I don't know what you think martial arts is, but what I train and teach has a philosophy of self-preservation. You have one life and you must value it. If you're in trouble, whether alone or out with your loved ones, if you get set upon, hopefully your training buys you a chance. But that's it, there's no guarantees. What you don't do however is put your own safety at risk needlessly. Ever. That's how have-a-go heroes get hurt and killed.
I'm the one that said there are no guarantees. You are trying to adopt my remark to try and use it in your favor when all your arguments are all about seeking guarantees for your safety.
Trying to take down a violent criminal if there is a chance they could still harm others or are in the act of harming others if there is a good chance you can is not a "needless" risk.
I should end my response here with your constant attempt to put people down that have and would do something in violent or deadly situations as trying to be "heroes."
Imagining yourself as a bystander whipping out your pistol and taking down those bad guys is gung-ho. Armed response officers arriving with Heckler and Koch sub-machine guns is expected.
No, it's realistic for someone that has access to a gun and that has a "conscience." It's something that happens throughout America all the time. It's "gung-ho for you because that is not the reality in your country where every has been conditioned to fear guns.
How long did it take for your "armed response" cops to get there? Your country's policy regarding no guns for police is a laughing stock throughout the world.
Because there's no rational explanation for wading in and taking on two nutters carrying knives, cleavers and a pistol. That's not doing the right thing, it's either you imagining yourself as some hero, or madness. I don't know which.
There you go again with the "hero" nonsense. What is it with you and that word that you are so obsessed over it? We're you teased as a coward as a kid?
No, you are simply fixated on putting people down because they are willing to do something that you will not to help others. A person arguing objectively and intelligently doesn't resort to childish John McClane put downs and repeatedly uses the word "hero" in a derogatory way.
Only by luck rather than judgment. If true at all. Which I doubt.
Seeing as you don't know the details your "only by luck" comment makes absolutely no sense. Where was your "judgement" when formulating such a remark?"
I grew up in a very tough neighborhood in America and as you know we have a lot of guns so that's my answer to your "I doubt" comment.
You could be some kid in a bedroom in Basingstoke for all I know.
Well, I've given you the benefit of the doubt that you are some kind of martial arts expert but if you are argument has now come down to that then there is no point in you responding further. Is there?
How long did it take for your "armed response" cops to get there? Your country's policy regarding no guns for police is a laughing stock throughout the world.
You're the American people have in mind when they stereotype Americans as total morons.
Anyone who says they know for a fact what they would have done in a situation is delusional .No one knows what they will do they can only surmise and hope they are right in their thinking .
So many factors influence our reflexes and so many factors on ant given day will effect how we react .
His american as apple pie. And while were at it apple pies were never american , i dont recall the sioux tribe sitting in wigwams eating apple pie and birds custard instead they ate buffaloes and made feather hats untill the whiteman took over.
His american as apple pie. And while were at it apple pies were never american , i dont recall the sioux tribe sitting in wigwams eating apple pie and birds custard instead they ate buffaloes and made feather hats untill the whiteman took over.
They don't make those kind of movies any more. It's kind of sad. I used to love watching the Sioux out tracking down Bird's Custard with their bows and arrows and feather hats.
Reality is people dying while people stand around shivering, screaming and crying.
You must have seen different footage to me, don't recall people dying, just one very brave soldier who lost their live needlessly. Don't recall people shivering, screaming and crying, it looked quite calm, quite surreal in fact.
If you have to start exaggerating the facts it just shows how desperate you are.
How long did it take your "armed response" cops to get there? Your country's policy regarding no guns for police is a laughing stock throughout the world.
Took 4 mins for the police to arrive, gun reported, armed response got there in 10mins, suspects in custody 14mins with no further loss of life. Even if the armed response team turned up in 4mins it sadly wouldn't have saved the poor guys life.
Please show some evidence regarding the no guns policy for the UK Police and it is a laughing stock around the world - hang on, we do have armed Police.
.....and one would have to question - why so much interest in a tragedy here in the UK, don't you find that unusual, because quite bizarrely that's what you thought just the other day about members here in the UK discussing a news story in the States, namely the tornado in Oklahoma.
