Support NeoGAF

[HyperionX]

The burden of proof is not on me to disprove your fantasy. Multiple news organizations reported the story and the police were involved. You have zero evidence other that your gut feeling, which makes all this talk of statistics and math even more hilarious.

Same story from one source reported over and over again. I know how the media works and this doesn't count.

It's like arguing with a creationist or a 9/11 truther. Everyone else is wrong cause I believe something else.

You have a video of the incident like there was for 9/11? I think there's a lot more evidence there than for this one. Again, it's like WMDs in Iraq. A really dubious story with not a lot of plausibility behind it, reads like NRA fan-fiction and was written by a far-right news organization. If you really are that gullible to believe this story as completely true then I've got a bridge to sell to you.

PS: A few years back, when I was discussing that we need at least some gun control after the Aurora theater shooting, someone repeated almost exactly the same words you did: "debating gun control supporters was 'like arguing with a creationist.'" Apparently in his mind, any kind of gun control was crazy, and compared it to creationism. Somehow he could square that logic.

Well, we sure moved a long way since then. Supporting gun control at all is now a valid position. You can actually support some kind of gun control and not get that level of criticism. But today, I'm finding myself being compared again in the same way when pointing out that politically motivated armed self-defense stories are bullshit. Basically history is repeating for me. While I don't know what the future will bring, I have a hunch that we'll start to accept that these kinds of stories are really just propaganda and are rarely true. Not necessary completely made up, just dressed up in order to scare people in buying more guns.

 

[dejay]

Again, I'm claiming the report is embellished or a half-truth. I never said it had to be completely false. In fact if it happened like you described you're basically admitting the original story was embellished. Shooting a person with some distance between them is quite a difference after all, and implies a much lower threat level.

I'm saying the term "human shield" is ambiguous. I'm saying the story is scant on details and open to numerous interpretations.

From two stories:
Police say a 17-year-old girl who lived at the home was outside retrieving something from her car when she was approached by two masked and armed men who forced her into her house, using her as a shield.
...
Cortez McClinton, 33, and Terrell Johnson, 31, held a gun to the girl’s head and used her as a shield as they entered the family home, where a five-year old child was also present.


Using someone as a shield merely means attempting to put them between yourself and someone else. It could mean anything from a tight embrace with the gun against someone's temple to merely walking behind someone. To me the second scenario, walking behind the girl with some separation, seems more likely given the report, but that doesn't make the story "embellished" just because the term "human shield" doesn't match what you take it to mean. True, the term was probably chosen for dramatic effect, but it doesn't make it an incorrect term.

To make it clear, a pictorial representation:

To be extra clear, this would be a suitable, non-embellished use of the term "human shield"

Further:
The teen’s father, 34, saw the men walking up with his daughter, got his firearm and fired several shots at them, striking both of the men as they entered his home.

He shot them as they entered the house. To me this says the father was standing to one side in ambush, not in direct sight of the intruders until they were through his doorway. Again, this suggest the second scenario is the more likely. By the time the first shot was fired, the daughter was probably running for her life.

To add:
The second man, Cortez McClinton, 33, was standing behind Johnson when Johnson was shot. McClinton pointed a gun inside the doorway and also was shot. McClinton then ran away and got his brother to transport him to a hospital, police said. He was treated for gunshot wounds to the chest and both thighs.

The gunshot wounds to thighs of the second guy suggest the father shot a bit more wildly by this stage, possibly because the situation was probably more dynamic and out of control as the second intruder came through the door more quickly, where as with the first guy it was possibly easier as the intruder thought he had the situation under control and wasn't rushing in behind the daughter.

Look, you're finding excuses for something you admit you probably couldn't do yourself.

I can't juggle or ride a unicycle, but my brother in law can do both with ease. He's had more training/practice in those areas.

 

[HyperionX]

I'm saying the term "human shield" is ambiguous. I'm saying the story is scant on details and open to numerous interpretations.

From two stories:
Police say a 17-year-old girl who lived at the home was outside retrieving something from her car when she was approached by two masked and armed men who forced her into her house, using her as a shield.
...
Cortez McClinton, 33, and Terrell Johnson, 31, held a gun to the girl’s head and used her as a shield as they entered the family home, where a five-year old child was also present.


Using someone as a shield merely means attempting to put them between yourself and someone else. It could mean anything from a tight embrace with the gun against someone's temple to merely walking behind someone. To me the second scenario, walking behind the girl with some separation, seems more likely given the report, but that doesn't make the story "embellished" just because the term "human shield" doesn't match what you take it to mean. True, the term was probably chosen for dramatic effect, but it doesn't make it an incorrect term.

