[Sheriff In Town]

crawler that got u, on 28 February 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

No, he would he kill the other and would have left Rick... With no witnesses, he could make up another story....

But now, after Rick saved him, even after he threw that killer Wrench at him, now Shane would probably sacrifice himself for Rick...

Obviously, for Shane, Rick is the only family he has left....I think  from now on, Shane's sole purpose to live on is to support Rick in anyway he can...

I absolutely loved this episode, betrayal, friendship, survival, suicide, pushing the limits to illustrate a point that an experienced person knows better ( Suicide girl surviving due to Blondie's nature of testing her)..... "my bad 4 4getting blondie's name...

I, unfortunately, am going to have to respectfully disagree because I feel that Shane is going to be not only ungrateful of Rick saving him, but equally if not more violent toward him in the future. I just don't see Shane learning from his mistakes, admitting he's wrong, or changing his priorities, even if Rick did just save him. This is going to be his tragic flaw, and whether it's this season or the final episode of the series, I believe this will eventually lead to his downfall.

I dont know about you guys, but I don't think we'll ever see Shane making supporting Rick his "sole purpose" or even a purpose at all.

[tex]

TheLibrarian, on 28 February 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

I'm sorry but I don't think killing people is the way unless your life is in danger. Like I said, hit them ontop of the head with a hammer, knock them out. How the hell is a person going to laugh when they are unconscious? And again, I believe that death is an escape, not a punishment.

I actually teach use of force/deadly force professionally. And I completely understand your point of view and encounter it often. If you don't mind a possibly lengthy post, I'll explain the reasoning to you best I can in terms of the law (with a bit of my own morality thrown in):

1. To be more clear, it is never legally justifiable to intentionally kill someone (short of government condoned executions/death penalty). When we say flippant things like "he needed killin'" or "he deserved to die" - we are doing just that, being flippant and less than completely accurate with our speech. To be perfectly clear from a legal perspective, the use of deadly force (which by it's definition is force that is known to have a very high potential for causing death or serious bodily injury) is justified to STOP someone from committing certain criminal acts - including rape and violent sexual assault. And by STOP, I mean to halt the immediate or imminent commision of that criminal act (this does NOT include retaliation for a crime that has already ceased - that is NEVER justifiable under the law). I realize it seems counterintuitive and like lawyer's double-speak to say we cannot INTEND to kill someone but we can use force known to have a high likelihood of killing someone, but that's the way the law is written. In legalese, intentional killing = premeditated murder. Using force that could cause death in a desperate attempt to stop a violent felony crime such as rape = self defense.

2. What you (and you're not alone) fail to understand is that hitting someone over the head with a hammer, from a legal standpoint, is THE SAME as any other use of DEADLY force. For purposes of determining criminal liability, there is NO DISTINCTION between hitting someone over the head with a hammer and shooting them with a gun. BOTH actions are uses of DEADLY force. Both actions are UNLAWFUL unless you have a clear legal justification to take such action. Defending yourself or another from rape is one of those clear legal justifications that authorizes you to use ANY deadly force at your disposal - hammer, knife, gun, etc. Point is, all of these actions are known to have a very high potential for causing death or serious bodily injury, thus they are all labeled the same under the law - use of DEADLY force.

3. The REASON why they are all lumped together is that someone in a desperate life-of-death situation does not have the time nor the ability to stop and think "gee, this man is only trying to rape me, he's not necessarily trying to kill me, so in this instance I'll use my trusty hammer I keep near me whenever the potential for being raped is high. If you are being raped (or attacked in any other violent manner) you are in a DESPERATE situation  - the gravest possible extreme. And while it's easy to sit here in front of our computers and determine we would react rationally in such a situation, the reality is VERY different. Panic, fear, and involuntary impulses CONTROL us when our lives are threatened in a very real and immediate manner. It is unconscionable to expect the VICTIM in such extreme circumstances to think rationally about just the right level of force to utilize to stop the attack.

4. Rape, like aggravated kidnapping, robbery, etc is a VERY violent crime. The very nature of rape has a high potential to cause death or serious bodily injury to the victim. And if the victim waits until she knows for certain the rapist is going to try to kill her, then it's too late to defend herself - she's likely already dead or dying. This is why the law makes no clear distinction between murder, rape, robbery, etc. when codifying justification to use deadly force to STOP such criminal attacks.

5. Is rape equal to murder? In the eyes of the law - it's close enough, as I've explained above. My own personal opinion is it can be worse. As you've said yourself, "death is an escape". So in that context, rape is worse than murder because it delivers all the torture, torment, and degradation of murder - without the escape.

Again, I fully understand your opinion on the matter: That killing should only be a last resort of self defense against attempted killing. But rape is such an intimately personal and disgustingly violent crime that I believe it warrants a self defense reaction "by any means necessary" - and this is truly what last resort self defense in the gravest extreme circumstances really is - ANY MEANS NECESSARY to STOP the attack.

If the attacker happens to die as a result of the self defense action, too bad. He made his choice when he decided to violently assault someone in the most personal and destructive of ways.

