I have to agree somewhat. My first comment was about the command they were giving. I can't tell for sure if they are saying "Get on your back" or "Get off your back".

I seem to hear "Get on your back" which he already is. I believe what the police wanted was "Get on your stomach" but if the command was "Get off your back" I can see where confusion might come into play for the black man especially after having continuous stunning.

If the command was indeed "Get on your back" then that makes all the difference as he was already on his back and following commands.

BTW, the black man drove directly to a local hospital where the staff reported to police an ER patient with bullet wounds. They were not aware of the shooting but by law are required to report all gun injuries.

I agree that a disturbed person with more power is a bigger problem. To go straight for the Godwin's Law example, there have probably been people more evil and messed up than Hitler in the history of Earth, but very few had the power and opportunity to act on that evil to the magnitude he did.

However, you brought up magnitude of problems and compared the two as "equally disturbed". The Republican Congressman (with admittedly more power/influence) "body-slammed" a reporter. The Democrat nutcase shot up 6 people and (I think) didn't manage to kill any of them, but not for lack of trying.

We don't really know what was going on in either persons' heads when they did these things. What led up to them, etc. Maybe the reporter had been doggedly following and questioning/harassing the Congressman to such an extent that he snapped. Happens quite a lot with paparazzi, and we tend to give the celebrity targets a lot of benefit of the doubt in those cases. The only long-term result of the bodyslam incident that I know of is that the reporter's glasses were broken. Glasses can be repaired or replaced. Bullet wounds are rather tougher to fix.

However my main point isn't to get into a dick-measuring contest about who did more harm or who is more fucked up. My point is that the person entirely responsible in either incident is known. GOP Congressman physically assaulted a reporter of his own volition. Democrat nutcase shot up that baseball practice of his own volition. Those individuals are 100% responsible for what they did, no matter who or what they might claim drove them to their actions. Just like it isn't Ozzy Osbourne's fault when some nutter offs themselves after listening to his song "Suicide Solution", or John Carmack's fault for Columbine even though Klebold and Harris liked playing Doom.

I still don't understand how painkillers help Max Payne recover from bullet wounds...

>> ^SDGundamX:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Hmmm I downvoted... kids see this & kids are dumb = Dead kids
The glorification of violence by smiling kids 'killing' each other... There are kids right now in armies, killing each other. And they are not happily smiling, unless they're drugged out of their mind to keep theam attached to their army by addiction.
Edit: The kids smile, there are no consequences seen for their actions, to me, this is glorification. And yes, it's not aimed at children, but they'll see it. And they know where their dad has his hunting rifle.

I respect your downvote... I'm cool with that. But I think you're highly exaggerating how "dangerous" this video is. Unless they are very young children (i.e. under the age of 6) they know the difference between make-believe and reality. If kids were truly that impressionable (i.e. gullible) there should be a slew of kids murdering each other in the streets after watching violent movies or playing violent video games. Yet, the FBI reports that violent crime stats have gone down this year--yet again. It's been on the decline for years now, even as violent games, movies, and TV shows--and childrens' access to them--have been on the rise.
As to dad having a hunting rifle... anyone owning firearms has the obligation to not only instruct their kids from an early age about how dangerous it is and keep it locked and away from curious hands, but also how to safely handle it (under supervision) in the event that the children ever do come across an unsecured firearm (maybe at a friend's house).


I agree, I should have set the focus more from the video to the society which sees no problem with the video. By no means I want to say that this video leads to streets littered with dead kids, but:
In my opinion, it contributes to the view of a society in which guns are presented as toys. It's not a great leap from toy to the real thing.

Children learn late in their development about death as an ever-present 'danger' to themselves and others, about 8-10 years of age. But the concept of action and consequence grows only with education.
If education is lacking, the lack of this concept can last up into the middle teens. This can lead to kids playing with guns, pointing at their friends or parents and sometimes pulling the trigger. Young Kids not properly educated don't see the seriousness in the relation of gun -> trigger -> bullet -> wound -> death ; until it has happened or they grow up. (I tried to find a good source, but atm i have only my german pedagogy lessons about child development; so you may disregard what i said about the action/consequence thing by the rules of good debate.)

"anyone owning firearms has the obligation to not only instruct their kids from an early age about how dangerous it is and keep it locked and away from curious hands, but also how to safely handle it (under supervision) in the event that the children ever do come across an unsecured firearm (maybe at a friend's house)."

Yes, but what about the kids whose parents do not own firearms? Are the kids of firearm-owners tested on their knowledge about guns? Are the firearm-owners tested on the fact that they have taught their children? Has every owner of a gun also received a mandated education on the subject?

