RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit

RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/4/2014 11:02:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen raised hands could as easily be a prelude to an attack as an act of surrender. Look out! He's got his hands up! Shoot him! K.

LadyPact -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 12:22:50 AM)
I've read the whole thread. I'd have shot. I'm not saying that is an easy thing to cough up. Still, I'd have done it. There are a lot of men on this thread. Maybe that's the difference. I don't know. I've had a lot of time in this past...... Oh, eleven months or so, to honestly think about what I'd do or what I wouldn't do. Show Me a man who is trying to enter My house, shadowed in the dark, three warnings is more than I'd probably do. I think it's awesome that some folks have never had a porch light go out, or changing a light bulb is something they've never had to "get to when they have time". (Thanksgiving weekend of all times.) All of the talk about spotlights and motion sensors....... Did any of you happen to notice that the person who pulled the trigger rents? That means you might not have the lighting system that you think you want.

Kirata -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 1:24:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I've read the whole thread. I'd have shot. The New York Times link says that Hendrix fired a total of four shots. It was only when Westbrook continued to advance that he put one in Westbrook's chest. Granting that a cranked-up druggie might keep coming, I seriously doubt that a frail 72-year old could take three and continue advancing. So my best guess is that Hendrix put three warning shots into the ground in Westbrook's path before finally firing the fatal shot. I'd have shot too, if the guy continued to advance after repeated verbal warnings. But given what the range appears to be, I'd have put the first one in his hip and a fast second if he still continued to advance. There's six more where they came from, if the dude really wants to go for the big prize. But it sounds to me like Hendrix was trying so hard to avoid shooting the guy that he let him get too close and ran out of options. That said, however, if it turns out in the end that Hendrix actually fired four times at Westbrook and only managed to hit him once, then we're lucky one of his fliers didn't kill somebody else in the bargain, and in my opinion he should at least be subject to prosecution for negligent discharge of a firearm. I am sick and tired of reading about people blasting away with guns they obviously aren't capable of handling competently. K.

DomKen -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 2:57:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR A point I haven't seen mentioned is that the anti self defense people on here have to assume the cops don't know what they are doing, otherwise they wouldn't have let Hendrix go. And at the same time say Hendrix should have depended on those same grossly incompetent cops for his safety. The cops let the murderer go because he was just barely inside the law. It doesn't make murdering that man right. The fact remains if he had simply turned on a porch light or a flashlight the man would still be alive. The fact remains that you either warn them or give them first strike I want you to imagine yourself in a situation, you've been in a car accident on a rural road. Your phone is smashed and your jaw is broken. You need assistance and head to the nearest home. Do you hope the person turns on the porch light and renders you aid or draws their pistol and starts issuing warnings? Even with my jaw broken I would co-operate. If he starts threatening to shoot me I would at a minimum do what he said so he wouldn't feel threatened putting my hands up for example Not being stupid I would not advance on him. Sorry you're still dead. In the dark there is absolutely no way to discern any of that. You're just a shape in the dark and raised hands could as easily be a prelude to an attack as an act of surrender. Wrong as usual. Backing up would not be confused with advancing. For your fantasy to work I would have to keep advancing in spite of the warnings, remember that's what got him shot no way I am going to do that. Just curious you keep saying you believe in self defense if there is a real threat but you have never said what is needed to meet that criteria. What does it take other than giving him first strike to meet your fair and sane criteria. Actually if you knew anything about tactical work in the dark you'd know that movement in the dark is movement and discerning in what direction it is going is very difficult. As to what would have proven he was a threat, turning on a fucking light for the tenth or so time. Not a completely useless and pointless verbal warning. If the area had been illuminated he could have correctly assessed the situation and not killed a 72 year old man who was confused and was no danger to him or anyone else.

GotSteel -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 4:58:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I've read the whole thread. I'd have shot. I'm not saying that is an easy thing to cough up. Still, I'd have done it. Really? You would have left the protection of your home to wander around in the dark trying to find what you considered a deadly threat?

angelikaJ -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 5:29:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I've read the whole thread. I'd have shot. I'm not saying that is an easy thing to cough up. Still, I'd have done it. There are a lot of men on this thread. Maybe that's the difference. I don't know. I've had a lot of time in this past...... Oh, eleven months or so, to honestly think about what I'd do or what I wouldn't do. Show Me a man who is trying to enter My house, shadowed in the dark, three warnings is more than I'd probably do. I think it's awesome that some folks have never had a porch light go out, or changing a light bulb is something they've never had to "get to when they have time". (Thanksgiving weekend of all times.) All of the talk about spotlights and motion sensors....... Did any of you happen to notice that the person who pulled the trigger rents? That means you might not have the lighting system that you think you want. Most houses are equiped with lights by their doors and it was as much his responsibility to replace the burned out bulbs as it was for the unfortunate victim of alzheimer's caregiver to keep him safe. His taking the shot when he couldn't see is what bothers me about it. People on the thread have pointed out that a flashlight could be a weapon. It certainly can. But the guy who took the shot, didn't even know it was a flashlight. Much blame has been put on the caregiver. However, there are all sorts of other scenarios, that could exclude that element: Someone had a car accident with head trauma and couldn't speak. Someone out for a walk with their dog having a stroke. A battered spouse with a broken jaw. I can understand the desire to protect one's home and family from dangerous assailants. I just think that it is the responsibility of the person who is doing the shooting to know exactly what it is they are shooting at. Too often in this collective mindset of shoot first, ask questions later, it is apparent that irrevocable mistakes are being made and there should be some accountability.