Still waiting for your answer - what would you have done that would have given a better outcome?
They will probably plead not guilty, but not on the grounds they didn't do it (there's far too much evidence against them showing that they actually did commit this crime) but probably on the grounds that they had some kind of right to commit such an act. It's the only way they'll get an earpiece in the public domain now.
That'd be my assumption too.
Either claim to be "enemy combatants" or claim that they don't recognise western law so they don't think they have any case to answer etc.
Obviously you don't understand the requirement for a jury to be seen to be impartial and the implications if it can be asserted that an impartial jury cannot be found.
Assisting someone would have to be spontainious, otherwise rationality creeps in as soon as you start thinking about it. I have a fear of knives higher than that with a gun and when that happens I might hesitate, though I hope not, probably go round for something bigger to use than a machette to keep it away.
2) You wouldn't have had a clue to what was happening.
Hmmm, two guys hitting someone with a car and then stabbing him and then afterwards pacing back and forth yelling out jihad type comments. You're right, just a normal day.
3) To many variables to say you'd ram them with your car - Eg. bystanders in very close proximity to suspects
You could hold the horn down in the process and scare everyone away.
It's interesting and amusing that somehow some people here would be able to determine so "many variables" for not taking action while the event was happening but someone I, or anyone else, wouldn't be able to determine the "variables" for something that could have been done.
You must have seen different footage to me, don't recall people dying, just one very brave soldier who lost their live needlessly. Don't recall people shivering, screaming and crying, it looked quite calm, quite surreal in fact.
As I said, it is obvious that they could've attacked other people if they wanted to and outside of the two questionably sane women trying to talk to the murderers no one was nearby trying to subdue or kill the murderers.
If you have to start exaggerating the facts it just shows how desperate you are.
Took 4 mins for the police to arrive, gun reported, armed response got there in 10mins, suspects in custody 14mins with no further loss of life. Even if the armed response team turned up in 4mins it sadly wouldn't have saved the poor guys life.
How am I exaggerating? I read 15-20 minutes. 15 is close enough to 14 minutes.
Please show some evidence regarding the no guns policy for the UK Police and it is a laughing stock around the world - hang on, we do have armed Police.
Evidence for what? That obviously most of your police are not armed and that most countries around the world have armed police that their citizens obviously approve and would find it ridiculous otherwise?
You have very few "armed police" that take 14 minutes to arrive at the scene of a crime. Sorry, but it is not a stretch to say most people around the world would find that a joke and unacceptable.
.....and one would have to question - why so much interest in a tragedy here in the UK, don't you find that unusual, because quite bizarrely that's what you thought just the other day about members here in the UK discussing a news story in the States, namely the tornado in Oklahoma.
I found it "unusual" that so many stories and so many people are interested in things going on in America. That doesn't mean I mind you guys having an interest. I don't care. Whatever wets your whistle. Consider my contribution unique amongst my fellow Americans. Surely a country that is so quick to give advice and criticize others can accept some of the same. No?
Either claim to be "enemy combatants" or claim that they don't recognise western law so they don't think they have any case to answer etc.
Obviously you don't understand the requirement for a jury to be seen to be impartial and the implications if it can be asserted that an impartial jury cannot be found.
What does "attention" have to do with the examples being realistic or "unrealistic?
Your posts and comments are drawing the attention of other members because of their content, a few members have even commented implying they exhibit a gung-ho attitude, they are unrealistic.
I never mentioned my having a gun in the UK. Where are you getting that from?
You implied you'd use you gun and hollow points because that how you deal with it in the US. Why mention what you would do/use at home when it's not applicable to the UK.
Hmmm, two guys hitting someone with a car and then stabbing him and then afterwards pacing back and forth yelling out jihad type comments. You're right, just a normal day.
As I said, too many variables, you are assuming you would be there at the exact time it happened, everyone first thought it was a car accident, I think you give yourself far too much credit, anyone can say what they think they would have done after the event.
It's interesting and amusing that somehow some people here would be able to determine so "many variables" for not taking action while the event was happening but someone I, or anyone else, wouldn't be able to determine the "variables" for something that could have been done.
Don't you think those who were caught up in the atrocities would have done something if it warranted it. Some may have thought about it, but realistically there was nothing they could do.
