Octopus Overlords

Punisher wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Punisher wrote:
It's not acting as law enforcement. It's acting in the protection of others as a form of self defense. If I see someone being attacked I don't have to look the other way.

Protection of others is not self defense. It is not your duty or reaponsibility. It you're going to do that as an armed citizen you should be damned sure. I'd only risk the criminal and civil cases for my own life or family.

In that particular situation, on a crowded area with plenty of police on hand, shooting at a guy with a lighter and an aresol can is a bad shoot. Let's say he did get that first shot off and hit the guy with the lighter. He's facing a criminal case and will probably be sued in civil court. That's a high price to pay for "protecting" someone who, it turns it, didn't need protection.

Anyone who is eager to shoot in self defense probably isn't trained in self defense.

Actually, defense of others is usually bundled in with self defense.
You don't need to have a duty or responsibility in order to protect or help others.. having a duty or responsibility to protect others means you have to do so. not having the duty or responsibility does not mean you can't do you.
Let's say he didn't do this at all and the video just shows the fire guy lighting someone on fire... Some people may argue that someone should have stopped him.
I'm not saying this is what happened, that will be for the courts to decide, just saying that I could see this as plausible.

LawBeefaroni wrote: The guy in Charlottesville had no reason to shoot, he wasn't carrying hot for defense, and he had problems with his slide, and he finally shot when there was no target. He's the worst kind of carrier. Fortunately he wasn't hot or he probably would have put a round into a bystander.

Blackhawk wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote: The guy in Charlottesville had no reason to shoot, he wasn't carrying hot for defense, and he had problems with his slide, and he finally shot when there was no target. He's the worst kind of carrier. Fortunately he wasn't hot or he probably would have put a round into a bystander.

With this I absolutely agree. I have a feeling that a copy of the video with cleaned up audio will show up in court, as I could swear I hard the guy say something about 'burning' and 'flag.' If so, it makes it clear he knew the guy wasn't a threat to other people.

Rip wrote:

Blackhawk wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote: The guy in Charlottesville had no reason to shoot, he wasn't carrying hot for defense, and he had problems with his slide, and he finally shot when there was no target. He's the worst kind of carrier. Fortunately he wasn't hot or he probably would have put a round into a bystander.

With this I absolutely agree. I have a feeling that a copy of the video with cleaned up audio will show up in court, as I could swear I hard the guy say something about 'burning' and 'flag.' If so, it makes it clear he knew the guy wasn't a threat to other people.

Pretty sure I could easily make the argument that setting flags ablaze that other people are holding is indeed a threat. Anyone that does that should be immediately arrested for reckless endangerment.

Holman wrote: Meanwhile, just to add unsurprising flavor to this little episode, the shooter has been arrested and identified as Richard Preston, an Imperial Wizard in the KKK.

Freyland wrote:

Holman wrote: Meanwhile, just to add unsurprising flavor to this little episode, the shooter has been arrested and identified as Richard Preston, an Imperial Wizard in the KKK.

Well, there's your motive. He was just jealous that the other guy could cast "fireball" and he couldn't.

Freyland wrote:

Holman wrote: Meanwhile, just to add unsurprising flavor to this little episode, the shooter has been arrested and identified as Richard Preston, an Imperial Wizard in the KKK.

Well, there's your motive. He was just jealous that the other guy could cast "fireball" and he couldn't.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Punisher wrote:

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Punisher wrote:
It's not acting as law enforcement. It's acting in the protection of others as a form of self defense. If I see someone being attacked I don't have to look the other way.

Protection of others is not self defense. It is not your duty or reaponsibility. It you're going to do that as an armed citizen you should be damned sure. I'd only risk the criminal and civil cases for my own life or family.

In that particular situation, on a crowded area with plenty of police on hand, shooting at a guy with a lighter and an aresol can is a bad shoot. Let's say he did get that first shot off and hit the guy with the lighter. He's facing a criminal case and will probably be sued in civil court. That's a high price to pay for "protecting" someone who, it turns it, didn't need protection.

Anyone who is eager to shoot in self defense probably isn't trained in self defense.

Actually, defense of others is usually bundled in with self defense.
You don't need to have a duty or responsibility in order to protect or help others.. having a duty or responsibility to protect others means you have to do so. not having the duty or responsibility does not mean you can't do you.
Let's say he didn't do this at all and the video just shows the fire guy lighting someone on fire... Some people may argue that someone should have stopped him.
I'm not saying this is what happened, that will be for the courts to decide, just saying that I could see this as plausible.

I'm not sure what you mean that protection others is "bundled" with self defense. Do you mean legally? Conceptually?