Lucylastic -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 6:37:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam I'm still waiting for a certain person to show that the homeowner had the superpower of being able to tell that the person banging on his door and ignoring spoken SIXTH REQUEST BOY Are you dissing his orientation to get a rise? thats something the others pull Hill Please dont

Kirata -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 7:14:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Actually if you knew anything about tactical work in the dark you'd know that movement in the dark is movement and discerning in what direction it is going is very difficult. Actually, you're just tossing out something that's irrelevant to the case in point, which you may already know, of course, and certainly would if you really knew what you were talking about. Our visual processing system relies on a mix of inputs from rods and cones. Rods are much smaller than cones (cones are about three times the size of rods) and rod-vision is much more sensitive to movement. But speed of motion is under-estimated when only rods are involved, and over-estimated when only cones alone are involved, because the cortex is wired to calculate a weighted value of both (see here). So while you may misjudge the speed, direction is a separate matter. And while lower luminance requires longer integration times for movement detection (ibid), we're talking about fractions of a second. It increases only about 75% with a three log unit decrease in photopic target luminance. It can be difficult to determine the exact direction of a movement with a vector that lies across the line of vision, because determining the degree of obliqueness depends on the change in size of the object, which will be minimal for any vector close to 90 degrees. But change in size reaches maximum detectability when the object is directly approaching or receding, and that determination can be made quickly. K.

Owner59 -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 7:25:49 AM)
Could the opthamologist/google searcher explain this for us? DARK ADAPTATION Dark adaptation is an independent process during which each eye adjusts from a high-luminance setting to a low-luminance setting. The exact mechanisms are unclear, but they are known to include biochemical, physical, and neural. Both rods and cones contain light-sensitive chemicals called photopigments. The photopigment in the rods is called rhodopsin. There are three different types of cone photopigments that are composed of opsins only slightly different from rhodopsin. Upon exposure to light, photopigments undergo a chemical reaction that converts light energy to electrical activity, initiating visual impulses in the retina that are conducted by nerve fibers from the eye to the brain. The initial chemical reaction is called light adaptation and, in this process, the photopigments are decomposed. Intense light will decompose the photoreceptor pigments rapidly and completely, thus reducing retinal sensitivity to dim light. Regeneration of the photopigments occurs during dark adaptation. The fully dark-adapted eye, in which photopigment regeneration is complete, restores retinal sensitivity to its maximal level. Rods and cones differ markedly, however, in their rate of dark adaptation. Cones attain maximum sensitivity in 5-7 minutes, while rods require 30-45 minutes or longer of absolute darkness to attain maximum sensitivity after exposure to bright light. The cones have a faster rate of photochemical regeneration because they function in greater light than the rods. The cones, however, do not achieve the same level of sensitivity as the rods. The rods slowly adapt to dim illumination, but eventually achieve a much greater sensitivity than the cones. Depending on the preadaptation to light, dark adaptation is about 80% complete within 30 minutes, but it may take hours, or even days, to acquire total dark adaptation. http://www.aoa.org/optometrists/tools-and-resources/clinical-care-publications/aviation-vision/the-eye-and-night-vision

Kirata -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 7:58:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Could the opthamologist/google searcher explain this for us? dark adaptation is about 80% complete within 30 minutes, but it may take hours, or even days, to acquire total dark adaptation. http://www.aoa.org/optometrists/tools-and-resources/clinical-care-publications/aviation-vision/the-eye-and-night-vision "Total dark adaptation" requires (...wait for it...) total darkness, and adaptation time involves a detail. From your link: rods require 30-45 minutes or longer of absolute darkness to attain maximum sensitivity *after exposure to bright light* If you've just been woken up at 4am, you're already dark-adapted. Night vision does not require total dark adaptation. It's just English, Owner. Work on it, you'll get it. K.

cloudboy -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 8:04:50 AM)
quote: So it's better said as reality based response vs. paranoid delusions. Reality: A confused old man needed help. Imaginary: Deadly attacker will break down the door with his murder club. Well Said. What I have seen here is that the subjective state of mind seems more important to gun proponents. Combine this with lying. The clean-shootists take the shooters statement as fact -- and not as either delusional, paranoid, or self serving. The shooter's statement is uncorroborated by other witnesses. Reality stands at stark odds with the shooter's behavior and decisions. Reality is dismissed by the clean-shootists as 'unknowable' and 'hindsight knowlege.' Finding out that the man was 71, lost, and confused is for the clean-shootists -- a feat requiring either "super-powers" or "high risk to one's own personal safety." Overall impression: Reality based arguments v. paranoid, fear-based, subjectivist retorts go in endless circles.

cloudboy -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 8:07:26 AM)
quote: When did simple trespassing become a capital crime in Georgia? Punishable when committed? You have hit the nail on the head.

