Two Reflections on The Dawn of the Dead

[mikeb302000]

In the great remake of Dawn of the Dead as well as in the original, the protagonists say things like, "let's just wait for someone to come and save us." These remarks come early in the story before it becomes all too clear that no one is coming.

I wondered if these films, and a number of others just like them, have contributed to the self-sufficient and survivalist mentality which many folks espouse today. Growing up with movies like this, especially as young impressionable people, could partly explain the attraction of the Libertarian philosophy which eschews dependence on the government.

Whether the attitudes of today's gun-rights extremists came as a result of these films or if the films came as a way of portraying these attitudes already present in the society, it doesn't matter. What matters is they're ZOMBIE MOVIES, not reality.

Another reflection I had was, since we're going to take these films so seriously, the supposed instructions that police receive to always shoot COM, center of mass, is nonsense. So often I've questioned whether it was necessary for the cops to shoot someone in the chest rather than in an arm or leg. Always the defenders of shooting people say they have to shoot center of mass otherwise it's too easy to miss.

Well, re-watching this great movie, I realized that's just not so. The heroes of the story discovered that they had to shoot the zombies in the head, only head shots would stop them from rising again. And in the remake they didn't just rise again zombie-style, they jumped up and attacked furiously.

There was no COM injunction, there were just heads exploding one after the other, which is proof positive that the police don't have to kill people when they don't want to. Just like shooting zombies in the head, they could shoot that drunk and dangerous armed maniac in the shoulder of his shooting arm.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

[slackmaster]

1. Zombies are different

You have to destroy their heads, otherwise they don't stop.

[Skittles]

2. false

in Return of the Living Dead, they ran around without heads; yes INDEED

[slackmaster]

3. There's always killing them with fire, and nuking them from orbit

Perfectly valid defense techniques if you have the equipment.

[Skittles]

4. yes

I believe cremation worked in that movie

[Drunken Irishman]

7. Except that's how it started in the first place...

The gas, or whatever was in the body of the yellow zombie, got out through the cremation, mixed with the rain and raised the dead in the cemetery across the street.

So you've got to assume that when they nuked Louisville, the fallout from that most likely spread to surrounding regions and carried the gas that raises the dead.

[Skittles]

41. gawd I love that movie

everyone in it camps it to max - fucking AWESOME :D

[rl6214]

57. You don't want to use fire, they don't feel pain and

will run around after you while on fire and catch everything else on fire while doing so. Fire will not kill them, only destroying the connection of the brain with the rest of the body will.

[RSillsbee]

29. But if the zombie has no head ( hence, no mouth)

they can't eat your BRAAAAAIIIIIIINNNNNZZZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!

[Skittles]

42. STOP IT RSillsbee

:rofl:

[rl6214]

58. If they don't have a head they can't bite you so

they can't infect you.

[Blown330]

5. Think the OP...

...using words like "reflection" and phrases like "I was wondering" implies critical thinking skills used in his post. Sadly, the body of his posts prove otherwise. Shameless self-promotion is shameless.

[holdencaufield]

6. Know Your Zombies

First of all -- there are many different types of Zombie

The classic Romero Zombies are literally re-animated corpses with no reasoning power, slow and shambolic. These can only be killed by destroying the brain
(Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead, Fido, etc.)

The re-imagined Romero Zombies -- still re-animated dead people, but fast and vicious.

Return of the Living Dead -- also re-animated dead people, BUT... can speak and reason. Also, they specifically eat brains (not just any human flesh) -- RTLD is the movie that coined the zombie catchphrase "Braaaaaiiiiinnnnsssss...."

Viral Zombies -- Actually living people with a disease that causes them to attack (and eat) other humans. These can be killed in the same way humans are killed -- destroying vital organs. Typically fast and vicious as well. In the films like, Night of the Comet, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, Zombieland, etc., they are typically fast but not capable of reason. In films like "I Am Legend" they turn out to be much more intelligent than previously suspected (in the alternate ending which more closely matches the novel).


Zombies movies don't cause people to become Libertarians. They do, however, point out "how quickly things can go from bad to total shitstorm*" when normal state services and protections are impacted. This has happened repeatedly from Roman Times to Katrina and people who are TOO reliant on the state are at its mercy or left defenceless.

* "Zombieland"

[Drunken Irishman]

8. Not only can the ROTD zombies speak, but they run and can't be killed by a shot to the head.

In fact, the only way I think you can kill a zombie in Return of the Living Dead is through complete annihilation of its body - essentially turning it into a puddle of goo. Even then, the goo carries whatever causes the dead to rise in the first place and would have to be handled perfectly, or any amount of touching by a civilian would cause them to turn into a zombie, even if they weren't bit.

You know you can't shoot 'em.
You can't chop off their heads.
You can cremate them - but it will lead to a release of the gasses that caused them to turn into zombies in the first place and could mix with rain, bringing more zombies.
You can nuke 'em, but that would do the same as cremation, but this time with nuclear fallout and an area far larger than just the blocks surrounding the crematorium.