The rules are the same when force is used to protect another from danger. Generally, the defendant must have a reasonable belief that the third party is in a position where they have the right of self-defense. For example, a person who unknowingly chances upon two actors practicing a fight would be able to defend their restraint of the one that appeared to be the aggressor. However, in many jurisdictions a person who causes injury in defense of another may be liable to criminal and civil charges if such defence turned out to be unnecessary.

Defense of others is called pikuach nefesh in Jewish law. One must violate most negative commandments of the Torah in order to save someone's life.

The Robert E. Lee statue was cleared to come down after a brief court hearing Thursday but city council members did not provide a timeline on when the iconic monument would be removed.

The temporary restraining order granted late Wednesday afternoon to halt the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue in Dallas' Turtle Creek neighborhood has been dissolved.

U.S. District Court Judge Sidney Fitzwater ruled the plaintiff in the case failed to show it would likely succeed if the case were to proceed further, which is required in order to keep a temporary restraining order, or TRO, in place.

Hiram Patterson of Dallas is listed as the plaintiff along with the organization "Sons of Confederate Veterans Inc.,".

In the one-hour long hearing, attorney David Vandenberg of Austin argued his client had his right to due process and denial of free speech infringed upon after the city of Dallas voted 13-1 on Wednesday to remove the Lee statue.

Attorneys for the city of Dallas countered saying anyone opposing the resolution had required 72 hours notice the meeting was occurring and was afforded the opportunity to voice their opinion on the proposal, negating any due process claim.
...

...
Wednesday's vote followed a resolution proposed by three of the four black council members last week, seeking the immediate removal of the Robert E. Lee monument, which doesn't have the same historical protection as other Confederate monuments in the city.

Originally named Oak Lawn Park, the seventeen-acre park was first developed in 1903 by the Dallas Consolidated Electric Railway Company in cooperation with developers William H. Lemmon and Oliver P. Bowser. Built as a private amenity for residential development, the wooded area became so popular that the City purchased it in 1909 to serve as the first public park in North Dallas.

The park was renamed Robert E. Lee Park in 1936 after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt dedicated a statue of the General, erected along Turtle Creek Boulevard on the park’s southern edge. A three-quarters scale replica of Arlington Hall, the Custis-Lee’s Mansion in Arlington, Virginia, was constructed in 1939, likely with Works Progress Administration support.

Blackhawk wrote:Will they call this the 'Deconstruction Era?'

Punisher wrote: I am pretty sure fireball is a level 1 spell, so he is obviously a horrible wizard....

GreenGoo wrote:

Punisher wrote: I am pretty sure fireball is a level 1 spell, so he is obviously a horrible wizard....

Based on first edition rules learned more than 30 years ago, it's a level 3 spell requiring a wizard of level 6. Surviving to level 6 is no small accomplishment.

I'd be jealous too.

Holman wrote:KKK wizards are almost certain to have an INT penalty though.

gbasden wrote:

Holman wrote:KKK wizards are almost certain to have an INT penalty though.

Bravo.

gbasden wrote:

GreenGoo wrote:

Punisher wrote: I am pretty sure fireball is a level 1 spell, so he is obviously a horrible wizard....

Based on first edition rules learned more than 30 years ago, it's a level 3 spell requiring a wizard of level 6. Surviving to level 6 is no small accomplishment.

I'd be jealous too.

Technically, 5th level. 1st/3rd/5th is the progression for learning new spell levels.

stessier wrote:This is not the direction I was expecting this thread to take.

TheMix wrote:I think you are both correct, but I don't remember the specifics.

My memory is that when I started playing, Fireball was indeed a 3rd level spell. And it was learned at level 5. That was Advanced D&D. But I have this vague recollection that in 3 or 3.5, the spells were restructured and wizards didn't learn 3rd level spells until level 6. Maybe it was the addition of cantrips? Or maybe it was just one of the computer games that made you wait until level 6.

Freyland wrote:

stessier wrote:This is not the direction I was expecting this thread to take.

El Guapo wrote:

Freyland wrote:

stessier wrote:This is not the direction I was expecting this thread to take.

This is a glimpse of what America's politics could be like.

Freyland wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Freyland wrote:

stessier wrote:This is not the direction I was expecting this thread to take.

This is a glimpse of what America's politics could be like.

...discussing spell-casting requirements?

El Guapo wrote:

Freyland wrote:

El Guapo wrote:

Freyland wrote:

stessier wrote:This is not the direction I was expecting this thread to take.

This is a glimpse of what America's politics could be like.

...discussing spell-casting requirements?

Would be a tremendous improvement.

Blackhawk wrote:Better than the usual guano that gets tossed around in here.

And for the record, fireball is a 3rd level spell learned at level 5 in the original 1974 D&D pamphlets, the current (5th) edition, and every edition in between (although I can't speak for 4th.)

Now, how 'bout them Nazis?

hepcat wrote:I'm surprised so many people have cast Fireball in this thread and he still hasn't shown up...