Kirata -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 8:14:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: When did simple trespassing become a capital crime in Georgia? Punishable when committed? You have hit the nail on the head. Where did you two hear that the guy was shot for trespassing? Oh wait, I know... K.

cloudboy -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 8:28:13 AM)
The argument seems to be that all trespassers can be challenged with firearms -- and if the firearm owner feels any kind of subjective threat to his own safety -- deadly force is authorized.

Aylee -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 9:10:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I've read the whole thread. I'd have shot. The New York Times link says that Hendrix fired a total of four shots. It was only when Westbrook continued to advance that he put one in Westbrook's chest. Granting that a cranked-up druggie might keep coming, I seriously doubt that a frail 72-year old could take three and continue advancing. So my best guess is that Hendrix put three warning shots into the ground in Westbrook's path before finally firing the fatal shot. I'd have shot too, if the guy continued to advance after repeated verbal warnings. But given what the range appears to be, I'd have put the first one in his hip and a fast second if he still continued to advance. There's six more where they came from, if the dude really wants to go for the big prize. But it sounds to me like Hendrix was trying so hard to avoid shooting the guy that he let him get too close and ran out of options. That said, however, if it turns out in the end that Hendrix actually fired four times at Westbrook and only managed to hit him once, then we're lucky one of his fliers didn't kill somebody else in the bargain, and in my opinion he should at least be subject to prosecution for negligent discharge of a firearm. I am sick and tired of reading about people blasting away with guns they obviously aren't capable of handling competently. K. Didn't you ever watch "The A-Team"? They fired off a LOT of rounds without ever hitting anyone. I can actually see that the stress of firing on a person could make you miss. Cops (who receive extra training) fire off way more rounds than actually hit. There is a phenomenon in hunting called "buck fever" which often causes misses. http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/ That link states that our military uses about 250,000 rounds per person killed. I doubt that they are taking into account things like covering fire. So, I am not positive that he was firing warning shots.

cloudboy -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 11:03:14 AM)
NOTE TO ALL RESPONDENTS Sometimes I am not always the most careful or clear writer and I posted: Why not just stake out a position. These shooters in the recent collarme threads are cowards. That's where I stand. FYI: Shooters would be: Zimmerman, The guy firing into a car full of teenagers, and the guy killing an Alzheimer's patient. This was not name calling of respondents or calling individual respondents "cowards." (In this particular message.)

cloudboy -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 11:09:00 AM)
Take a panicked person, arm him with a glock, send him out into his backyard to find "an intruder" who is nothing more than a neighbor looking for his dog....... What controls the situation: reality based thinking or fear based thinking?

lovmuffin -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 11:44:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy NOTE TO ALL RESPONDENTS Sometimes I am not always the most careful or clear writer and I posted: Why not just stake out a position. These shooters in the recent collarme threads are cowards. That's where I stand. FYI: Shooters would be: Zimmerman, The guy firing into a car full of teenagers, and the guy killing an Alzheimer's patient. This was not name calling of respondents or calling individual respondents "cowards." (In this particular message.) Fair enough, I appreciate the clarification however it's not clear these guys were guilty of cowadice. More likely just idiots with guns. The loud music guy, he definately fucked up, even If there was a shotgun. In hindsight, Zimmerman could have avoided his situation but he wasn't doing anything illegal and Martin was culpable starting the fight. Now we find out from what DC posted about the GA case, Hendrix and his fiancé were in a heightened state of alert because the guy had been there before exhibiting suspicious behavior in such a way that prompted him to bring a gun into the household. The guy shows up again and and shit happened. If in fact as Kirata speculated, Hendrix fired 3 warning shots into the ground, what the fuck else was he going to do when the guy continues to advance ? Some of you guys exaggerate the incident to cold blooded murder of an old guy and jumping to conclusions without all the facts. It was certainly a tragedy, another one of those freaks of nature but hardly murder. Having said that I can only agree with one thing you anti gun types are spouting, that he shouldn't have ventured outside in the dark, with or without a flashlight IMO. However we still don't know why he went outside, I'm curious to know. There may be a perfectly good explanation, so I'm reserving judgement for later whether it was stupid or prudent(certainly not murder). All I know is from the information we have now, I would have stayed inside.

Lucylastic -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 11:57:16 AM)
I dont believe anyone has stated he is a cold blooded murderer A dumb fucking killer with a gun and severe paranoia, but not cold blooded murder

stef -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/5/2014 12:37:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy NOTE TO ALL RESPONDENTS Sometimes I am not always the most careful or clear writer and I posted: Why not just stake out a position. These shooters in the recent collarme threads are cowards. That's where I stand. FYI: Shooters would be: Zimmerman, The guy firing into a car full of teenagers, and the guy killing an Alzheimer's patient. This was not name calling of respondents or calling individual respondents "cowards." (In this particular message.) Forgive me if I don't believe you. It's certainly not the first time you've referred to gun owners as paranoid or cowards. It's pretty clear what your feelings on the matter are, why backpedal now?

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0859375