[AzWorker]

9. Now that I think about it...

Those "28 Days Later" zombies are super fast, I would definately need a semi-automatic machinegun for those guys...

[holdencaufield]

10. A Weakness

Zombies of the "28 Days Later" had a fatal weakness. They killed humans but apparently didn't feed on humans. This meant that within weeks of the initial outbreak, they Zombie hordes died off from starvation without having fired a shot -- ever from an pump-action machine gun.

However, carry a cricket bat with you at all times -- just in case you run across one with unusually large fat reserves.

[PFunk]

12. Yup.

I also remember in World War Z due to effectiveness against zombie large, two-handed claymore swords made a comeback in europe. :)

[RSillsbee]

30. But if you had a semiautomatic, bolt action, machine gun

you could really do some damage

[eqfan592]

31. Gah, not even close to enough!

You need a semiautomatic, bolt action, MUZZLE LOADER machine gun!!!

[mwrguy]

43. pump-action machine gun?

[PFunk]

11. Only in unity Humans can eventually win over Zombies.

In both Romero's Land of the Dead and the novel World War Z humanity show it can survive and (in WWZ's case) thrive and win against a zombie apocalypse by uniting and working together. NOT acting like lone wolves. In fact they usually become zombie chow when they do start going libertarian survival of the fittest BS.

Remember. In a zombie apocalypse working together in unity means survival. Going mano-a-mano solo means you're eventually become lunch (even if it takes a while).

[one-eyed fat man]

13. You need a new shirt.

Order it here.....



You say, "Let's just wait for someone to come and save us." like that is option ONE for any and every problem in your life. The fact you are looking for deep social significance in a Zombie movie is evidence they have already eaten your brain.

Otherwise, "the self-sufficient and survivalist mentality which many folks espouse today" would remind you that for most of two centuries we were a frontier nation. Folks grew up on farms and ranches and went to town twice a year. People learned to do or do without.

Your supper tonight will not be on the table tonight because you killed it and cooked it....or not there because you are a lousy shot. Skinning meat to you is ripping off the plastic from the styrofoam tray.

Natural disasters, storms, loss of electricity, medical emergencies, accidents and injuries occur whether you are prepared or not. Maybe some just took to heart the Boy Scout motto from sixty years ago?

Knowing CPR, having a First Aid kit (and the knowledge to use it) a weeks worth of canned food and drinking water do not make you a lunatic. Expecting you should be able to sit on your ass while a level 5 hurricane heads for your house, then saying it's unfair your neighbor boarded up his windows, and rode it out in a stockpiled shelter he provisioned is fatuous.

Remember the ant, grasshopper?

[mikeb302000]

14. yes, you definitely

sound like one of them "semper paratus" guys.

It's your sense of humor that's lacking.

[one-eyed fat man]

16. I wasn't a Coastie

"Semper Paratus" always prepared is the motto of the US Coast Guard. I was a tank company First Sergeant in the Army; standing instructions were ride to the sound of firing.

I'll be seventy next year. I was born in Germany in 1942. My parents emigrated to the United States in 1954, thanks to my father's great-aunt sponsoring us. The farm we first lived on got electricity only two years before. Both World War Two and the Great Depression were vivid in the memory of every adult I knew. That memory certainly was reflected in how things were done and how we lived.

You may find it amusing, but I figure knowing how to render First Aid, build a fire, run a trotline, or how to pluck a chicken as useful life skills.

Beats the hell out running around in circles screaming like a girl.

What inspires such a "sense of entitlement" that makes you insist your welfare is someone else's responsibility?

[Katya Mullethov]

27. A query worthy of it's own post

An honest answer ? I cant imagine .

[cleanhippie]

59. +100000! Well done!

Beats the hell out running around in circles screaming like a girl.



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:



That was the best response to an obvious troll I have ever seen! Bravo!

[Hoyt]

15. My machete has always worked against Zombies.

[Remmah2]

18. In England that's a no-no.

You'd be Zombie food and your brains would be eaten.

[RSillsbee]

32. That zombie would go hungry

just sayin'

[AzWorker]

37. LOL

I lost it, and it was much needed, thanks

[Remmah2]

17. Quite the opposite

Hollywood and film makers have done a great job of creating stereotypes, myths and otherwise selling agendas. During WWII, Hollywood was commissioned to produce propaganda films for the US government in order to support the war effort. Micky Mouse (a cartoon) was used to demonize the Germans. Propaganda film making was/is not limited to the US government either. It's a free market out there now. Anyone with sufficent financial means can produce a film supporting any opinion or agenda. (First Amendment).

The news media often gets technical facts wrong. I'm not sure if it's intentional or pure ignorance some days.