As I said, it is obvious that they could've attacked other people if they wanted to and outside of the two questionably sane women trying to talk to the murderers no one was nearby trying to subdue or kill the murderers.
This is all you are basing your argument on, if's but's and may be's.
Evidence for what? That obviously most of your police are not armed and that most countries around the world have armed police that their citizens obviously approve and would find it ridiculous otherwise?
You have very few "armed police" that take 14 minutes to arrive at the scene of a crime. Sorry, but it is not a stretch to say most people around the world would find that a joke and unacceptable.
If all our Police were armed it would not have saved the poor guys life and the outcome would have been no different - so what's your point.
I found it "unusual" that so many stories and so many people are interested in things going on in America. That doesn't mean I mind you guys having an interest. I don't care. Whatever wets your whistle. Consider my contribution unique amongst my fellow Americans. Surely a country that is so quick to give advice and criticize others can accept some of the same. No?
You find it unusual members posting in a General Discussion forum showing their interest in a news story, as I said, how bizarre.
There is nothing to be "prejudiced" about. They are on video!
NOT taken by a court-appointed officer, NOR were the perpetrators warned by declaration that they were indeed being video'd...etc., etc...
It might be SHOWN in court...but the judge will almost certainly rule it inadmissible afterwards. Or even before, if it's brought up at any pre-hearing.
Your posts and comments are drawing the attention of other members because of their content, a few members have even commented implying they exhibit a gung-ho attitude, they are unrealistic.
You are doing it again. The amount of attention my posts have garnered does not determine whether my comments are realistic or "unrealistic." Attention can only determine popularity.
You implied you'd use you gun and hollow points because that how you deal with it in the US. Why mention what you would do/use at home when it's not applicable to the UK.
I "implied" no such thing. You are incorrect. Go back and read what I wrote.
As I said, too many variables, you are assuming you would be there at the exact time it happened, everyone first thought it was a car accident, I think you give yourself far too much credit, anyone can say what they think they would have done after the event.
Obviously if I am talking about potentially doing something I would have to be there.
Once the murderers started attacking the injured soldier how long would it have taken you to figure out that something else was going on?
I have said that if there was anything I could do then I would have, as I have in the past. There would obviously be no guarantees on the outcome. That's being realistic. That has nothing to do with giving myself "credit."
What very little credibility you had has just vanished.
Don't you think those who were caught up in the atrocities would have done something if it warranted it. Some may have thought about it, but realistically there was nothing they could do.
Why? How is trying to break up a situation where two people are attacking someone by driving fast towards them and honking the horn unrealistic? Most people would clear out of the way. I would.
This is all you are basing your argument on, if's but's and may be's.
No, I'm being realistic. Obviously the two murderers could have chosen to attack others if they chose to. The fact that they didn't is irrelevant. You, and others, are basing your arguments on the hope, not even the likelihood, that a criminal will respond a certain way.
Don't you think those who were caught up in the atrocities would have done something if it warranted it. Some may have thought about it, but realistically there was nothing they could do.
Not if they were more concerned about racking their brains thinking of reasons to not do anything, as you and others have done.
My reference to you exaggerating was referring to you saying "people dying with others stood around shivering, screaming and crying"
No, I quoted you correctly. Here is what you said.
If you have to start exaggerating the facts it just shows how desperate you are.
Took 4 mins for the police to arrive, gun reported, armed response got there in 10mins, suspects in custody 14mins with no further loss of life. Even if the armed response team turned up in 4mins it sadly wouldn't have saved the poor guys life.
If all our Police were armed it would not have saved the poor guys life and the outcome would have been no different - so what's your point.
I have already made my point by saying the two murderers could have easily attacked other people. Murderers tend not to be concerned about taking other lives after the first one.
NOT taken by a court-appointed officer, NOR were the perpetrators warned by declaration that they were indeed being video'd...etc., etc...
It might be SHOWN in court...but the judge will almost certainly rule it inadmissible afterwards. Or even before, if it's brought up at any pre-hearing.
Then with all due respect you have a screwed up legal system.
