so this may all be irrelevant.

[Excal]

I'm curious, Yakko.  Did they advocate being so careful when going into an area where you might very well be shot at, and have to shoot in return?

Honestly, Jim's got the right idea here for the standards to apply.  I'm not sure if the actual shooting is deserving of punishment, since the only person claiming the shot came from outside is the lawyer (and while he should be aiming for the truth, I can also see him wanting to frame the debate in a favourable fashion)  and I'd be shocked if the inside wasn't dark, noisy, and chaotic.  Possible for someone who's hopped up on adrenaline to make a very bad call, that may have seemed right.  That said, it's filmed, and very public in scope, so hopefully some truth will be determined here.

That said, I think we're all in agreement that the cause of the situation where the shooting happened was because the flashbang was a horrendously stupid idea.

[Shale]

If he'd misidentified something in that area as a threat and shot at it, that would be one thing. But nobody, victims or police, is saying that this was anything but an accident. Note the police department's language - "the weapon discharged." Not "the officer saw something dangerous and fired." That's an accidental firing of the weapon. And accidental shootings should not happen.

[Excal]

I'd be surprised if the department was going with anything besides the bare facts.  Especially at a point where they'll have barely had time to get the guy properly debriefed and to have gone over the tapes, so the brass won't have much else to go on other than that one of their guys fired a gun, and hit something they shouldn't have.

I'd also argue that by focussing on the accidental aspect as opposed to bad judgement (which is a key source of accidents) gives the impression you're arguing their was some mechanical failure with the gun that caused it to go off, as opposed to a guy, for whatever reason, defensible or not, pulling a trigger he should not have.

[Yakumo]

Excal, I was Navy.  My training was basic firearms and repel boarders stuff.  I wasn't trained for those types of situations because the part of the service I was in would not be in those types of situations.

That said, even in cases where we had a suspected infiltration attempt, until the other person very obviously meant harm to us or the ship we wouldn't even be permitted to draw our weapons if standing guard, and if we were in the ship we didn't carry sidearms during normal operation.  So in basically the only situation that comes close to what you're asking, yes, we were supposed to be that careful.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

The man speaks truth.

I have fired a gun on all of three occasions in my life, and my training is limited to what I learned at the local NRA-sponsored shooting range. It has still been drilled indelibly into my head that there are two things you point a gun at: One, something you plan to shoot at (and like Rob said, "shoot at" means "kill") and two, the ground. In the case of #2, you keep your finger off the trigger anyway, because why tempt fate?

And yet, if television is to be believed (who knows) then if you're a cop kicking down the door where you believe a murderer is hiding, then you keep the gun pointed in front of you as you sweep the room.

You hold the gun at the ready as you enter a room, sure. You do not, however, keep your finger on the trigger as a general rule. You keep your finger NEAR the trigger, but not ON it. This is to prevent things like "I was coming in the room and another guy came in through the other door and startled me, so I accidentally shot him in the face."

[Anthony Edward Stark]

The man speaks truth.

I have fired a gun on all of three occasions in my life, and my training is limited to what I learned at the local NRA-sponsored shooting range. It has still been drilled indelibly into my head that there are two things you point a gun at: One, something you plan to shoot at (and like Rob said, "shoot at" means "kill") and two, the ground. In the case of #2, you keep your finger off the trigger anyway, because why tempt fate?

And yet, if television is to be believed (who knows) then if you're a cop kicking down the door where you believe a murderer is hiding, then you keep the gun pointed in front of you as you sweep the room.

You hold the gun at the ready as you enter a room, sure. You do not, however, keep your finger on the trigger as a general rule. You keep your finger NEAR the trigger, but not ON it. This is to prevent things like "I was coming in the room and another guy came in through the other door and startled me, so I accidentally shot him in the face."

I'd also argue that by focussing on the accidental aspect as opposed to bad judgement (which is a key source of accidents) gives the impression you're arguing their was some mechanical failure with the gun that caused it to go off, as opposed to a guy, for whatever reason, defensible or not, pulling a trigger he should not have.

Arguing mechanical failure in a modern police handgun is pretty ridiculous. The only accounts of mechanical failures causing serious injury with a Beretta 92 that I know of and can dig up involve the guy SHOOTING the gun getting hurt.