[Abin Sur]

19. That reminds me a bit of old Westerns

...in which the hero quick-draws, fires from the hip, and shoots the bad guy in the hand from 100 feet away.

Hey, it just occurred to me; there hasn't been a zombie/Western mashup (that I know of). C'mon Hollywood, get to it!

[petronius]

47. Undead or Alive

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0795505/

"Guns don't kill people. Zombies kill people." :rofl:


Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Abin Sur]

54. Thanks!

Talk about "ask and ye shall receive"...!

[ileus]

20. double tap first, leave risky wounding shots for the pros.

[holdencaufield]

22. Don't be stingy with your bullets

One shot to put him down -- and a security round to make sure he stays down.

Or, you can just sing "Kum Ba Ya" and no one will harm you.

[Hangingon]

24. Should I use silver hollow points?

[ileus]

25. No when TEOTWAWKI goes down silver prices are gonna be way up.

[gejohnston]

63. those are for werewolves, They may be work for vampires if

they are blessed by a catholic priest first. One thing to remember is garlic works for vampires but mistletoe works for werewolves.

[jeepnstein]

21. Zombies are dead, they're all messed up.

The movie genre really doesn't have much to do with your typical "prepper". Some survival types are really wound way too tight. They also tend to go off in political directions that put them into the margins. I know others who are perfectly mainstream and you'd never guess what they're doing in their food pantry.

The best survivalist I know can live off the land, off the good will of others, or off the sweat of his brow. He views the world as a place where he must adapt in order to thrive. His field craft skills are way off the charts. However, he has secretly confessed to me that a world without Kentucky Fried Chicken is not a world where he wants to live.

[X_Digger]

23. "necessary for the cops to shoot someone in the chest rather than in an arm or leg"

Here's a hint.. TV & Movies != Reality


You ponder what leads to the "self-sufficient" mentality? How about 150 years of court cases that say that the police have no duty to protect you, the individual, no matter the slogan on the side of the car says.

South v. Maryland (1858)

Cocking v. Wade (1896)

Riss v. City of New York (1967)

http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/10107-riss-v-new-york

Brief Fact Summary

Plaintiff was harassed by a rejected suitor, who claimed he would kill or seriously injure her if she dated someone else. Plaintiff repeatedly asked for police protection and was ignored. After the news of her engagement, the plaintiff was again threatened and called the police to no avail. The next day, a thug, sent by the rejected suitor, partially blinded the plaintiff and disfigured her face.

Rule of Law and Holding

The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular.

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969)

Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrance (1974)

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)

The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.

Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.
...
(1) Appellant contends that his complaint stated a cause of action for wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377, and that the cause survived under Probate Code section 573. The claim is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), particularly section 845, which states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978)

Stone v. State, 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981)

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11611213653413829948&q=Davidson+v.+City+of+Westminster&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (Only those in custody are deserving of individual police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845

Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County (1986)

In 1986, the Maryland Court of Appeals was again presented in Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County with an action in civil liability involving the failure of law enforcement to enforce the law. In this case, a police officer, Freeberger, found an intoxicated man in a running pickup truck sitting in front of convenience store. Although he could have arrested the driver, the police officer told the driver to pull the truck over to the side of the lot and to discontinue driving that evening. Instead, shortly after the law enforcement officer left, the intoxicated driver pulled out of the lot and collided with a pedestrian, Ashburn, who as a direct result of the accident sustained severe injuries and lost a leg. After Ashburn brought suit against the driver, Officer Freeberger, the police department, and Anne Arundel County, the trial court dismissed charges against the later three, holding Freeberger owed no special duty to the plaintiff, the county was immune from liability, and that the police department was not a separate legal entity.
...
The Court of Appeals further noted the general tort law rule that, "absent a 'special relationship' between police and victim, liability for failure to protect an individual citizen against injury caused by another citizen does not rely against police officers." Using terminology from the public duty doctrine, the court noted that any duty the police in protecting the public owed was to the general public and not to any particular citizen..

DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

During divorce proceedings, Jessica Gonzales, a resident of Castle Rock, Colorado, obtained a restraining order against her husband on June 4, 1999, requiring him to remain at least 100 yards from her and their three daughters except during specified visitation time. On June 22, at approximately 5:15 pm, her husband took possession of the three children in violation of the order. Gonzales called the police at approximately 7:30 pm, 8:30 pm, 10:10 pm, and 12:15 am on June 23, and visited the police station in person at 12:40 am on June 23, 1999. However, the police took no action, despite the husband's having called Gonzales prior to her second call to the police and informing her that he had the children with him at an amusement park in Denver, Colorado. At approximately 3:20 am on June 23, 1999, the husband appeared at the Castle Rock police station and instigated a fatal shoot-out with the police. A search of his vehicle revealed the corpses of the three daughters, whom the husband had killed prior to his arrival.
...
The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.

Justice David Souter wrote a concurring opinion, using the reasoning that enforcement of a restraining order is a process, not the interest protected by the process, and that there is not due process protection for processes.