Comments
I'm the one that said there are no guarantees. You are trying to adopt my remark to try and use it in your favor when all your arguments are all about seeking guarantees for your safety.
I should end my response here with your constant attempt to put people down that have and would do something in violent or deadly situations as trying to be "heroes."
No, I gave some realistic examples, and I did that without resorting to insults.
No, it's realistic for someone that has access to a gun and that has a "conscience." It's something that happens throughout America all the time. It's "gung-ho for you because that is not the reality in your country where every has been conditioned to fear guns.
How long did it take for your "armed response" cops to get there? Your country's policy regarding no guns for police is a laughing stock throughout the world.
There you go again with the "hero" nonsense. What is it with you and that word that you are so obsessed over it? We're you teased as a coward as a kid?
Reality is people dying while people stand around shivering, screaming and crying.
Rescue work is inherently dangerous.
No, you are simply fixated on putting people down because they are willing to do something that you will not to help others. A person arguing objectively and intelligently doesn't resort to childish John McClane put downs and repeatedly uses the word "hero" in a derogatory way.
Or, maybe what you were taught and what you believe is "bollocks."
Obviously it wouldn't be you or someone you have trained. You might get a violent response.
Seeing as you don't know the details your "only by luck" comment makes absolutely no sense. Where was your "judgement" when formulating such a remark?"
I grew up in a very tough neighborhood in America and as you know we have a lot of guns so that's my answer to your "I doubt" comment.
Well, I've given you the benefit of the doubt that you are some kind of martial arts expert but if you are argument has now come down to that then there is no point in you responding further. Is there?
Obviously they are "the killers."
No, only obviously anti-American people like you do that.
Is that your contribution to this discussion, coming in here to insult someone?
Food for thought, most police forces around the world have guns, including most of your European neighbors. I guess they are all "morons" too?
So many factors influence our reflexes and so many factors on ant given day will effect how we react .
They don't make those kind of movies any more. It's kind of sad. I used to love watching the Sioux out tracking down Bird's Custard with their bows and arrows and feather hats.
You gave unrealistic examples, why do you think your posts/comments are getting so much attention?
1) You would not have had your gun with hollow bullets, rifle, shotgun whatever, so you'd be unarmed.
2) You wouldn't have had a clue to what was happening.
3) To many variables to say you'd ram them with your car - Eg. bystanders in very close proximity to suspects. You must have seen different footage to me, don't recall people dying, just one very brave soldier who lost their live needlessly. Don't recall people shivering, screaming and crying, it looked quite calm, quite surreal in fact.
If you have to start exaggerating the facts it just shows how desperate you are. Took 4 mins for the police to arrive, gun reported, armed response got there in 10mins, suspects in custody 14mins with no further loss of life. Even if the armed response team turned up in 4mins it sadly wouldn't have saved the poor guys life.
Please show some evidence regarding the no guns policy for the UK Police and it is a laughing stock around the world - hang on, we do have armed Police.
.....and one would have to question - why so much interest in a tragedy here in the UK, don't you find that unusual, because quite bizarrely that's what you thought just the other day about members here in the UK discussing a news story in the States, namely the tornado in Oklahoma.
Still waiting for your answer - what would you have done that would have given a better outcome?
That's is the whole point of his posts .And he gets it , like a naughty child even negative attention seems to please them .
His posts are a load of belligerent ballwash.
That'd be my assumption too.
Either claim to be "enemy combatants" or claim that they don't recognise western law so they don't think they have any case to answer etc.
Obviously you don't understand the requirement for a jury to be seen to be impartial and the implications if it can be asserted that an impartial jury cannot be found.
Assisting someone would have to be spontainious, otherwise rationality creeps in as soon as you start thinking about it. I have a fear of knives higher than that with a gun and when that happens I might hesitate, though I hope not, probably go round for something bigger to use than a machette to keep it away.
What does "attention" have to do with the examples being realistic or "unrealistic?
I never mentioned my having a gun in the UK. Where are you getting that from?
Hmmm, two guys hitting someone with a car and then stabbing him and then afterwards pacing back and forth yelling out jihad type comments. You're right, just a normal day.
You could hold the horn down in the process and scare everyone away.
