|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Reports of shooting at Batman Premier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam D. Chavez
Film God
Posts: 2153
From: Martinez, CA USA
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 08-03-2012 12:28 AM
Mike said,
"how often a gun-toting bad guy is successfully defeated by a gun-toting good guy. My guess is that many legal gun owners might be real good on the practice range, but when confronted with a bad guy in a dark room or a noisy, fast-moving, crazy situation they could be more likely to injure an innocent party than the bad guy is."
See, that's the difference between a Clint Eastwood movie and real life even if it happened in a cinema.
Joe's You Tube video is in no way similar. It's daylight, the owner is prepared to protect his/her own place and and the perps want nothing more than to split after a botched holdup.
I'd be willing to venture there were a couple of people in the cinema packing and they can't or won't say so for a number of reasons; no carry permit, couldn't get it done because it happened so fast in the dark, did not have the nerve or skill, etc.
No way to prove there were customer guns, unless the cops searched all the customers. Just my own thoughts.
| IP: Logged
|
|
James Westbrook
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1133
From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 08-03-2012 02:23 AM
We could analyze this to death, and it will never undo what was done.
Two weeks ago, I'm watching Denver's Channel 9's live internet feed of the events unfolding, with the mistaken body count of 15 being bandied about, with a helicoptor circling the theater over and over again.
I observed several things about the Century 16 building, including the strip of neon out in the Century 16 sign (which I thought originally might have been intentional by the designer until I saw a night photo taken earlier with all the neon working), the flashing strobe lights indicating that someone pulled the fire alarm to evacuate the building, the exterior lights mounted on the building sides all working and lit...
I'm thinking this is a nice looking building, well designed, well maintained...and now due to the senseless carnage who will want to go there now?
During the live coverage, the camera would zoom in on a car parked in the back of the building that the bomb squad had a robot deployed, scanning into the vehicle's trunk. My initial thought was that the shooter might be an employee, as in some sites the employees park directly in the back. Thankfully, I was wrong.
I had run DKR in my building that evening to 5 sold out houses, and one of my shit-for-brains employees left before cleaning his designated auditorium, leaving it for me. I left there, walking to my car thinking I had a shitty night.
No I didn't. Not really. Not at all...
I went home that night. So did my staff and my customers.
I have no idea what it would be like to have been an employee or manager at the Century 16 that night. I shudder to think...
I know some employees are gung ho, and had that door been alarmed, or set off a alarm at the podium, a staffer likely would have gone to theater 9 to confront the person who is letting his bud in by the back door...
and the first fatality would have been that employee.
Which now, I am over analyzing.
Nothing good will come out of this.
And the finger pointing will continue for a long long time.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-03-2012 09:25 AM
It's not clear whether he was wearing a ballistic vest or a tactical vest or something else but it doesn't really matter what the suspect was wearing. Let's just assume that he was wearing a bullet proof vest.
One or two shots to the center of body mass would have, at minimum, seriously impaired his ability to continue the assault.
A larger caliber handgun (9 mm or .45 cal.) bullet hits with somewhere between 300 and 400 ft./lb. of energy.
A bullet proof vest only prevents a bullet from penetrating. All of the bullet's energy still goes into the person's body.
The average person, swinging a baseball bat, can hit with 200 to 300 ft./lb. of energy.
Therefore, we can make a the assumption that getting hit with a bullet while wearing a ballistic vest might be similar to a hit from a baseball bat.
What would have happened to Mr. Holmes if somebody hit him in the chest with a bat? It would have knocked the wind out of him. It might have broken bones. There would be tissue trauma and bruising.
No matter how you look at it, Holmes would have been hurt quite a bit. He probably would not be able to continue his attack. Even if he did, his ability to hold a gun, fire it, absorb the gun's recoil with his now-injured body and to hit an intended target would have been seriously degraded. Unless he was an unusually strong person (or high on drugs) a quick succession of two bullets to his bullet proof vest would have, very likely, put him on the ground, gasping for air.
Even if it only slowed him down for ten seconds, that's another ten seconds where he does not have the tactical advantage. Maybe it could have been enough for two big, strong men to tackle him. Maybe it could have been enough for a defensive shooter to reassess the situation and get another shot. Maybe mister Holmes would have thought better and decided that he didn't want to play this game anymore.
The idea that a defensive shooter is more dangerous than the attacker is silly. There are ALREADY lots of bullets in the air. It doesn't matter which direction they come from. People are still going to get hurt. (Research has shown that it's essentially a random chance event.)
The most important thing is to lower the number of bullets in the air, through whatever means necessary. If you have to fight fire with fire then so be it.
Even if both of a defender's initial shots missed the mark, he would have been forced to reevaluate the situation and change his strategy. That's another ten seconds where the attacker would not have had the tactical advantage.
Those ten seconds would have saved lives. People could have escaped or found cover. It would have given more time for help to arrive. There would have also been a significant chance that the attacker would have been killed or incapacitated.
This does not mean that a defender should or would fire back randomly.
Since we are talking about movies, we can think of famous movie gun fighters.
Clint Eastwood: Fistfull of Dollars
Sylvester Stallone: Rambo
Bruce Willis: Die Hard
(Let's keep it clear... These are actors playing imaginary people.)
But, in few cases, do I remember any of these characters just shooting randomly. When the shit hit the fan, they dived for cover until they could figure out what was happening then they formulated a plan.
It's not possible to tell what a real person in a real gunfight would do. Whether it's an experienced defender or an inexperienced defender is largely irrelevant. We can only guess what might have happened.
To be brutally honest, ANYTHING that happened or could have happened would have been bad. Because of that, I don't think the idea that it would be wrong for somebody to shoot back holds up to scrutiny.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 08-03-2012 09:42 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
As somebody above said, the more bullets in the air the more damage will be done.
The shorter the amount of time when bullets are in the air, the better. While the number of bullets is important, the period of time when there are bullets flying is more important.
Bullets might hit their intended target. They might hit an unintended target. They might hit nothing at all before embedding in a wall, etc.
A G.E. Minigun can fire 4,000 rounds per minute. How long would you want to be on the field of fire with one of those bearing down on you? I would tell you, "Never!" But, if I had to be in front of one of those things I would sure as Hell rather withstand one second of fire than ten.
So, the question is not, "Who shot what at whom?" The question should be, "How can we decrease the length of time when people are at risk?"
If that means that shooting back then so be it. More bullets are certainly more dangerous but greater good would be accomplished by decreasing the time when bullets are in the air.
Stopping the attacker, even if that means he must die in the process, is the ultimate goal however, making him diver for cover, partially incapacitating him or totally incapacitating him would be acceptable because that means there is less time when people are in danger.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic