--
On 27 Jul 2001, at 8:26, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> > > This guy holding up the fire extinguisher two handed, on
> > > the other hand, looks like he was intent on using it for a
> > > battering ram -- to push in someone's face with it or
> > > something.
James A. Donald:
> > There is a photogr
Cite to the photo please?
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ray Dillinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
&g
--
On 27 Jul 2001, at 8:26, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> This guy holding up the fire extinguisher two handed, on the other
> hand, looks like he was intent on using it for a battering ram --
> to push in someone's face with it or something.
There is a photograph of the fire extinguisher flying thr
>On 24 Jul 2001, at 1:20, Petro wrote:
> > And what is the primary responsibility of a soldier? Well, in
> > Basic Training I was informed that my basic task was to seek
> > out the enemy and destroy him.
The primary, perhaps only, effective purpose of a military is to "break
things and kill peo
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>--
>
>The rear window had been smashed in when they whacked the cop with the four inch
>steel pipe, or when they whacked the cop with the two by four timber. so there was no
>problem with chucking it underhand and sideways. Plenty of room. One
Over here in Europe, the Carabinieri are still big news. People aren't
so much focussing on the dead man (maybe because it does look like
self-defence) but on what the apparent revenge taken by the police
and/or carabinieri on others after the main business was over. The IMC
is getting the most a
At 11:35 PM -0700 7/26/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>--
>On 24 Jul 2001, at 1:20, Petro wrote:
>> And what is the primary responsibility of a soldier? Well, in
>> Basic Training I was informed that my basic task was to seek
>> out the enemy and destroy him.
>>
>> Whch is why using Soldiers in
--
> In addition the fact that a previous protestor had put a board through the
> window only goes to demonstrate the high level of emotional disruption
> these officers were exposed to. Panicking is not justification for making
> a wrong decision.
>
> Deadly force was not in any way justified
--
On 24 Jul 2001, at 0:14, Andrew Woods wrote:
> If you look at the Reuters image of Carlo holding the fire extinguisher,
> he's holding it below head-level. In my opinion, that leaves three options:
> Carlo was going to chuck the extinguisher underhand (and sideways to the
> vehicle, so it w
--
On 24 Jul 2001, at 1:20, Petro wrote:
> And what is the primary responsibility of a soldier? Well, in
> Basic Training I was informed that my basic task was to seek
> out the enemy and destroy him.
>
> Whch is why using Soldiers in peace keeping missions is a
> really, really boneheaded mo
the newchotian philosophy: reductio ad absurdum.
phillip
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Choate
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 5:50 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: A question of self-defence -
: "Jon Beets" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
> If you look at the Reuters image of Carlo holding the fire extinguisher,
> he's hol
Spirit, Blood, and Treasure
The American cost of battle in the 21st century
D. Vandegriff, ed.
ISBN 0-89141-735-4
"Minimal Force: The mark of a skilled warrior"
John Poole
pp. 107
The particular principle that is behind it is called,
'principium inculpatae tutelae'
--
__
Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>
> Not-a-lawyer wrote:
[...]
> > We're not talking about
> > 'self-defence' here...
>
> No, we're talking 'self-defense', this is the US, not the UK.
Actually Sandy, it was Italy. I haven't got the faintest ideas what the
laws on self-defence are in Italy. And I'm bl
Declan McCullagh wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 08:47:19AM -0700,
> Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> > It is educational (and it amuses me)
> > to draw him out into parading his
> > ignorance and intransigence for all
> > to see. Of course, he won't admit he is
>
> Educational? Only in the study
> of a
On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 08:47:19AM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> It is educational (and it amuses me) to draw him out into parading his
> ignorance and intransigence for all to see. Of course, he won't admit he is
Educational? Only in the study of aberrant thinking.
I confess I've baited Choat
the truth..
>
>Jon Beets
>Pacer Communications
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Jim Choate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:18 PM
>Subject: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defe
gt; Sent: 23 July, 2001 21:12
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self
> defence
>
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Matt Beland wrote:
>
> > A "D based rocket" is no great amount of force. If it was light
> enoug
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 09:21:59PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> NATO says it takes a transfer of approx. 85 Joules to kill.
1. It all depends on where and how it's applied. Give me a scalpel
and I suspect I can kill you with far less than 85 Joules.
2. Even if we dismiss point #1 above and assume
Does throwing a fire extenguisher at a auto window constitution probable
cause for lethal force in self-defence?
No. Because the fire extenguisher won't go through the safety glass.
--
Nature and Nature'
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Choate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:58 PM
Subject: RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>
>
At 9:21 PM -0500 7/23/01, Jim Choate wrote:
>While it's true the hole would have reduced the cushion impact of breaking
>the glass it would not have eliminated it.
>
>NATO says it takes a transfer of approx. 85 Joules to kill.
That's ridiculous. There are far too many variables involved
Not-a-lawyer wrote:
> Sorry, no backpedaling here...
> I stand behind my previous
> statements on this topic.
Good idea. If you were to stand in front of it, you'd probably lose the
other eye.
> We're not talking about
> 'self-defence' here...
No, we're talking 'self-defense', this is the US,
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Oh really? Try that experiment on your own car.
Actually I've seen windows break (and broken my fair share) on cars
multiple times. Some from wrecks, some from gunshot (a .38 will bounce off
a windshield for example) some from other things. I even o
Wannabe lawyer Jimbo wrote:
> Does throwing a fire extenguisher
> at a auto window constitution [sic]
> probable cause for lethal force in
> self-defence?
>
> No. Because the fire extenguisher
> won't go through the safety glass.
Oh really? Try that experiment on your own car. Side windows sha
At 7:18 PM -0700 7/23/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>Not-a-lawyer wrote:
>
>> No, the cops panicked...
>
>You really should become a lawyer or even a judge. You seem to already have
>figured this one out by ESP or something. Wow, I'm fucking impressed with
>your legal acumen.
>
>> And then there is
- Original Message -
From: "Declan McCullagh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jim Choate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
e police. Of course none of us were there so its really
>hard to know the truth..
>- Original Message -
>From: "Jim Choate" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 6:18 PM
>Subject: A question of self-defence - Fire ext
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
> Third, those of us who are old enough remember that Jayne Mansfield's
> head went right through the safety glass.
They didn't have safety glass in the 50's. Those sort of accidents that
got worse into the 60's are the reason they put safety glass in cars.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Matt Beland wrote:
> A "D based rocket" is no great amount of force. If it was light enough to go
> as fast as you say, then it wouldn't go through plate glass, much less a
> windshield.
20 N-s for a D. Figure a rocket that weighs about a pound. It's about
.2s after launc
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Reese wrote:
> Don't mind the propaganda at the bottom of the images, just look at the
> pictures and draw your own conclusions. The shooting occurred at the
> back of the vehicle, where not even US vehicles have safety glass (and
> the window was already broken out).
Wron
31 matches
Mail list logo
