 Profesionalism, ...or lack thereof... |
  |
 Aug 5 2005, 11:02 AM
Post
#76
|
|
|
Deus Absconditus  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,742 Joined: 1-September 03 From: Downtown Seattle, UCAS Member No.: 5,566  |
To my mind, the 'lethal vs non-lethal' argument has never been conclusively solved, primarily due to it relying on situational specifics:
1) How fast the targets are taken down or hidden, reducing their chances of being stimpatched. 2) The individuals being run against (Lone Star or SK, probably less money invested in finding you, the parameters of the run not withstanding. Cross Applied or MCT? Probably won't care.) 3) Some types of stun damage are reliably non-lethal, at least in my game - stun spells being one of them. I mean, you set the damage level at M, get 4 successes, guard's out! ROCK! 6 successes, they take a light physical wound? That strikes me as horribly lame. But that's a discussion for a different thread. I'm not claiming to play a paragon of virtue. He stuns or incaps people when he can cuz it lets him sleep better at night. But when pissed or scared, he's been known to manaball a room full of people. Edit: Wargear: In the US, it's extremely rare for security guards to carry any sort of firearm or deliberately lethal weapon. The only security guards authorized to do so, as far as I recall, are those that work on government commission, such as Wackenhut. That may be California-specific, but I don't believe so. In short, if a 'security guard' is packing heat, his organization has government go-ahead to do so, and ergo will probably fill you full of holes as fast as any cop. |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 11:14 AM
Post
#77
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,283 Joined: 17-May 05 Member No.: 7,398 |
Are you referring the game that I'm running here (warning: the rest of those boards are for 'adult roleplaying', so if you go outside of the SR game, be prepare for t3h cyb3rs3xx0rs)? If so, *begins singing "It's a small world after all..."* Ahem. I pulled the gun check because I knew about the attitudes towards obvious cyber and armor, and I figured that folks wouldn't want armed folks dining with them. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 5 2005, 12:21 PM
Post
#78
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
Gun laws in the States generally are less likely to require you to be a mind reader and try to figure out whether the intruder really intended you bodily harm or was just going to rob you, whether he was thinking hard about running away, and whether your gun constitutes disproportionate force. In most places you can get away with shooting an intruder on your property because you felt threatened. (provided your gun was legally owned, of course) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 5 2005, 12:30 PM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
Just make sure that if you fire on an intruder you shoot to kill. Wounding just gets you sued by the son of a slitch.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 12:35 PM
Post
#80
|
|||||
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
Yeah... That ain't true everywhere in the States. There are armed security guards all over the place around here. The university cops are armed here (meh... state school, but still). However, rules of engagement generally leave them armed pretty much for show.
And killing them gets you sued by their next of kin for even more money. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 5 2005, 12:54 PM
Post
#81
|
|||||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Not necessarily. You did kill the only other witness, remember. And seriously, there is something called a John Wayne law in most states. You can use lethal force in defense of your home. Check with your local state police before you try it, though. I personally would probably shoot to scare :P Most robbers didn't come in for a firefight, and breaking and entering while armed means more time. Plus I'm a wus and I'd prefer not to shoot someone to find out it's a sexy woman sneaking in to seduce me or something. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 5 2005, 01:00 PM
Post
#82
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 908 Joined: 31-March 05 From: Georgia Member No.: 7,270 |
I believe it arises from the common law concept of 'a man's home is his castle' but it varies drastically from state to state. In some states you'd practically have to ask one to be shot to sign a waiver, in other cases, its quite a bit more permissive.
Also, I have to second Frosty on the incapacitation. Which may go towards the lethal/non-lethal SR question that people love to argue about. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 05:35 PM
Post
#83
|
|
|
Shadowrun Setting Nerd Group: Banned Posts: 3,632 Joined: 28-June 05 From: Pissing on pedestrians from my electronic ivory tower. Member No.: 7,473 |
So, really, what the hell makes you think that would stop someone from trying to sue your ass?
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 05:42 PM
Post
#84
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
he number of criminals that have broken into a home only to slip and fall or suffer some other ignominius method of injury only to be caught and sue the homeowner. Apparantly in some areas you have to consider the safety of a person willing to break into your home.