To make it clear, a pictorial representation:

To be extra clear, this would be a suitable, non-embellished use of the term "human shield"

This is still way to close to pull this off. His center of mass is complete behind the guy in front. If this was the case his daughter would be dead by now. Also remember that humans move, they don't stand still. The bad guy can simply duck and make this practically impossible. You would need to have insane reaction speeds on top of perfect aim to pull this off. With a handgun no less. Sorry, but this is Call of Duty level of craziness. You cannot possible believe this at all.

Further:
The teen’s father, 34, saw the men walking up with his daughter, got his firearm and fired several shots at them, striking both of the men as they entered his home.

He shot them as they entered the house. To me this says the father was standing to one side in ambush, not in direct sight of the intruders until they were through his doorway. Again, this suggest the second scenario is the more likely. By the time the first shot was fired, the daughter was probably running for her life.

To add:
The second man, Cortez McClinton, 33, was standing behind Johnson when Johnson was shot. McClinton pointed a gun inside the doorway and also was shot. McClinton then ran away and got his brother to transport him to a hospital, police said. He was treated for gunshot wounds to the chest and both thighs.

The gunshot wounds to thighs of the second guy suggest the father shot a bit more wildly by this stage, possibly because the situation was probably more dynamic and out of control as the second intruder came through the door more quickly, where as with the first guy it was possibly easier as the intruder thought he had the situation under control and wasn't rushing in behind the daughter.

You don't know he shot from the side. Even if he did, they are very close, and humans move around. He could easily move behind the girl. And why would he be shooting wildly at the second guy? I thought he was a crazy good shot who can one shot kill a bad guy using a person as a human shield. I'm also curious why the bad guys never shot back. These sounds like major holes in the story.

So you're doing it again: making excuses for something that's basically impossible. There's still no way this is a plausible story. Hell, the stories aren't even that consistent from source to source. Some don't even mention the whole human shield thing. That's not exactly sound reporting we're seeing.

I can't juggle or ride a unicycle, but my brother in law can do both with ease. He's had more training/practice in those areas.

I hope this guy is a olympic class shooter because he couldn't have pulled it off any other way.

 

[reckless]

This is still way to close to pull this off. His center of mass is complete behind the guy in front. If this was the case his daughter would be dead by now. Also remember that humans move, they don't stand still. The bad guy can simply duck and make this practically impossible. You would need to have insane reaction speeds on top of perfect aim to pull this off. With a handgun no less. Sorry, but this is Call of Duty level of craziness. You cannot possible believe this at all.



You don't know he shot from the side. Even if he did, they are very close, and humans move around. He could easily move behind the girl. And why would he be shooting wildly at the second guy? I thought he was a crazy good shot who can one shot kill a bad guy using a person as a human shield. I'm also curious why the bad guys never shot back. These sounds like major holes in the story.

So you're doing it again: making excuses for something that's basically impossible. There's still no way this is a plausible story. Hell, the stories aren't even that consistent from source to source. Some don't even mention the whole human shield thing. That's not exactly sound reporting we're seeing.



I hope this guy is a olympic class shooter because he couldn't have pulled it off any other way.

If the father is off to the side and the guys are leading the daughter in like the picture... then no you don't have to be an Olympic class shooter to shoot someone a few feet away. So no its not an impossible scenario.
But this is all pointless since we have no idea where people were in relation to each other.

 

[Water]

So you're doing it again: making excuses for something that's basically impossible. There's still no way this is a plausible story. Hell, the stories aren't even that consistent from source to source. Some don't even mention the whole human shield thing. That's not exactly sound reporting we're seeing.

You take a bunch of reporting that doesn't go into much detail, and assume the worst about everything that's in the dark. Then you claim the thing must be a hoax because the reported outcome is unlikely in the case you assumed. You don't see anything wrong with this logic? Anything at all?

I hope this guy is a olympic class shooter because he couldn't have pulled it off any other way.

You aren't qualified to estimate how hard a given shooting scenario is. If you were, you'd recognize there is not nearly enough info here to even give an estimate. Could have been easy, could have been hard.

 

[not psycho]

This is still way to close to pull this off. His center of mass is complete behind the guy in front.

For all we know the mother and father witnessed the abduction through a window and set themselves up so the intruders would see the mother when they walked in the door, thus standing behind the girl and using her as a shield, meanwhile the father was to the side of the door with a clear shot.