Gonzales v City of Bozeman (2009)

On the evening of April 3, 2005, Gonzales was the lone clerk at a Town Pump store on East Main Street in Bozeman, Montana. At 9:55 p.m. a man later identified as transient Jose Mario Gonzalez-Menjivar entered the store wearing a ski cap. He held a knife to Gonzales' throat and demanded money. Gonzales was able to surreptitiously dial 911 on her cell phone shortly after Menjivar entered the store but could not talk to anyone and never knew whether the call went through. In the meanwhile, Gonzales began removing money from the safe, which was limited by a security device to dispensing $100 every two or three minutes.
..
..
Meanwhile, Leah will no doubt be dumbfounded by the Court's decision. During the course of a robbery, she managed surreptitiously to call 911. The call went through, the dispatchers ascertained what was occurring and where, and the police were sent to Leah's location. Upon arriving, they established a perimeter around the Town Pump, determined that the door was unlocked, and observed two individuals inside. They ascertained that one of the individuals (Menjivar) was directing the other individual (Leah). When the call from Leah's cell phone was dropped, the dispatchers established a connection on the store's land line. They told the officers that the male (Menjivar) was "threatening" the female (Leah) and that she was "crying" and "very frightened." The police saw Menjivar and Leah enter the restroom, where it turns out Leah was then raped. They arrested Menjivar when he left the store of his own volition. They then threatened Leah with a dog, at which point she exited the store, barefoot and wearing her Town Pump apron. They forced her to the ground and handcuffed her—although she was six months pregnant and one of the officers had recognized who she was.

Leah claims the officers acted negligently and unreasonably, but the Court holds that the officers owed her no duty to exercise reasonable care when they responded to her distress call. The Court explains that because the officers owed all members of the public a duty to protect and preserve the peace, they did not owe this duty to any members of the public.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

26. this thread is hilarious. thanks for the set up. n/t

[eqfan592]

28. While zombie movies are fun...

...and jokes about the "Zombie Apocalypse" are prevalent these days in many circles, such things had literally nothing to do with my developing a preparedness mindset. I spent time volunteering with the Red Cross a few years back, and witnessed first hand the sort of trouble people could find themselves in , as well as how long it could take for help to arrive in certain situations. And I think a lot of others got a glimpse at that after Hurricane Katrina.

I don't have stock piles of food or supplies, which are just not practical for me at this time, but I have taken some basic steps to make sure that my family will be better equipped to fend for itself for a while should the need arise.

[friendly_iconoclast]

34. The experience of natural disasters, both personally and that of family members, is what impelled me

Between us, and in various places, we've gone through a baker's dozen of large hurricanes and blizzards.


I was in Cheyenne, Wyoming on business when a flood killed 18 people in 1985 - I was fine, a co-workers car got destroyed (she

wasn't in it, fortunately.)



The idea that things can go very, very bad with no outside help forthcoming isn't a survivalist fantasy-

it's reality.


And the idea that self-preparation somehow means abandonment of society at large is a false dichotomy, as you've shown.


For example, my ex-SO is involved in helping persons with disabilities and the elderly plan and prepare for disasters

(helping them set up "bug-out bags", giving lectures on preparedness and handing out guides on how to prepare.)


Any preparation is better than none at all, even if it's just a self-powered radio with a light , a multitool, and some non-

perishable food in the back of a cabinet. Even if nothing bad happens you can still listen to the radio and use the multitool, no?

[eqfan592]

35. You hit the nail on the head.

I often don't talk about the fact that we keep a "bug out bag" mainly because there are just too many people out there that think such things are foolish for one reason or another, and are only part of a "survivalist fantasy." Maybe you just need to see the results of a total lack of preparedness in person for it to really sink in.

[AzWorker]

38. "Being prepared"

Has become .gov mainstream, they even have .gov public service ads on on TV about it.

[spin]

62. Natural disasters teach lessons ...

Living in Florida has taught me the value of having firearms in hurricanes and their aftermath.

You may find dialing 911 difficult if not impossible and during the storm when the winds are too high the police will not respond. In the aftermath, the police may not be able to respond as often the roads are blocked.

Fortunately, I have never had to use a firearm for self defense. However, having the ability to protect myself and my family if necessary is reassuring.

[rrneck]

33. Spoken like a true consumer.

You are actually using tired old Hollywood tropes to support an opinion lacking in any attempt at personal experience.

So you expect people to be expert "wing shots" instead of shooting center mass. Why don't you actually pick up a sidearm and try to put even one round in a three inch circle. In under two seconds. While it's moving. And be sure to mainline a few cc's of adrenaline first.

That tired old blame the media trope was worn out before you learned how to type. The reason most survivalists are survivalists is because they have lost faith in a kleptocratic social structure that threw them overboard long ago. That betrayal was made possible because people like you have confused the term "citizen" with the term "consumer".

Protip: Everyone is already familiar with all the "Zombie Squad" tongue in cheek internet silliness. Just because you just discovered it doesn't mean it's new.

Your premise is faulty because it is based on the same passivity as the shoddy strawman you constructed. You are trying to draw vague conclusions and make sanctimonious value judgements about whole groups of people that either have little or no relationship to each other or simply don't exist at all. It is an allegory, wrapped in an attitude, inside bigoted ignorance.

The tragedy is that the OP exhibits exactly the attitude that you accuse others of fabricating. It is an unthinking cocktail of corporate generated viral marketing bullshit designed to be devoured by listless consumers who confuse research with smart shopping.

You may or may not sit and wait for the government to save you if you get in trouble, but the tools you are trying to use to make it work for you were designed and sold to you by people who will profit most from your bigotry.

[RSillsbee]

36. I live in Colorado

It has been known to dump 5 feet of snow in one day here. There are people living far enough up in the back country to get snowed in for months. Having some extra food and wood for the fire is just common sense.

I also lived in Florida for several years I've seen a minor hurricane close the interstate. It takes a bout 3 days and the supermarkets are empty
Again a little fore sight is simple common sense

[ileus]

39. even FEMA is getting in on the Zombie craze.

http://blog.fema.gov/2011/05/from-cdc-preparedness-101-zombie.html



I bought a few more pmags for the AR's just in case....

[benEzra]

40. Ummm, gun ownership and post-Enlightenment individualism

predate "zombie movies" by a loooooong time in this country.

Vampire hunters, on the other hand, go way back...




But to your thesis, individual emergency preparedness and self-reliance enhances group preparedness. I volunteer for my local CERT team, and you will notice that a whole lot of FEMA materials now try to get people to get off their asses and make prudent contingency preparations, like having a 3-day bag for every member of your family. You can't work with your neighbors to rebuild your community after a natural disaster if you and/or your family are dehydrated, starving, and hypothermic.

Another reflection I had was, since we're going to take these films so seriously, the supposed instructions that police receive to always shoot COM, center of mass, is nonsense. So often I've questioned whether it was necessary for the cops to shoot someone in the chest rather than in an arm or leg. Always the defenders of shooting people say they have to shoot center of mass otherwise it's too easy to miss.

I don't know how far you are from eastern NC, but I'd love to paint a hand on an IPSC "mover" target, set it up at 7 yards, trigger it, and have you hit it with a handgun against the clock after running wind sprints to elevate your heart rate to 140 or so. In real life, center-of-mass aiming is the universal training standard for a reason.

[benEzra]

45. Aha, I see you're in Italy; too bad.

Still, they have guns and IPSC in Italy; you might try attending a match as a spectator sometime.

[gejohnston]

44. Now I have seen everything

Your profile says you live in Rome, but are you sure you are not in a coffee shop in Amsterdam? You must be smoking some really good shit. Using C grade movies to make police rules of engagement policy is something Michelle Bachmann would think up.
Since you questioned if it is necessary for the cops to shoot COM instead of a limb, why not ask people who are experts on the subject? You know, people who actually know about shooting and law enforcement?

Another reflection I had was, since we're going to take these films so seriously, the supposed instructions that police receive to always shoot COM, center of mass, is nonsense. So often I've questioned whether it was necessary for the cops to shoot someone in the chest rather than in an arm or leg. Always the defenders of shooting people say they have to shoot center of mass otherwise it's too easy to miss.

Well, re-watching this great movie, I realized that's just not so. The heroes of the story discovered that they had to shoot the zombies in the head, only head shots would stop them from rising again. And in the remake they didn't just rise again zombie-style, they jumped up and attacked furiously.

There was no COM injunction, there were just heads exploding one after the other, which is proof positive that the police don't have to kill people when they don't want to. Just like shooting zombies in the head, they could shoot that drunk and dangerous armed maniac in the shoulder of his shooting arm.

Here is a question, since you live in Rome, do the Carabinieri make precise limb shots with their Beretta M-12 submachine guns?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arma_dei_Carabinieri

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eqfan592]

48. Just once, I'd like to see you actually use your critical thinking skills...

Instead of relying on association fallacies to be as insulting as possible.

Just once.

Just sayin'


Oh, and Stalin seemed to share your view on gun control to a large degree. Now I'm not a big enough of an asshole to say that because of that, I think you're somehow equivalent to Stalin, or to even let the implication just hang out there because I'm too cowardly to even make my insults in a direct fashion, but the point stands that maybe you should rethink tossing out association fallacies not just because they are amazingly lame, but because they can be so easily turned back at you.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

52. what liberal views? Any way, you missed the point

which is about genetic fallacy. For someone who claims to be well versed in all things academic, you might think about brushing up on logical fallacies. I agree with (radical, as in Bill Kunstler radical) sociologist Raymond G. Kessler that your views on guns are conservative to reactionary.