If anyone ever needed a competence hearing its a judge that finds in favor of a robber in that type of case. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 05:44 PM
Post
#85
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 77 Joined: 21-July 05 From: San Francisco native Member No.: 7,511 |
Back when I lived in the middle of a red light district in Asia... I came home once to find a nude woman in my living room with no explaination. Of course, I think she was on something. I let her sleep it off and then sent her out after figuring out where the clothes had gotten to... Some things, honestly, you learn are not wise to touch - like candy you find on the street, it's just not a good idea. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 5 2005, 05:47 PM
Post
#86
|
|
|
Chicago Survivor Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 5,079 Joined: 28-January 04 From: Canton, GA Member No.: 6,033 |
now that's a story you tell your buddies over a beer.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 05:58 PM
Post
#87
|
|
|
Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill. Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,545 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Gloomy Boise Idaho Member No.: 2,006 |
In most states (especially the west coast, and yes even Cali) shooting someone breaking into your house is perfectly legal. Regardless of the level of threat as long as...
A. you shoot them in the front B. You can see them when you shoot them (i.e not through a door) C. They aren't attempting to flee when you shoot them D. They are physically in your house when they are shot (not in the front yard) You still have to justify it, and you will probably get your gun confiscated for a while but if it was a righteous shoot you will be fine. Also in many states if you have a permit to carry concealed you are legally bound to use your gun in defence of life and property. The example that was given to me in Washington State was that if you carried and a man walked down the street with a Shotgun shooting at people you had to intervene. You were legally obligated to stop him. You just can't run away. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 05:59 PM
Post
#88
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 458 Joined: 12-April 04 From: Lacey, Washington Member No.: 6,237 |
In self defense against an assailant, the relevant question is: "Would a reasonable person in the place of the defender believe that the use of force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to any person?"
In theory, self defense is not the only justification for deadly force. In the past, many US states had a "fleeing felon" rule. The fleeing felon rule allows the police to shoot someone suspected of a felony if that individual is attempting to escape their custody - even if that individual is unarmed. The fleeing felon rule was shot down by the US Supreme Court partly on the grounds that it denies an individual their right to life without due process. It's still there in a watered down form, now the police have to show that the particular felon posed a serious danger to the public, and I don't believe it's much used. That said, in a world where half the population doesn't have rights (constitutional or otherwise) such a rule could easily arise again. Corporate security guards, operating extraterritorially, are not subject to the courts of the United States or any of its subdivisions. They really cannot be sued. At least not without the corp's permission. Even if you were allowed to sue, as a practical matter you couldn't really compel the corp to hand over any evidence or witnesses for testimony. So you'd have the word of some criminal and his buddies against a megacorporation, which has plenty of time to atler video records and so forth in order to win. On a total side note - The Washington State Constitution is vastly more protective of individual rights than the United States Constitution. Without its repeal or significant modification Lone Star (and the various MegaCorps) would operate under a far stricter legal regime. So clearly the state governments have gone kaput in favor of a massive federal bureaucracy . . . As to the choice of lethal or nonlethal - for me it depends on stance. If you're sneaking up on a guard and want his passkey, then you should probably tranquilize him. If he's shooting at you - finish him. That's what he gets for being a bad shot. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 06:30 PM
Post
#89
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 675 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle Member No.: 2,034 |
University police at state universities are usually actual police, just like city police. Sometimes they are part of the city or county police department, sometimes they are thier own thing entirely. At the university of washington they are their own police department with different uniforms and everything from the Seattle police. They also have some unarmed security guards on campus, mainly in the hospital. But you are definately right that armed security guards are reasonably common. Banks and armored car services are probably the most commonly seen on the street, but I have also seen them outside the japanese consulate and at industrial sites. They are presumably more expensive than unarmed security and seem to be used either when the risk of armed attack is much higher than normal (ie a bank), when the guard is going to be all alone off someplace (industrial park), or where there could be really bad consequences from an attack and lots of money (consulate). |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 5 2005, 06:36 PM
Post
#90
|
|||
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
Those poor bastards at Wackenhut. I think they carry weapons only to compensate for their ridiculous name. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 5 2005, 06:52 PM
Post
#91
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 458 Joined: 12-April 04 From: Lacey, Washington Member No.: 6,237 |
They carry weapons because their principle customer is the US Department of Energy - which is responsible for nuclear power generation and warhead research.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 07:05 PM
Post
#92
|
|||
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