It's pointless though, because we have no information on that. Just random guesses. However, I think we are in full agreement that there should be a police investigation which would discover if their story was absurd. Self defense is completely justified when you are targeted by armed and violent home invaders, but that doesn't mean the police should simply take your word for everything if you fire a weapon.

 

[RELAYER]

I didn't realize trolling was allowed here.

Why are you guys wasting your time with this guy?

 

[HyperionX]

For all we know the mother and father witnessed the abduction through a window and set themselves up so the intruders would see the mother when they walked in the door, thus standing behind the girl and using her as a shield, meanwhile the father was to the side of the door with a clear shot.

It's pointless though, because we have no information on that. Just random guesses. However, I think we are in full agreement that there should be a police investigation which would discover if their story was absurd. Self defense is completely justified when you are targeted by armed and violent home invaders, but that doesn't mean the police should simply take your word for everything if you fire a weapon.

We will see then, though there may never be a serious investigation as is often the case. The editorialized story, and the fact that the story isn't the same from version to version does suggest quite a bit of embellishment, at least from the right-wing website's version.

 

[HyperionX]

You take a bunch of reporting that doesn't go into much detail, and assume the worst about everything that's in the dark. Then you claim the thing must be a hoax because the reported outcome is unlikely in the case you assumed. You don't see anything wrong with this logic? Anything at all?

I wish you would actually read the posts before replying. An embellished story is very likely. No one is saying its a hoax.

You aren't qualified to estimate how hard a given shooting scenario is. If you were, you'd recognize there is not nearly enough info here to even give an estimate. Could have been easy, could have been hard.

It could have been utterly impossible depending on scenario. Even in the best case your shooting only a few feet away from the daughter. Not to mention if it really was a gun to the head, you have very little time to pull it off as the bad guy only needed a split second to pull the trigger. You would think if the father actually got the jump on them like that they would at least mention it in the story. The story doesn't, and in fact not all versions make the "human shield" or gun to the head claim. Being skeptical implies assuming the action movie stuff didn't happen.

 

[werks]

Same story from one source reported over and over again. I know how the media works and this doesn't count.



You have a video of the incident like there was for 9/11? I think there's a lot more evidence there than for this one. Again, it's like WMDs in Iraq. A really dubious story with not a lot of plausibility behind it, reads like NRA fan-fiction and was written by a far-right news organization. If you really are that gullible to believe this story as completely true then I've got a bridge to sell to you.

I think there's a lot more evidence there than for this one.

I think there's a lot more evidence there than for this one.

I think there's a lot more evidence there than for this one.

I think there's a lot more evidence there than for this one.

I think there's a lot more evidence there than for this one.

I think there's a lot more evidence there than for this one.

I think there's a lot more evidence there than for this one.

I think there's a lot more evidence there than for this one.

You are a fucking 9/11 truther? I think we are done.

PS I am for strict gun control, but I can also accept that guns can be useful in some instance. And I don't resort to bullshit stats and "gut feeling" without any evidence when my ideology doesn't align with reality. But you are also a 9/11 truther.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

In all seriousness the family took a calculated risk given the circumstances and we should be happy the daughter is safe and that's that. There are situations in which defending ones home and family is justified. This is such a situation.

 

[BronsonLee]

Holy shit why is this thread back on the goddamn front page again
Hyperion pls

 

[MormaPope]

Balls of steel on the father and mother. Having to point a loaded gun at a loved one and hit the person bargaining that loved one's life would be some tough shit.

 

[HyperionX]

You are a fucking 9/11 truther? I think we are done.

PS I am for strict gun control, but I can also accept that guns can be useful in some instance. And I don't resort to bullshit stats and "gut feeling" without any evidence when my ideology doesn't align with reality. But you are also a 9/11 truther.

I'm not a 9/11 truther. Your really not reading. EDIT: You read it backwards: There's video evidence of 9/11, but not this one.

From time to time you might use a gun for good purposes. But this is a hugely embellished story and not at all a credible one.

 

[HyperionX]

Holy shit why is this thread back on the goddamn front page again
Hyperion pls

It's amazing how hard for people to accept that reporters can exaggerate a story (possible for political purposes). I don't think anyone who thought about this incident careful would actually believed it happened like it was reported.

 

[Jenenser]

That's exactly what it does...

no it doesnt. what would've happened if the mother hit a random person with her stray? someone could even speculate that the whole situation wouldn't have happened if the criminals had no gun.

that said, i am glad that the family is ok.

 

[HI. BILLY MAYS HERE]

Hyperion give it a rest bro