[holdencaufield]

49. Just to be clear...

You're saying there AREN'T politicians who seek to limit or eliminate the right to own and use a gun? They only exist in Ms Bachmann's imagination?

That's a load off my mind.

[gejohnston]

51. Rudy Giuliani for starters

Paul Helmke, Sarah Brady, Josh Sugarmann, Mike Bloomburg, Richard Nixon, Trent Lott, Ronnie Raygun, Charles Krauthammer, George Pataki, Bill Bennett

Carol McCarthy is a DINO who voted for Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. She was still a registered Republican (while representing her district as a Dem) until a few years ago.

Senate for and against the 1994 AWB (brain child of Bill Bennett and made an executive order by GHW Bush)

Number of Democrats voting for the AWB: 50/53 (94.3%)
Number of Republicans voting for the AWB: 45/47 (95.7%)

Yes, among Republicans in the Senate, a higher percentage supported the AWB than Democrats!

Republicans:
Richard Shelby (AL), Frank Murkowski, Ted Stevens (AK), JOHN MCCAIN (AZ), Christopher Bond (MO), Conrad Burns (MT), Judd Gregg, Bob Smith (NH), Pete Domenici (NM), Alfonse D'Amato (NY), Duncan Faircloth, Jesse Helms (NC), Don Nickles (OK), Robert Packwood (OR), Arlen Specter (PA), John Chafee (RI), J. Thurmond (SC), Larry Pressler (SD), Kay Hutchison (TX), George Brown, Ben Campbell (CO), William Roth (DE), Connie MAck (FL), Paul Coverdell (GA), Larry Craig, Dirk Kempthorne (ID), Daniel Coats, Richard Lugar (IN), Charles Grassley (IA), Bob Dole, Nancy Kassebaum (KS), Mitch McConnell (KY), William Cohen (ME), Thad Cochran, Trent Lott (MS), Robert Bennett, Orrin Hatch (UT), James Jeffords (VT), John Warner (VA), T. Gorton (WA), Alan Simpson, Malcolm Wallop (WY)

Democrats:
Howell Heflin (AL) Dennis DeConcini (AZ), Dale Bumpers, David Pryor (AR) Barara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein (CA), Max Baucus (MT), J. Exon, J. Kerrey (NE), Richard Bryan, Harry Reid (NV), William Bradley, Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Jef Bingaman (NM), Daniel Moynihan (NY), John Glenn, Howard Metzenbaum (OH), David Boren (OK), Harris Wofford (PA), Claiborne Pell (RI), Ernest Hollings (SC), Tom Daschle (SD), Harlan Matthews, James Sasser (TN), Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman (CT), Joe Biden (DE), Bob Graham (FL), Sam Nunn (GA), Daniel Akaka, Daniel Inouye (HI), Carol Braun (IL), Thomas Harkin (IA), Wendell Ford (KY), John Breaux, John Johnston (LA), George Mitchell (ME), Barbara Mikulski, Paul Sarbanes (MD), Edward Kennedy, John Kerry (MA), Carl Levin, Don Riegle (MI), Paul Wellstone (MN), Pat Leahy (VT), Charles Robb (VA), Patty Murray (WA), Robert Byrd, John Rockefeller (WV), Herbert Kohl (WI)

Republicans voting against:
David Durenberger (MN),Mark Hatfield (OR)

Democrats voting against:
Paul Simon (IL), Russell Feingold (WI)

Not voting: Byron Dorgan - Democrat (ND)

The 2008 reintroduction was by Republicans with no Dem sponsors.
Mark Kirk
Cosponsors:
Michael Castle
Michael Ferguson
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Christopher Shays

Surely a person of your intellectual depth and academic achievement knows what a genetic fallacy is. Then again, perhaps not.

or at least they are all to the right of me. Look, anyone who takes zombie movies seriously enough to base police procedure on them, deserves a spot on the crazy train regardless of of political views on anything. If Paul Helmke is the Newt Gingrich (teddy bear version, for his ability to make stupid shit up off the top of his head) of gun control, this guy is the Michelle Bachmann of your side.

Unlike you, I believe in outmoded concepts like intellectual honesty and consistency, holding my side to the same if not a higher standard than the right,and that the ends never justify the means.

Found a fellow DUer that came to the same conclusion that I did.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6096586#6098597

[eqfan592]

53. DAMN but I miss Rus Feingold.

I had forgotten that he voted against that tripe back in '94. I'm ashamed and sickened by my home state for not re-electing him. Maybe he'll take another shot now that the other WI senate seat will be open.

[Glassunion]

55. Please do not take this the wrong way.

But I fear that you have very little understanding in terms of firearms.

I will however start with your first reflection noting that self reliance is somehow a contributor to an individual being self-sufficient. Personally, I'm doubtful of that conclusion. I feel that it has more to do with an individual's upbringing and region they live rather than the movies they watch. If I were to grow up in New York city compared to a rural area of PA I would think that naturally one would have far different levels of self-reliance.