>> ^Smugglarn:

I normally do not bash police work, but this seems strange.
It's obvious that the suspect has a weapon in his hand, but it's also obvious that it is a melee weapon. The suspect pretty much goes down on the first shot. The rest are kill shots.
Now, if this was a military op I would understand, but this seems like strange procedure in police work - SWAT team or not.


I had a discussion about this kind of thing with a cop a while back. She basically said that you don't fire unless you fear for your life, and if that is the case then you don't fire just one bullet and wait to see if one was enough. Part of that is because with some drugs one bullet isn't going to neutralize the person immediately unless it's through the head or spine. Another part is that a judge/jury is less likely to believe the officer feared death if they only fired once.

In this case it's hard to tell because of the poor video quality. The first time I watched this video I thought the guy opened his front door and the police gunned him down immediately. Watching it again they were inside yelling "search warrant" and then there's suddenly a guy holding a golf club (?) in a stance like he's about to attack with it. I watched that part several times but couldn't tell if the guy was moving forward, backward, or standing still.

I prefer non-lethal means, but in this case I'm not sure what the cop should have done differently at that moment, nor can I say with any certainty what I would have done in his place (one reason why I'm not a cop). I've seen police video of a meth'd-up guy repeatedly punching someone with his severely broken arm, so I doubt a non-lethal bullet wound would stop someone in that state (all the more reason for preemptive flashbangs).

I feel that the first cop in perhaps should have had a tazer rather than a pistol, but then I'm not sure what he would do if the guy had turned the corner with a shotgun instead. That's a situation I don't care to be on either side of.

>> ^rich_magnet:
"One of the coyotes has been killed" says the news piece. Is there any evidence that it was one of the coyotes who attacked her? Doubtful, but law enforcement generally responds this way when someone is mauled: eliminate the animals that _might_ have been the attackers. Grizzly though this attack is, I would weep for the coyotes which are killed for being the same species as the ones that attacked her.


RCMP officers were near the scene and shot at it - you won't find a bunch of coyotes with bullet wounds in the park - they no doubt found the one that was wounded and initially wandered away.

Do your research before just gushing your random thought stream and wasting everyone's time.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:

Well if auto insurance covered oil changes and all kinds of other preventative maintenance services, then you would see oil changes costing hundreds of dollars.
Jiffy Lube wouldn't post prices, but instead when they come to you asking if you want to "flush your radiator and replace your timing belt" you wouldn't ask "How much? And is it necessary?" You'd just say "sure" and the auto insurance company would front the bill.
That's what drives up costs.


Mark this day on your calendar. You're 100% correct.

Problem is, with a car repair, I'm never in a hurry. If the mechanic recommends something that's too expensive, I can comparison shop. If no one can fix the problem at a price I can afford, I'll have to take the bus.

If on the other hand, some dickhead starts spraying gunfire at a health care town hall, and I get hit with a bullet, I'm not going to shop around. Chances are, I'll tell the doctor "do whatever you have to, just save me!" My insurance company may later decide that the bullet-wound was a preexisting condition, or more likely that they won't cover me because I didn't call my GP before calling 911. The doctor won't worry about costs, he'll save me anyways, but the bill will likely bankrupt me.

So where does that leave us?

You say I need more opportunity to comparison shop for bullet-wound repair, and that if I can't afford the service, I should just go without it and die.

I'm saying that stopping my insurance company from playing games is as important as controlling costs. So first, let's stop the insurance company from wiggling out on me.

Second, let's stop people from waiting until they're sick to start paying for insurance, since the companies now must cover people who're paid up on premiums, even if they're sick.

Third, let's realize that there are lots of people who will have trouble paying premiums, so let's set up a subsidy to help them out.

Fourth, let's make sure people are taking advantage of preventive care, since it's much cheaper to treat someone for high blood pressure than it is to treat them for a heart attack.

Fifth, let's set up programs for doing comparative effectiveness research, so we can get some objective science on what we're paying for, to make sure that people know if certain types of treatments are a good value.

Sixth, let's set up a standard format for electronically exchanging medical records and test results so specialists aren't re-doing tests that have already been performed by ER or GP physicians.

Seventh, let's set up a national marketplace for individual insurance, and ensure that customers are given clear, standardized information for comparing between the insurance offerings.

Eighth, let's set up a public, non-profit insurance plan to provide a basic level of care, and to help drive down the cost of the private offerings.

There's more detail in the full plan, but that's a lot of the big elements of the plan.

"Please do not post pornography or 'snuff' films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered 'snuff' if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of 'snuff' does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera."

