They are constantly telling you (generic, not specific "you") that for a reason....it is good advice. And I'm not so sure it is a "can't do" nearly as much as a "it is not a good idea to do" situation. And often those who advocate "do it" don't understand either the law itself or what the ramifications are if they do it, as they don't practice law and/or are in the law profession. This scenario is a good example of that. You might be legally empowered to use deadly force, although that is rather questionable. More important, though, is that concept that says even if you can it doesn't make it a good idea. A simple threat, in and of itself, also is rarely grounds for responding with deadly force.Because when you spend enough time on these Webb sites people are constancy telling you what you can't do even though they don't practice law and/or are in the law profession
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
Members of the forum Staff don't need you to tell us what we can and cannot discuss in threads, but thank you.Originally Posted by barstoolguru
I'm genuinely confused as to the distinction. Except insofar as one would presumably rather have a solid idea of when it is OK in advance so that they don't end up being wrong after.just for the record I don't need someone to tell me its OK to shoot just when I am wrong..
I believe quite a few folks here with LE and legal experience have responded to this thread and all seem to be of the same opinion on the subject...Because when you spend enough time on these Webb sites people are constancy telling you what you can't do even though they don't practice law and/or are in the law profession
Has there ever actually been a recorded use of a Dead-Man's Switch by a bomber not in a Bond movie? I had assumed such a thing had been used in Isreal or Ireland over the past century, but can find absolutely no real-world examples.
And I'm likely on a list now from Googleing that.
I believe I read in "Black Banners" that AQ and other Mideast terror groups use them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Okay now that brown-stool gonad has been banned, can we please for the sweet baby Jesus, close this nonsense thread?
I know it's not the tone around here guys, but sometimes you gotta' take the low road and have the entire community monkey stomp someone's ballsack. Just sayin'......
See the phraseology I employed above? See the part in bold? That is code. It is code for: "rational members have the greenlight to monkey-stomp this guy's ballsack and police our own".
Don't none of you ever accuse me of playing coy.
According to some friends I trust in Russia, dead-man switches have been used by the Chechnyan rebels.
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
Since I'm the guy who pulled the trigger on Mr. Guru's account, I think it's useful to make a little statement about precedent here:
Our goal for this site is to have a place where people can come and discuss ideas without having to worry about a bunch of petty nonsense getting in the way of access to good information. We've all seen endless examples of bad behavior on websites and how that interferes with decent people having a decent discussion about important things that can mean a great deal to the seeker of knowledge. With that goal in mind, we try to encourage everyone to interact with others from a default position of respect whenever possible. We'd always like to see people take the high road and keep discussions about the merits of ideas rather than getting personal.
Every now and then, however, we'll encounter someone who doesn't quite "get it" in terms of what we're about here. I'm not talking about holding a contrary opinion to what I think or to what Todd thinks or what any other member of staff or SME thinks because there's abundant evidence of disagreement on various issues available in various discussions on the site. If someone can make their point and can handle someone else explaining why they think it's flawed and everybody can do this without getting personal and stupid about it, then that's great! That's what we're after. Everyone has a bit of a different take based on the unique prism of their personal experience and history, and invariably that will lead to disagreements. We never want PF.com to become a center of groupthink, where anyone who deviates from the "script" some of the stronger personalities have adopted gets instantly savaged.
By the same token, we also have no interest in being a site where those who have nothing useful to say insist on inflicting it on others anyway.
Finding a balance between those two extremes is sometimes more difficult than it seems. On the one hand we don't want to be too eager to hammer somebody just because we may not agree with what they're saying, but on the other we don't want to let the cancer of stupid irreparably damage the site. In this instance someone started exhibiting some pretty obvious signs that they were pretty far off any sensible script early on. When it got to the point where they were starting to call a bunch of very sensible and well-behaved people out because they seemed to eschew the notion of being willing to go to lethal levels of violence over trivial nonsense, it was all the justification necessary to show them the door.
During the trajectory, those who interacted attempted to do so on the merits of ideas and did so from a default position of respect. You interacted with a silly person as if there was some merit to what he was saying and did a magnificent job of demonstrating pretty conclusively that his approach was sub-optimal...all without calling names. Your collective patience was laudable and is greatly appreciated. When it was apparent that your collective patience and good intentions were about to be repaid with a bunch of chest-thumping nonsense, we removed the offending element.
That is, generally speaking, the script we'd like to see at PF.com. I think we can highlight stupidity without engaging in it. There are lots of folks wandering around the intertubes with damnably silly ideas but, that doesn't mean that the person themselves is irredeemably silly. Feel free to attack silly ideas and combat them with rational arguments, facts, and good sense. Even if that means saying "Dude, I think it's pretty stupid to start a fight with somebody over Gatorade or to shoot a crazy guy in the face because he claims he has a bomb." When someone insists on proving that they themselves are indeed beyond hope, (like by insisting that unless you're willing to stab someone in the mouth over Gatorade that you're not a "man") we'll do our best Dalton impression and show them the door rather than let them fling bottles at the poor blind guy we've got playing guitar in a cage made of chicken wire and try to clean up the ensuing brawl.
We knew pretty early on how this story would end...but sometimes it's necessary to let someone have enough rope, you know? We don't like dumb things any more than anyone else does, but we also don't want to become a small group of people with severe personality disorders that spend our time online convincing one another that we're awesome.
So what you're saying is, "Be nice. "
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote