Support NeoGAF

[ClovingWestbrook]

So if a guy has a gun without bullets is lethal force against him not an option? Not until we check and see if he has bullets and can actually shoot somebody? What if he thinks he has bullets, and is trying to harm people, but there are none?

Are all the passengers supposed to consult a physics textbook and do some equations before deciding how to proceed, or can they just say "he's attempting to harm me" and use force against him to restrain him. Especially considering that he was already punching people?

Obviously they're suppose to either read his mind or they should do put their own guns away to calm the guy down and do whatever he says. We wouldn't want to harm him, would we.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Pandaman I see what you are saying. But what everyone else, including myself is trying to point out is that decisions are made in seconds.

How do you know the physical condition of the man opening the door? You can't assume that using normal disarming techniques (person untrained tackling someone) would be sufficient. What if this guy had training and could have physically harmed other people? Going for the "headshot" is a sure way to disable him from doing any harm not only to everyone else on the plane, but also to himself given the succinct lack of information.

Do you think there was sufficient knowledge in the passengers surrounding him to neatly knock him unconscious? This is a variable you simply cannot account for in moments.

The man who went to knock him unconscious made the correct move imho. Your analysis is fine, but remember your condemnation of his actions is done in hindsight without knowing all the details but what the article says.

Similar to how you are berating everyone here, you should also keep an open mind.

Thank you.

The gentleman who beat him over the head is absolutely justified to do so. If people are trying to hold him back and restrain him and ITS NOT WORKING and this crazed individual is then allowed to continue to engage in extremely dangerous actions, then if there were a marshall on board I would absolutely approve of gunning him down.

See, whilst it has been established here that actually opening the door at that altitude is nigh impossible, I'm sure that in the mind of every other passenger engaged in the situation (as it would be in my own mind), the guy trying to open the door is equivalent to some crazed guy try to detonate a bomb on the plane. Whether he thinks its real or not, the danger he poses is life-threatening for all passengers on board and every one of them has it in their right to give him a clop over the head.

 

[Songbird]

Fair enough, however if you would... could you perhaps share your totally safe method for determining if a person who has broken into my home is going to pose a threat to me? Does it involve waiting to see if he attacks me before I act? Or do I have to wait even longer and see if he has a weapon just to be sure he's really dangerous? I sure hope I don't have to wait until he kills me before I can defend myself, that would be somewhat inconvenient.

Well you would arm yourself with something big and heavy first, of course!

Thing is if someone breaks into your home you can assume one of two things, that he probably won't harm you OR that he probably will harm you. One of these two views is the safer way to look at things. How you act on this assumption can of course vary but I wouldn't raise my eyebrow at someone for shooting an intruder even though I wouldn't do it myself (I can't, I live in Sweden so no guns ).

I don't know. I can say all sort of things here with relative anonymity but in a real event like this nothing is certain.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Well you would arm yourself with something big and heavy first, of course!


I don't know. I can say all sort of things here with relative anonymity but in a real event like this nothing is certain.

Obviously a cricket bat overpowers a gun any day of the week.

 

[krypt0nian]

To be perfectly fair, I'm glad they just punched him out. But had they gone further to protect themselves, I would not have one shred of an issue with that.

 

[giri]

why wouldnt you?

the guy might as well have tried to claw through the window with his fingernails. that's not worthy of being assaulted, especially being struck over the head. Obviously he needed to be restrained but there are limits to what you can get away with while restraining someone.

You're a terrible person, or good troll. not sure which.

 

[Wired]

Obviously a cricket bat overpowers a gun any day of the week.

Someone who's good at cricket could probably deflect bullets with it... maybe? I mean there's relatively much surface area on a cricket bat, right?

 

[Songbird]

Obviously a cricket bat overpowers a gun any day of the week.

I forgot to mention my vast arsenal of bulletproof cricket gear, which increases my chances of survival when an attacker fires at my shins.

 

[giri]

Someone who's good at cricket could probably deflect bullets with it... maybe? I mean there's relatively much surface area on a cricket bat, right?

They're made of wood.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

Thank you.

The gentleman who beat him over the head is absolutely justified to do so. If people are trying to hold him back and restrain him and ITS NOT WORKING and this crazed individual is then allowed to continue to engage in extremely dangerous actions, then if there were a marshall on board I would absolutely approve of gunning him down.