[metroid composite]

Excal, I was Navy.  My training was basic firearms and repel boarders stuff.  I wasn't trained for those types of situations because the part of the service I was in would not be in those types of situations.

That said, even in cases where we had a suspected infiltration attempt, until the other person very obviously meant harm to us or the ship we wouldn't even be permitted to draw our weapons if standing guard, and if we were in the ship we didn't carry sidearms during normal operation.  So in basically the only situation that comes close to what you're asking, yes, we were supposed to be that careful.

To be fair, it's possible that combat on a ship is treated a bit differently, in that I imagine it's not a good thing for the ship if, say, a pipe gets shot.  Plus, theoretically everyone on the ship is an ally--which makes it much more likely that the dark shadow someone spotted moving was just a friend.

[Grefter]

Because when you are performing a no knock entry into a premesis as a policeman you should be assuming that all movement is likely hostile, right?

[Cotigo]

And yet, if television is to be believed (who knows) ...

But as I said, I haven't a clue how real-world Police are actually trained, so this may all be irrelevant.

I'll just leave this here.  It was just laying around... it... it's not like I like you guys am sick of one side of this discussion or anything like that.

[Yakumo]

Excal, I was Navy.  My training was basic firearms and repel boarders stuff.  I wasn't trained for those types of situations because the part of the service I was in would not be in those types of situations.

That said, even in cases where we had a suspected infiltration attempt, until the other person very obviously meant harm to us or the ship we wouldn't even be permitted to draw our weapons if standing guard, and if we were in the ship we didn't carry sidearms during normal operation.  So in basically the only situation that comes close to what you're asking, yes, we were supposed to be that careful.

To be fair, it's possible that combat on a ship is treated a bit differently, in that I imagine it's not a good thing for the ship if, say, a pipe gets shot.  Plus, theoretically everyone on the ship is an ally--which makes it much more likely that the dark shadow someone spotted moving was just a friend.

Metroid, the only people who would be standing guard duty and handling firearms were the ones that were on deck, not inside the ship, so structural damage is not a concern.  People you are guarding against are people that aren't already on the ship, so the water around it and the dock it's moored to, and believe me, the Navy doesn't leave their dock areas dark.  These rules apply even if you see someone that looks suspicious and can tell isn't part of your crew, until they do something that makes them an overt threat.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

Excal, I was Navy.  My training was basic firearms and repel boarders stuff.  I wasn't trained for those types of situations because the part of the service I was in would not be in those types of situations.

That said, even in cases where we had a suspected infiltration attempt, until the other person very obviously meant harm to us or the ship we wouldn't even be permitted to draw our weapons if standing guard, and if we were in the ship we didn't carry sidearms during normal operation.  So in basically the only situation that comes close to what you're asking, yes, we were supposed to be that careful.

To be fair, it's possible that combat on a ship is treated a bit differently, in that I imagine it's not a good thing for the ship if, say, a pipe gets shot.  Plus, theoretically everyone on the ship is an ally--which makes it much more likely that the dark shadow someone spotted moving was just a friend.

Metroid, the only people who would be standing guard duty and handling firearms were the ones that were on deck, not inside the ship, so structural damage is not a concern.  People you are guarding against are people that aren't already on the ship, so the water around it and the dock it's moored to, and believe me, the Navy doesn't leave their dock areas dark.  These rules apply even if you see someone that looks suspicious and can tell isn't part of your crew, until they do something that makes them an overt threat.

Would you be using hollowpoints if you had boarders? Don't imagine those would do much damage to a bulkhead.

[Excal]

While I'm sure that police training and military training are different, I'll admit that what Yakko had to say has certainly been a bit sobering.  Also, given everything that's been said on the topic, I'm pretty happy with leaving him with the local expert on training for these things since he seems to be the only one to have gotten training that would include deciding when it's ok to aim at people.  I know my training left it at a pretty blunt "never aim at anybody ever (unless it's self defense and odds are pretty good if that ever happens, you will not be armed)" and I'd be shocked if anyone else here got told differently.

[Anthony Edward Stark]

I wasn't told "never aim at anyone, ever" so much as "anyone you aim at, be sure you are okay with killing them."

[SnowFire]

http://www.prosebeforehos.com/government_employee/04/29/fox-news-calls-mr-rogers-evil/?