It's interesting and amusing that somehow some people here would be able to determine so "many variables" for not taking action while the event was happening but someone I, or anyone else, wouldn't be able to determine the "variables" for something that could have been done.
As I said, it is obvious that they could've attacked other people if they wanted to and outside of the two questionably sane women trying to talk to the murderers no one was nearby trying to subdue or kill the murderers.
How am I exaggerating? I read 15-20 minutes. 15 is close enough to 14 minutes.
Evidence for what? That obviously most of your police are not armed and that most countries around the world have armed police that their citizens obviously approve and would find it ridiculous otherwise?
You have very few "armed police" that take 14 minutes to arrive at the scene of a crime. Sorry, but it is not a stretch to say most people around the world would find that a joke and unacceptable.
I found it "unusual" that so many stories and so many people are interested in things going on in America. That doesn't mean I mind you guys having an interest. I don't care. Whatever wets your whistle. Consider my contribution unique amongst my fellow Americans. Surely a country that is so quick to give advice and criticize others can accept some of the same. No?
That would be a rehash.
LOL, they are on video!
"LOL"?
Is there anything about this that you think is worthy of laughter?
The fact remains that if a defence lawyer can assert that a jury might be prejudiced it can have an effect on the legal process.
Actually kinda makes you wonder if they deliberately engineered it this way so they could claim that a jury would be prejudiced.
The laughter obviously has nothing to do with what actually happened so trying to connect the two is pretty low. I'm sure you know better.
There is nothing to be "prejudiced" about. They are on video!
You implied you'd use you gun and hollow points because that how you deal with it in the US. Why mention what you would do/use at home when it's not applicable to the UK.
As I said, too many variables, you are assuming you would be there at the exact time it happened, everyone first thought it was a car accident, I think you give yourself far too much credit, anyone can say what they think they would have done after the event.
What very little credibility you had has just vanished. Don't you think those who were caught up in the atrocities would have done something if it warranted it. Some may have thought about it, but realistically there was nothing they could do.
This is all you are basing your argument on, if's but's and may be's.
Stop mis-quoting.
My reference to you exaggerating was referring to you saying "people dying with others stood around shivering, screaming and crying"
Evidence we are a laughing stock.
If all our Police were armed it would not have saved the poor guys life and the outcome would have been no different - so what's your point.
You find it unusual members posting in a General Discussion forum showing their interest in a news story, as I said, how bizarre.
It's blatantly obvious there's nothing you could have done for a better outcome, you'd have probably made the situation more dangerous.
NOT taken by a court-appointed officer, NOR were the perpetrators warned by declaration that they were indeed being video'd...etc., etc...
It might be SHOWN in court...but the judge will almost certainly rule it inadmissible afterwards. Or even before, if it's brought up at any pre-hearing.
You are doing it again. The amount of attention my posts have garnered does not determine whether my comments are realistic or "unrealistic." Attention can only determine popularity.
I "implied" no such thing. You are incorrect. Go back and read what I wrote.
Obviously if I am talking about potentially doing something I would have to be there.
Once the murderers started attacking the injured soldier how long would it have taken you to figure out that something else was going on?
I have said that if there was anything I could do then I would have, as I have in the past. There would obviously be no guarantees on the outcome. That's being realistic. That has nothing to do with giving myself "credit."
Why? How is trying to break up a situation where two people are attacking someone by driving fast towards them and honking the horn unrealistic? Most people would clear out of the way. I would.
No, I'm being realistic. Obviously the two murderers could have chosen to attack others if they chose to. The fact that they didn't is irrelevant. You, and others, are basing your arguments on the hope, not even the likelihood, that a criminal will respond a certain way.
Not if they were more concerned about racking their brains thinking of reasons to not do anything, as you and others have done.
No, I quoted you correctly. Here is what you said.
You need "evidence" for that? It only takes a bit a of reasoning to figure that one out.
I have already made my point by saying the two murderers could have easily attacked other people. Murderers tend not to be concerned about taking other lives after the first one.
Your response makes no sense. Read again what I wrote.
My responding to that would just be a rehash. Surely you must accept at least that.
Then with all due respect you have a screwed up legal system.
They weren't brave.
They were stupid and lucky.