See, whilst it has been established here that actually opening the door at that altitude is nigh impossible, I'm sure that in the mind of every other passenger engaged in the situation (as it would be in my own mind), the guy trying to open the door is equivalent to some crazed guy try to detonate a bomb on the plane. Whether he thinks its real or not, the danger he poses is life-threatening for all passengers on board and every one of them has it in their right to give him a clop over the head.

You mentioned te thing I forgot. Regardless of tedoor being able to not be opened he was a threat to his own safety and others. Ignore the door.

 

[Timedog]

Cricket bat deflecting bullets on page 5, can't wait for page 10!

 

[mckmas8808]

Love this thread already. Despite the fact over whether or not its even possible to open the door, stop defending the guy WHO STILL WANTED TO OPEN THE FUCKING DOOR.

thisisNeoGafdude.gif

 

[corporate cheerleader]

Cricket bat deflecting bullets on page 5, can't wait for page 10!

I know, I personally can't wait for page 4.

 

[Songbird]

Cricket bat deflecting bullets on page 5, can't wait for page 10!

That's not all, I have an explosion-proof cup too.

 

[Pandaman]

Pretty much this. I imagine these folks would want to negotiate with an individual who was threatening the life of their loved ones even though they were able to stop the perpetrator by pulling a trigger.

that's funny because i don't remember anyone ever suggesting negotiation as an option.

So if a guy has a gun without bullets is lethal force against him not an option? Not until we check and see if he has bullets and can actually shoot somebody? What if he thinks he has bullets, and is trying to harm people, but there are none?

Of course not.

 

[Betta Lines]

a strike to the head is lethal force. :\

Is it?

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Of course not.

So then what the fuck are you arguing for?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

that's funny because i don't remember anyone ever suggesting negotiation as an option.


Of course not.

But you wanted this guy to think about what hitting the nut over the head could potentially do to him EVEN THOUGH HE WAS TRYING TO UNLOCK A FREAKING EMERGENCY DOOR? Really? REALLY? I'd love to get your view on how we should treat pedophiles but I think I already know where you stand.

 

[Wired]

They're made of wood.

Hmm yes that would limit their usefulness in bullet-deflecting situations to be sure. Maybe if the angle of the bat is just right? If you ask the intruder to hold for a bit you should have plenty of time to align it, sparing you the need to bash his head in. He would probably be so impressed that he would leave you alone after that as a sign of respect.

 

[Songbird]

Hmm yes that would limit their usefulness in bullet-deflecting situations to be sure. Maybe if the angle of the bat is just right? If you ask the intruder to hold for a bit you should have plenty of time to align it, sparing you the need to bash his head in. He would probably be so impressed that he would leave you alone after that as a sign of respect.

Even better, don't ask and start hitting him before he sees you.

 

[X-Frame]

No, no he wasn't. The lunatic was convinced the situation wasn't really, was causing panic and was attempting to endanger the rest of the passengers.

You knock him the fuck out and restrain him.

This this this this this.

Has there been an update to the story yet?

 

[Salmonax]

I didn't know it was impossible to open the doors on a plane at altitude, so thanks thread. That's one irrational latent phobia I can check off the list.

 

[BankaiZaraki]

I don't get why people are defending the guy who tried to open the flight door. I'd do anything to stop a person who was trying to do that.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I don't get why people are defending the guy who tried to open the flight door. I'd do anything to stop a person who was trying to do that.

Why? Because they're so concerned about us treating one person in what they deem an acceptable manner even if it means the the safety of others is in jeopardy.

 

[HolyCheck]

poor panda, life is hard when the infestor gets nerfed

 

[Pandaman]

Is it?

plenty of accidental death cases and manslaughter charges out there saying yep.

So then what the fuck are you arguing for?

Even if he had a gun and shot someone with a bullet with his name engraved on it before being taken down by an armed air marshal, that marshal would still be investigated to see if his use of his weapon was justified. that's just how it works and that's how it should work whenever lethal force is involved. there's no harm done if everything's on the up and up.

Can you not accept that even if the man is a hero it should be looked into just in case? If only to discourage more trigger happy people from going further in a perhaps less serious scenario?

I honestly don't see where the harm is in looking into it. Can you explain it to me?

But you wanted this guy to think about what hitting the nut over the head could potentially do to him EVEN THOUGH HE WAS TRYING TO UNLOCK A FREAKING EMERGENCY DOOR? Really? REALLY? I'd love to get your view on how we should treat pedophiles but I think I already know where you stand.

You seem pretty hung up on this pedophile thing. Got something you need to get off your chest? It okay, its not illegal to admit to attraction you can tell us.

 

[callmedave]

Stupid question but, do those across the pond use a different word for what Americans call holidays, or do they use the word holiday for both vacations and special days?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

plenty of accidental death cases and manslaughter charges out there saying yep.


Even if he had a gun and shot someone with a bullet with his name engraved on it before being taken down by an armed air marshal, that marshal would still be investigated to see if his use of his weapon was justified. that's just how it works and that's how it should work whenever lethal force is involved. there's no harm done if everything's on the up and up.

Can you not accept that even if the man is a hero it should be looked into just in case? If only to discourage more trigger happy people from going further in a perhaps less serious scenario?

I honestly don't see where the harm is in looking into it. Can you explain it to me?


I think you're a pedophile, but im only saying that because i dislike you.

Both of us know where you come down on the whole pedophile issue.

 

[Pandaman]

Both of us know where you come down on the whole pedophile issue.

uh huh.

Listen you seem a little... deranged, so I'm mostly just going to be trolling you from this point on. Seems like it'd be fun. I really don't see how you'd ever be swayed by rational discussion anyway, if that's what you've been attempting to do.

 

[HolyCheck]

Stupid question but, do those across the pond use a different word for what Americans call holidays, or do they use the word holiday for both vacations and special days?

In Australia we use holiday for both, or the term public holiday for a day off like the queens birthday

 

[Barberetti]

The guy was lucky to get a smack in the head. For all anyone knew, the next stop in his quest to prove that he was on a simulator could have been the cockpit.

 

[Timedog]

I honestly don't see where the harm is in looking into it. Can you explain it to me?

Now you're completely changing the troll. Before you said "why would you(arrest the guy who hit the deranged man in the head)?" You said that the force was not justified.

Now you're saying let's look into whether or not we need to arrest him. You have no evidence that the police didn't look into the matter, yet you're soOoOoOo upset. There's a 99.99999999% chance that the police questioned the passengers on the plane as well as the guy who struck the suspect, and are investigating it. So what are you on about again?

At least if you're going to troll stick to your guns.

 

[Betta Lines]

plenty of accidental death cases and manslaughter charges out there saying yep.

Well it seems to me like you've got hung up on that part of the story. Some guy struck him on the head. He was then wrestled into a seat, so the striking on the head clearly didn't even knock him out.

I read the story as: he was punching people, and then he got punched. That's all.

All sounds quite reasonable to me.

 

[bigtroyjon]

Now you're completely changing the troll. Before you said "why would you(arrest the guy who hit the deranged man in the head)?" You said that the force was not justified.

Now you're saying let's look into whether or not we need to arrest him. You have no evidence that the police didn't look into the matter, yet you're soOoOoOo upset. There's a 99.99999999% chance that the police questioned the passengers on the plane as well as the guy who struck the suspect, and are investigating it. So what are you on about again?

At least if you're going to troll stick to your guns.

Trolls gotta have the ability to adapt mid thread or else they aren't as effective.

 

[KibblesBits]

In yurop holiday means vacation.

Stupid, I know.

I said happy holiday to some foreigners who were obviously on vacation at my place of work and they stopped and asked what holiday it was.

...heh.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

plenty of accidental death cases and manslaughter charges out there saying yep.


Even if he had a gun and shot someone with a bullet with his name engraved on it before being taken down by an armed air marshal, that marshal would still be investigated to see if his use of his weapon was justified. that's just how it works and that's how it should work whenever lethal force is involved. there's no harm done if everything's on the up and up.

Can you not accept that even if the man is a hero it should be looked into just in case? If only to discourage more trigger happy people from going further in a perhaps less serious scenario?

I honestly don't see where the harm is in looking into it. Can you explain it to me?


You seem pretty hung up on this pedophile thing. Got something you need to get off your chest? It okay, its not illegal to admit to attraction you can tell us.

I wasn't arguing against the actions of any persons using force being investigated. But you were actively championing the idea (until this very post) that violent and damaging actions against the man are unjustified.

Sometimes its best to just say you were wrong, rather than drag out embarrassment. You're only human. Its okay to be wrong every once in a while. There is nothing graceful about willful ignorance though.

 

[GhostWriter24]

you would intentionally go beyond what is necessary in order to cause him harm?

I wouldn't even think twice about it.

Also, I'm curious to see what Panda would do if he were sitting in the emergency seat near that door. Offer him a bag of peanuts? Hot towel?