Get off my lawn!  Kids these days.  They have either EVIL ADS and VIOLENT CARTOONS raising them on cable, and the responsible parents finds that PBS has become EVIL AND SECULAR.  Not like the good ol' days of original Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers!  Man, those shows taught people firm conservative values.  Mr. Rogers was even a minister!

...wait.  No, that's wrong, that's completely wrong.  Did Fox News just attack Mr. Rogers?!  W... T...  F.  And in classic Fox style they refer to "Experts now saying Mr. Rogers is harmful" when actually it's just one crazy guy who apparently thinks that people are dirt and should know it, damn it.

Does Fox has some kind of producer who is a troll and trying to see what he can get away with putting on the airwaves?

[NotMiki]

Does Fox has some kind of producer who is a troll and trying to see what he can get away with putting on the airwaves?

No, this is their natural mode of thinking. These worthless Fox people belong to what I call the conservative voyeurs, just about the worst of humanity.

They believe life is a zero sum game, that there always have to be losers for there to be winners, and because they also believe in divine justice, they believe that success is the sign of virtue and lack thereof is the sign of vice.  Ok, so far that's simplistic and misguided, but not terrible.  But these bastards also believe that, as members of the haves, they're entitled to look down on the have nots, and they fucking get off on it.  I don't know what more you can say than that: these people revel in the suffering of sinners, and judge lack of wealth to be the worst sin.

EDIT: I just coined the term 'conservative voyeurs' for this post.  Haven't, like, actually been using the term until now.  I like the 'voyeurs' part, but maybe the term needs a little more punch.  Thoughts?

EDIT 2: Ugh, this bothers me so much.

[Grefter]

Divine Right of Oligarchs perhaps?  Eh not the same impact you are going for.  I really do like the line you are going down with Voyeurism, but I think you want something a bit more extreme than voyeurism, you need to really capture how perverted it is.  Bondage, Domination, Slavery and Money?  Eh too Anarchist.  I can't quite work a bondage angle into it, but I think it is the right level of extreme sexual perversion you are after.

[NotMiki]

I can't quite work a bondage angle into it, but I think it is the right level of extreme sexual perversion you are after.

Nah, voyeurism is definitely the right term.  What you have here is people who look.  They look down on the less fortunate, but more importantly they get a rise out of it.

[Grefter]

And they are getting off on the pain and suffering of others.  They are far from mutually exclusive perversions.

[metroid composite]

And they are getting off on the pain and suffering of others.

Not really.  There's no pain or suffering.  They're getting off on the perceived sinfunless and thus inferiority of others.

Power roles are well represented in fetishes, though.  Dominatrixes.  Age Play.


Actually, Age Play makes entirely too much sense.  "Who's your daddy?  Me!  Me, me, me, me!  I'm going to have to scold you for being a naughty girl, now...."

[Grefter]

these people revel in the suffering of sinners, and judge lack of wealth to be the worst sin.

<_<  Just saying.  Also when you tie it into the whole health care "You lost your leg because you are poor" thing, it is pretty extreme S&M at that.  You are kind of spot on about the Age Play thing (Projecting?), but Age Play trends towards more of a Seduction of the Innocent and the pleasure of defiling the untainted.  That is uh pretty far from the situation here though.

[Meiousei]

Well...got two new stupid ones (wow...that's a first) off the Newsvine-

http://pwtenny.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/25/4349541-virginia-school-hands-out-human-fetus-dolls-with-anti-choice-messages-to-grade-school-children-at-school

http://susanduncan.newsvine.com/_news/2010/05/25/4349161-teacher-allows-students-to-dress-up-as-ku-klux-klan-as-they-ask-black-classmate-if-they-can-re-enact-a-lynching-

Read the articles then the comments.

[NotMiki]

That first one is just sick.  You don't do expose kids to that kind of shit.  (PETA's done similar things, showing elementary school kids videos of slaughterhouses).  Second one...poor judgment, but I'm not ready to say the teacher is awful.  Definite possibility, but sometimes you just don't think things through.  Nothing inherently objectionable about a video documentarty about the KKK, depending on the circumstances.

And now...
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/top_social_conservative.php?ref=fpi
Gay Nazis.  But not funny like The Producers or anything.