There are many other factors as well that can contribute to this. Let's take two individuals who both live in a big city. Let's further speculate that they live on opposite sides of town, one in a nice neighborhood and the other in a not-so-nice neighborhood. Let's say they both have an emergency where they fell down and both broke one of their ankles. They each call 911 for an ambulance. Now the fella in the nice neighborhood has EMTs showing up within 10 minutes of placing the call and is taken to the hospital. But, the other guy in the bad neighborhood has to wait for an available police officer to escort the EMTs into the neighborhood, but let's say that the police have better things to do like deal with a stabbing victim. So this guy in the bad neighborhood sits around for an hour with a broken ankle waiting one EMTs who in all likelihood are not going to show up. So, he hobbles his own butt out the door, and takes the subway to the hospital. This is most likely not the first time this guy has had to deal with people not showing up, nor will it be his last. From their experiences, these two people even living in the same city would have much different levels of self-reliance.

So I feel that far more than movies, experience and upbringing would be what mainly contributes to an individual's level of self-reliance. So I highly doubt that as you say "the attitudes of today's gun-rights extremists came as a result of these films or if the films came as a way of portraying these attitudes already present in the society" is a bit of a reach. These are horror films. Their job is to get you to emote fear. In particular zombie movies, take advantage of the emotion of hopelessness and abandonment to illicit that fear. I think that the realities of Hurricane Katrina contributed far more to our society's levels of self-reliance than any movie ever did.

Also, from your language you seem to be espousing the idea that self-reliance is a bad thing. If I am mistaken on that opinion, I am sorry. Self-reliance is hardly a bad trait for a person to have. It is not anti-society or anti-community. Instead, self-reliance should be a starting point, not as a goal.

To your second observation; "There was no COM injunction, there were just heads exploding one after the other, which is proof positive that the police don't have to kill people when they don't want to. Just like shooting zombies in the head, they could shoot that drunk and dangerous armed maniac in the shoulder of his shooting arm." to use your words "What matters is they're ZOMBIE MOVIES, not reality"

I spent some time growing up on a farm, and learned how to use firearms at an early age. With practice comes proficiency and skill. I had the opportunity to hone that skill under the teaching of a USMC Marksmanship Coach. The Marines are probably the best marksmen in all of our armed services(no offense to any others). They teach COM(with the exception of snipers). They do not teach head-shots, limb shots or warning shots. The reason is simple. When in a conflict such as one faced by the police with an armed assailant, there are biological reactions that everyone has. Increased heart rate, tunnel vision, etc... These reactions are suppressed to a point by training and drills. These drills which are performed hundreds, even thousands of times to the point where the body reacts mainly by muscle memory. But even then, the most trained experts would find it near impossible to make specific shots to small areas on a target under the stress of a life or death situation. As you stated "they're zombie movies, not reality", the same holds true for your opinion that the police should "shoot that drunk and dangerous armed maniac in the shoulder of his shooting arm.".

In reality you need to think a bit deeper than to simply just shoot the "dangerous armed maniac" in the shoulder and suddenly the conflict is ended. There are 11 muscles, 4 major bone structures and 4 musculocutaneous and radial nerve branches found in the human shoulder. The average bullet found in police officer's firearms is about .40 of an inch in diameter. The human shoulder is a target about the size of a grapefruit. This would leave very little time for the projectile to expand and cause any major damage as it would in all likelihood just pass through shoulder and then continue to travel into an unknown target behind the shoulder you just shot at. The nerves are bundled tightly and tucked very close to the chest, so the odds of hitting a bundle of nerves roughly the same diameter as the projectile from even 10 feet away in a life or death situation are almost zero, even for a well trained professional.

Another fact you need to know is that you shoot to stop. Not shoot to kill. Yes, sometimes when people are shot by the police they do indeed die. However only about 1 in 5 people shot during a legal intervention actually die from their wounds.

The reasons one would shoot an individual in the COM are that: 1. It is the largest target on a human. 2. The size of a human torso allows for a bullet to properly expand and stop. 3. It is the most probable area to cause shock in the human to stop them. I'll explain...

To #1. For sake of argument let's say you are 6ft tall standing facing a target 15 feet away and you are going to aim at the shoulder. In a split second decision you decide to present and fire the weapon at that target. In doing so let's say that your sights are not perfectly aligned(remember this is life or death) giving an off angle aim of a meager 1/4 of an inch and your body is off center by only 3/4 of an inch. Depending on which shoulder you were aiming at, your shot will either completely miss and hit something behind your target or, you will hit the target in the upper chest. But if you were aiming at the chest, you would still hit the chest.

To #2. You want the bullet to stop inside of your target or loose all of its energy so that if it does pass through, the target's denim jacket would be enough to stop the projectile.