 

[Wired]

The guy was lucky to get a smack in the head. For all anyone knew, the next stop in his quest to prove that he was on a simulator could have been the cockpit.

To be fair he wouldn't have gotten further than to the door. So I do see the point of those who are arguing that the danger to everyone wasn't as extreme as "the whole plane could've gone down".

Still, with this in mind, if you ever find yourself in a violent situation of any kind I feel that you have the RIGHT to act in such a way as to minimize the risk to yourself. So while I can agree with that it would've been a better outcome if he hadn't been hit on the head the fact that he was is acceptable. Better him than the people who tried to restrain him.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Except there's nothing wrong with those thoughts and feelings when they're just fapping to their mental object of attraction.

being sexually attracted to children isn't a crime, raping children or forcibly exposing them to sexual situations is. [by the simple fact that a child is incapable of granting informed consent on such matters]. If a pedo can get off to a drawing, all the power to him or her, they're people too and desire a release. As long as they aren't participating in or supporting harm done towards living people, i don't care what they like.

And if we´re taking into account time, there´s several approaches to solve the issue of pedophilia without hurting anyone. For pure sexual needs, they could get "Real Dolls" (was a topic here on Gaf some time ago). Or, as video games improve and get closer to the Matrix-movies, that´s how pedophiles could live out their urges. And then there´d also be the sociological approach to tackle the question if children can never give consent; that would obviously be the most difficult one, since our current society is probably too ignorant to even ask that question. Not that I am.
What it comes down to: What seems now like a totally unacceptable disorder/fetish, could be solved in the future. We´re just not there, yet. But I think we as a society should always strive for improving *everybody´s* situation. Even if they *seem* like the bad guy at a first glimpse. You disagree with that?

Hmm

 

[Pandaman]

Now you're completely changing the troll. Before you said "why would you(arrest the guy who hit the deranged man in the head)?" You said that the force was not justified.

Now you're saying let's look into whether or not we need to arrest him. You have no evidence that the police didn't look into the matter, yet you're soOoOoOo upset. There's a 99.99999999% chance that the police questioned the passengers on the plane as well as the guy who struck the suspect, and are investigating it. So what are you on about again?

At least if you're going to troll stick to your guns.

i said he should be arrested, not judge/juried/executed. [infact, he probably was petained by the police] at the time it was more about suggesting that the case was not necessarily clear cut than about guidelines for behavior in violent encounters, which is what the thread has been about since then and why i got 'soOoOoOo upset'.

there are 5 pages of discussion here, try to not make sweeping generations off the first and last post and assume people have not been moved since.

 

[Pandaman]

I wasn't arguing against the actions of any persons using force being investigated. But you were actively championing the idea (until this very post) that violent and damaging actions against the man are unjustified.

no, i have never argued that force should not have been used. in my very first post on the subject [my second in the thread] i stated that force was justified, its never been my position that it wasn't necessary just that there should be limitations and checks on what is acceptable.

Sometimes its best to just say you were wrong, rather than drag out embarrassment. You're only human. Its okay to be wrong every once in a while. There is nothing graceful about willful ignorance though.

I agree.

Here is a link to my 2nd post in the thread in which i said that force was obviously justified:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30989677&postcount=14

my 4th post in the thread where i agree the act of opening the door itself was sufficient for forceful restraint:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30990059&postcount=42

my 5th post in the thread where i gave two examples of where it would be justified and one where it might not, i guess this is the point where timedog would say i stopped 'sticking to my trolling guns'
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30990475&postcount=61

my 6th post in the thread where i say 'we all agree that force was required to stop him'
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30991068&postcount=99

my 7th post in the thread where i agree that it might have been justified but should be investigated [once again disappointing timedog]
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30991126&postcount=102

my 11nth post where i said i doubted the puncher intended lasting harm
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30996761&postcount=149

my 12th post where i said 'By all means stop him and if it is necessary, you may even have to kill him.'
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30997029&postcount=155

i'm not sure exactly what more you want here. I have tried to not condemn the use of force in general or this man in particular, but evidently people are still not seeing that. and apparently suggesting that lethal force should be reserved in some cases makes me a pedophile. but im the troll. somehow.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

no, i have never argued that force should not have been used. in my very first post on the subject [my second in the thread] i stated that force was justified, its never been my position that it wasn't necessary just that there should be limitations and checks on what is acceptable.


I agree.