Joke! Are you a Wackenhut employee? If so, I'm really, really sorry. I know that. They pull security on nuke plants that are owned by energy companies too (and thus contracted by those companies). Wackenhut ran the adversary team that the NRC takes around the country to evaluate security at those same nuke plants (sounds like a cool job until you find out they only get paid 12 bucks an hour). They recently got busted because their adversaries were fudging to make Wackenhut contracted sites look good. I'm just glad I got on at one of the few places that has their own internal department. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 5 2005, 07:09 PM
Post
#93
|
|||
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
Because I don't live in California where you can't throw a stone without hitting a lawyer. I live in Maryland where you can't throw one without hitting two (but at least we have more NRA representnation). And what was that comment about not eating candy off the street? It's always best that way. It has that 'outdoorsy' taste to it that you just can't buy! Back to the topic, if *I* were a security guard and someone fired an obvious tazer at me, I would be just as likely to shoot, but less likely to actually WANT to hit him. Why? Because I'm a dumb patsy. I don't want to kill someone if I don't have to, and the first thing that goes through my mind when I see a tazer is "oh whew, we're not playing for keeps." If I had five minutes after seeing that guy to realize how dumb I am, I might change my tactics, however. But that's just me speculating, I can't say if that's how I'd REALLY act. And for me, a narcojet would look close enough to a gun (and be mysterious enough) that I'd shoot the guy. Then again, I'm also the sort of guy that if someone pulled a gun on me, I might just surrender. I mean come on, I'm working at the front desk so I can buy soy burgers tonight and maybe sneak a peek at my elf pr0n while waiting for the clock to hit 5. I'm not in this for no 'corporate loyalty' drek. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 5 2005, 07:36 PM
Post
#94
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
elf pr0n? What, you don't have an 'agreement' with the corp security deckers to get you access to the lithe wageslave goddesses on the Secretarycam™? :)
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 09:14 PM
Post
#95
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 458 Joined: 12-April 04 From: Lacey, Washington Member No.: 6,237 |
I'm not a Wackenhut employee. And frankly it kinda scares me that those guys are the ones watching a bunch of nuclear reactors.
Problems with "OpFor" type of testing at live facilities are pretty common. Either the red team doesn't do well enough, or cheats or somebody gets ticked and tanks the career of the red team. Remember Red Cell? Odd that the red force at National Training Center never has any problems. . . |
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 09:55 PM
Post
#96
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
There's a very simple way to make OpFor testing with MOUT gear at live faccilities as authentic as possible. (Without actually using live ammo and bombs, of course.)
First, you strap MOUT sensors to anything remotely dangerous if it gets shot, and rig them with laser splashers in their kill zones. Second, you tell all participants that their jobs are on the line. :) |
|
|
|
|
Aug 5 2005, 11:55 PM
Post
#97
|
|||
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
NTC isn't bound by restrictive NRC regulations. I can't go into detail but the NRC places certain limits on what the adversaries can and can't do. Our adversaries cheat (not *cheat*, but you get the idea) their asses off (I should know! ;) ) in order to win, and consequently, this helps to better train the officers defending the plant. However, when the NRC evaluates drills certain limitations come into play and the level of training suffers. During "the big" drills, the NRC brings their own people, who incidentally, do FAR worse than our own OpFor guys :) *pats own back* |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 6 2005, 12:03 AM
Post
#98
|
|||||||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Most security guards carry guns. California is just insane with its gun laws, which is strange when you consider who the Governor is. I went to a priviate college. There, the college police force was privately owned but federally certified to act as a police force. Essentially, the college was a seperate jurisdiction. The local police couldn't come onto campus without the permission of the college police. They weren't armed, however. After some incidents the student government voted to issue firearms to the police officers and tazers were recomended. However, the board of trustees put it off and I graduated before any weapons were actually issued. Oh, and you should always shoot to kill. However, this has nothing to do with being sued. If you believe that you can get by with just wounding the attacker then you are not legaly justified in shooting at all.
There is another fallacy at play here, the fallacy that combat is a zero sum game. The security guard who was awakened with a stim patch will still have wound modifiers, possibly severe ones. Let us that about this from a real life point of view. You are a security guard. Someone breaks in and injects you with an unknown drug that knows you unconscious. Your partner is able to wake you up using smelling salts but you are dizzy and your vision is blurry. You have to make an effort to walk straight and certainly cant shoot straight. Are you seriously going to go after the intruder with guns wildly blazing or are you going to ask your budy to call for an ambulance so that you can make sure the drug you were injected with isn't slowly melting your internal organs? |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Aug 6 2005, 12:06 AM
Post
#99
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
My security manuals, if I ever make any, will include the phraise "Blaze of Glory". :)
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 6 2005, 03:54 AM
Post
#100
|
|||
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
Hehe... In the games I run, that's the team's name. They've never failed though. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th November 2025 - 02:55 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.