According to our definition of snuff, the newscast showing the girl dying from the bullet wound wouldn't necessarily constitute snuff unless it's shown for entertainment purposes instead of informative. However, there has to be a line drawn between sifting an almost identical video for the purpose of adding to or clearing up a video, and trying to squeeze out as many star points as possible from a sad event like this. Sifting that same girl getting killed four times crosses that line in my humble opinion.

Damn, people. I'm sorry for the downvote, but do we really need to see people getting shot and the ensuing bullet wounds?

Yes, yes, the title was a pretty clear indicator of what was going to be inside, but still.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
^You need to brush up on your modern history.
U.S. commanders had every right to believe that there would be troops everywhere in An-Nasiriyah.
It is by far one of the bloodiest battles we have fought in the entire campaign.


You need to brush up on your reality, MGR.

The invastion force was told that there were no Iraqi troops at the hospital. Both Time and the BBC have confirmed that.

The Pentagon and the Bush administration turned Lynch's "rescue" into a PR stunt and I'm really pissed off that someone who is apparantly as smart as you would defend that.

"Releasing its five-minute film to the networks, the Pentagon claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds, and that she had been slapped about on her hospital bed and interrogated."

The Guardian

Remember that part, MGR? Or did you never even bother to find out?

Question, how do you describe a wound full of pus? Many a medical student has written in the chart, "on the patient's leg was a pussy wound."

From the American Civil war, and before, bullet wounds to the extremities were treated with amputation. The goal was to create a "clean" wound that didn't contain pieces of dirt and fabric, which almost always led to suppuration and gangrene. Prior to the days of anesthesia, the unfortunates were given laudanum, a mixture of alcohol and opium. Still, Paracelsus described an essential characteristic of an 18th century surgeon as "absolute pitilessness"

Those were rough days. The smell of suppuration has not been abolished, unfortunately. Anaerobic bacteria will singe your nose hair. The modern remedy is a dash of peppermint oil on the surgical mask. It's remarkably potent and an overdose will cause your eyes to water for the next 10 minutes.

MarineGunrock, I remember hearing about the "tumbling bullet" wound from a 5.56mm but have read numerous articles since then refuting that logic. It's apparently an "urban" legend that refuses to die.

As best as I can recall, the only reason for switching calibers was weight. A soldier could carry seventy 30-06, ninety 7.62mm (essentially a shortened .30 cal), or a whopping 210 5.56mm at a given weight. The potential reduction in the weight of the rifle was also a factor (bigger calibers require heavier rifles). There was initially great resistance to this caliber switch, precisely because it produced a much less significant wound. Yes, the velocity was slightly higher, but the 50-grain bullet is hard pressed to produce a wound channel anywhere near the size of a bullet weighing 150-grains and almost twice the cross-sectional area. The disparity increases rapidly when you factor in how much more quickly the lighter caliber loses energy over distance.

Lower lethality, however, was considered a worthwhile trade-off, especially since wounding the enemy is tactically almost as good as killing him and the extra 120 bullets made such wounds significantly more likely. There were also small concerns about the diminished range of the 5.56mm, but that's why we have snipers that carry larger calibers. As far as I am aware, most states do not allow 5.56mm for deer hunting because it is significantly more likely to produce a non-lethal wound. It's been a while (a decade or more) since I've looked into this, but I recall seeing that ballistic tests in every kind of medium showed the 5.56mm to be far less deadly than the 7.62mm, and that's without giving any consideration to how much more quickly the lighter 5.56mm loses energy to range and/or shielding, let alone loss of accuracy to crosswinds or intervening light cover.

History has proven the move to 5.56mm to be the right one but it was definitely a trade-off.

Interestingly, the Soviets made a similar decision about calibers but stuck with a heavier round. They shaved off weight, but not as much, by going with a 7.62x39mm as compared to a 7.62x51mm NATO round with a 110-gr(?) vs. 150-gr round. Their heavier round could punch through shielding a little better than the 50-gr 5.56mm, but they gave up a lot of velocity and the flatter trajectory and accuracy that comes with it. And they still couldn't carry as many rounds as soldiers equipped with the 5.56. I don't know who made the right choice, but I do know that in both case, weight (and hence more ammo) was the determinative factor that outweighed the loss of lethality.

You have to be kidding me. You think that's 100 percent CG?
All the people are real... how can you not see it? Even the rest of the CG is not THAT good.
This is obviously a movie made with Airsoft weapons. The only effects I see here, is some image filter, CG smoke here and there, the blood/bullet wounds, and the obvious guns flashes and fire.