Here is a link to my 2nd post in the thread in which i said that force was obviously justified:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30989677&postcount=14

my 4th post in the thread where i agree the act of opening the door itself was sufficient for forceful restraint:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30990059&postcount=42

my 5th post in the thread where i gave two examples of where it would be justified and one where it might not, i guess this is the point where timedog would say i stopped 'sticking to my trolling guns'
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30990475&postcount=61

my 6th post in the thread where i say 'we all agree that force was required to stop him'
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30991068&postcount=99

my 7th post in the thread where i agree that it might have been justified but should be investigated [once again disappointing timedog]
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30991126&postcount=102

my 11nth post where i said i doubted the puncher intended lasting harm
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30996761&postcount=149

my 12th post where i said 'By all means stop him and if it is necessary, you may even have to kill him.'
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=30997029&postcount=155

i'm not sure exactly what more you want here. I have tried to not condemn the use of force in general or this man in particular, but evidently people are still not seeing that. and apparently suggesting that lethal force should be reserved in some cases makes me a pedophile. but im the troll. somehow.

In your second post you said

why wouldnt you?

the guy might as well have tried to claw through the window with his fingernails. that's not worthy of being assaulted, especially being struck over the head. Obviously he needed to be restrained but there are limits to what you can get away with while restraining someone

i'm not sure exactly what more you want here. I have tried to not condemn the use of force in general or this man in particular, but evidently people are still not seeing that. and apparently suggesting that lethal force should be reserved in some cases makes me a pedophile. but im the troll. somehow.

Not worthy of being assaulted? He wasn't just clawing through a window. He was attempting to open a door, thereby destabilizing a plan with other passengers which led the plan to shake back and forth which in of itself is dangerous. He also punched those who were trying to stop him. But yea, totally not appropriate. Ridiculous.

Nobody called you a pedophile. I said that you would probably defend them in the same manner that Sennorin did, or you may be him for all I know.

 

[Vilam]

Guess what? It's a physical impossibility to open a jet plane door at altitude because of the pressure differentials. I'm so tired of people freaking out over this.

Good to know. I've always stared at emergency exits on planes while waiting in line for the bathroom and wondering "...what if?"

 

[Pandaman]

In your second post you said

Not worthy of being assaulted? He wasn't just clawing through a window. He was attempting to open a door,

which had already been established as having about the same likelihood for success.

thereby destabilizing a plan with other passengers which led the plan to shake back and forth which in of itself is dangerous.

which either did not happen or he was not the cause of.

He also punched those who were trying to stop him.

which was not addressed inside that post. when pressed on that issue i agreed it was acceptable.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

which had already been established as having about the same likelihood for success.

which either did not happen or he was not the cause of.

So its clear you didn't even read the OP since it says the following [

- 22-year-old man had to be tied up with eight seatbelts
- Newcastle-bound plane forced into emergency landing at Gatwick
- 'There were a lot of kids on the plane screaming their heads off'

A 28-year-old passenger, from Newcastle, who did not want to be named, said: 'It was absolutely mental.

'Suddenly all the lights came on and all the air hostesses were shouting and we could see a lad trying to open the emergency door.

'The plane started shaking. I thought it was going to go down.
'His friends tried to pull him away from the door and he started punching them and saying; "It's OK we are just on a flight simulator"

 

[Pandaman]

So its clear you didn't even read the OP since it says the following [

Physics trumps hostess testimony in my eyes.
Might just be a bias of mine.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Physics trumps hostess testimony in my eyes.
Might just be a bias of mine.

WHAT? Are you freaking kidding me?

 

[Phonomezer]

why wouldnt you?

the guy might as well have tried to claw through the window with his fingernails. that's not worthy of being assaulted, especially being struck over the head. Obviously he needed to be restrained but there are limits to what you can get away with while restraining someone.

What a load of bullshit. I would've knocked that cunt out cold in a heartbeat.

 

[Pandaman]

WHAT? Are you freaking kidding me?

no, im not sure what you're looking for here.

He couldn't open the door.
opening the door would not have have had the effect described.

Do you object to one of those things? You don't have to take my word for it, just don't take James Bonds word for it.

 

[Timedog]

Not even the jaws of life could save Pandaman in this thread.

i said he should be arrested, not judge/juried/executed.

Arrested would mean that he is suspected of a crime. Punching someone who is attempting (however futile the attempt is) to kill dozens or hundreds of people, and is also attacking those people, is not a crime. Unless you want to show us the law where this would be illegal, you have no ground to stand on.

I'll bet you everything that I own vs everything that you own that the guy who punched will not get charged with a crime. And no one (except you) will complain about it.