To #3. You have the liver, pancreas, kidneys, spleen, intestines, lungs and heart all bundled into the center of mass. Trauma to these organs can and has been proven to cause immediate shock, thus in all likelihood stopping an attack.

There was a story posted here not too long ago about a shootout between a police officer and a dangerous armed maniac. IIRC the maniac managed to shoot the officer first. Two shots in the arm and one in the leg. None of those shots stopped the officer who in the end won the fight. Shooting someone in the arms or legs is not a good way to stop someone. Period.

How to kill a Zombie
1. Choose your weapon
2. Aim for the head
3. Don't miss (or it will eat your brains)

[one-eyed fat man]

60. He probably failed anatomy as well.

The shoulder is not the benign shot some people seem to think it is. The shoulder is a very advanced bit of biological machinery. There are huge blood vessels in a human being's shoulder as well as lots of very delicate nerves and a very complex ball-and-socket joint that no surgeon on Earth can put back together once it's smashed by a bullet. Sever the brachial artery and the victim is quite likely to pass of from loss of blood within 2 minutes and bleed out enough to die within 5.



If you put the shot in the joint itself you'll have a much bigger problem. Shattered and splintered bone which will need to be reconstructed and screwed back together, followed by months of therapy, and still likely leave the victim permanently crippled. It has only been the past 50 years or so that major bone damage has not automatically meant amputation.

[PavePusher]

61. You beat me to it.

In fiction, written and audio/video, "shoulder wounds" generally are depicted to leave the patient awake, mobile (even to the point of still being able to use their arm)and chipper as all hell.

The reality, of course, is vastly different. A bullet through the shoulder will incapacitate that arm and, when the shock/adrenaline fade, can be fatal from simple blood loss.

Probably the best fictional treatment of a shoulder shot I've seen is the one in Tom Clancy's "Patriot Games" where the IRA thug shoots the protagonist, Jack Ryan, at the very begining of the book. Shock, trauma, immediate incapacitation of the arm, severe blood loss, permanent disability. The things he glossed over were recovery time (much too short in the book and the movie) and severity of disability.

[holdencaufield]

67. If you're a cowboy

You can shoot the guns right out of the bad-guy's hands.

But, ONLY if you're a good guy

[gejohnston]

68. And if your name is Roy, your sidekick is named Gabby or you have no name

and your sidekick in named Tonto.

[RSillsbee]

70. The Lone Ranger had a name

Dan Reid

[gejohnston]

71. Cool. did not know that. IIRC, I did know he was a Texas Ranger that was left for dead.

[RSillsbee]

73. I got a DVD off the dollar rack at wal mart that had the first four

episodes of the Lone Ranger. in the whole series there was never a full shot of Claytom Moore's face w/ out the mask or a disguise

[rrneck]

69. I applaud your patience. nt

[SteveW]

56. In "I Walked With a Zombie" (1946), they just stood around. Probably stunk, though. nt

[holdencaufield]

66. Prior to Romero...

There were quite a few Zombie movies... but, mostly they depicted Zombies as re-animated corpses under the control of a living person -- who used them as slaves. The Voodoo Zombie stories from the Caribbean focus on raising the dead for use as slave labour on sugar plantations.

However, the Romero-esque vision of Zombies taking over the Earth and feeding on the living goes WAY, WAY back as in the following quote...


"I will knock down the Gates of the Netherworld,
I will smash the door posts, and leave the doors flat down,
and will let the dead go up to eat the living!
And the dead will outnumber the living!"

-- Epic of Gilgamesh

[spin]

64. If you lived in the states I would advise you to find someone to take you to a range ...

or to go to a range and rent a firearm. Shoot at the arm or head of a silhouette target and see how often and how fast you can hit it. Now imagine how difficult it is to hit the arm or head of an attacker if the attacker is moving and not standing stationary. Remember that in a real life shooting, the adrenaline flow in your body will inhibit your shooting ability considerably.

Movies make shooting firearms, especially handguns, look easy. Movies also portray handguns as extremely lethal. Movies are fantasies.

Watch a chase scene involving cars in a movie and try the same stunts in your car and see how it holds up.

[gejohnston]

65. there are ranges in Italy most likely

be harder to find.

[Ragnarok]

72. Re: OP

Nothing wrong with self sufficiency. If a humorous movie can get someone to take stock of what might be required to deal with a terrible situation, that's great. My grandparents stocked their cellar, stocked weaponry and maintained a circle of local support for times of trouble. They did this because of painful lessons in the 30's and 40's. If the video generation can learn to do this from a movie, so much the better.

As for COM, in real life and not zombie world, forget about it. COM = biggest target that presents itself as you fight for your life or that of another. I fail to see how events depicted in a zombie movie, even a great one, would serve as a valid basis for rewriting the rules of engagement in a real world deadly force encounter. Study some of Ayoob's or Cirillo's or Taylor's data and get back to us.