Putting all of this into perspective of Shane's actions against Lori at CDC: At the moment that Lori scratched and kneed Shane, she was justified in using force or deadly force (any means necessary) to STOP his attack. Luckily for her (and for him) in hindsight she only needed to use force to repel his attack. But many rapists don't stop so easily (as I've said before). And it is not possible for a victim to determine the exact level of force necessary to stop the attack while the attack is happening. Thus ANY MEANS NECESSARY is justified under the law, because the harm the victim seeks to stop is egregious enough to warrant ANY MEANS to stop it.

Look at it like this, if you're STUPID ENOUGH to try to rape someone - then you have given your implied permission for that someone to do ANYTHING to you to STOP you from raping them.

[WhiteMousse]

In the spirit of contributing to the newer development of this thread, I will simply say this.  

My friend had a man break into his house.  My friend warned him to leave and the person did not, and started to advance upon him.  My friend shot him and the perpetrator was killed.  Police showed up and took his statement and my friend is fine.  He is not going to prison, he is not on trial or anything.  

If you are a stranger inserting yourself into other people's lives for your own selfish desires you cannot expect no repercussions.  If anyone breaks into my home I will stop them with my .40 S&W M&P.


More on topic, I'll just add that Shane would have without a doubt left Rick.  He would have left him and justified it by saying that he was "doing it for Carl," because in his mind Rick can't protect his own family.  Shane thinks everything belongs to him.  He thinks the right thing to do is whatever serves himself, which is obviously a naive and childish philosophy.  Of course he would have left Rick.  That's the whole point of this episode: irony.  Shane is being shown that if one were to adopt his philosophy rather than Rick's, Shane himself would have been left to be eaten.  It is Rick's code of life, the one Shane constantly scoffs at and ridicules, that ends up being the very thing that saves him.

[WhiteMousse]

Sheriff In Town, on 28 February 2012 - 08:47 AM, said:

I, unfortunately, am going to have to respectfully disagree because I feel that Shane is going to be not only ungrateful of Rick saving him, but equally if not more violent toward him in the future. I just don't see Shane learning from his mistakes, admitting he's wrong, or changing his priorities, even if Rick did just save him. This is going to be his tragic flaw, and whether it's this season or the final episode of the series, I believe this will eventually lead to his downfall.

I dont know about you guys, but I don't think we'll ever see Shane making supporting Rick his "sole purpose" or even a purpose at all.

You're exactly right.  Rick has inadvertently shamed and humbled Shane with his selfless act which, as I mentioned before, is something Shane himself has despised.  That is not going to make him rethink his worldview- it is going to make him angrier and even more irrational.

[tex]

WhiteMousse, on 28 February 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

If you are a stranger inserting yourself into other people's lives for your own selfish desires you cannot expect no repercussions.  If anyone breaks into my home I will stop them with my .40 S&W M&P.

I admire your determination, but don't be so certain of the stopping power of your handgun (it's not a magic death ray). You may shoot them and you may hit them, multiple times. But stopping them is not guaranteed ...

with a .40 S&W http://www.lawoffice...ter-soulis-inci

22 hits, 17 center mass, and suspect did not "stop"

nor even a .45 ACP http://www.lawoffice...rriors-sacrific

9 hits, 6 center mass, and suspect did not "stop" until he was shot in the head

Live people can be remarkably similar to the undead in their ability to withstand hits from underpowered weapons to the torso (ALL handguns are "underpowered weapons")

There's also of course the infamous 1986 FBI Miami shootout - suspect shot about 15 times THEN he killed two FBI agents and wounded four others.

And I've spoken with LEOs who've personally witnessed a man shot twice in the upper left chest with 5.56mm ballistic tip rifle rounds (exit wounds were the size of grapefruits) get up and get a round off before a sniper ended him with a .308 bullet to the side of the head.

[WhiteMousse]

tex, on 28 February 2012 - 03:38 PM, said:

I admire your determination, but don't be so certain of the stopping power of your handgun (it's not a magic death ray). You may shoot them and you may hit them, multiple times. But stopping them is not guaranteed ...

with a .40 S&W http://www.lawoffice...ter-soulis-inci

22 hits, 17 center mass, and suspect did not "stop"

nor even a .45 ACP http://www.lawoffice...rriors-sacrific

9 hits, 6 center mass, and suspect did not "stop" until he was shot in the head

Live people can be remarkably similar to the undead in their ability to withstand hits from underpowered weapons to the torso (ALL handguns are "underpowered weapons")

There's also of course the infamous 1986 FBI Miami shootout - suspect shot about 15 times THEN he killed two FBI agents and wounded four others.

And I've spoken with LEOs who've personally witnessed a man shot twice in the upper left chest with 5.56mm ballistic tip rifle rounds (exit wounds were the size of grapefruits) get up and get a round off before a sniper ended him with a .308 bullet to the side of the head.

Well that is extremely unsettling.  I guess I need to go get a Desert Eagle then... I'm very familiar with my .40.  Aim for the head then?

[tex]

WhiteMousse, on 28 February 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

Well that is extremely unsettling.  I guess I need to go get a Desert Eagle then... I'm very familiar with my .40.  Aim for the head then?

Those scenarios are the outliers on the statistic spectrum to be sure (that's why they're newsworthy and studied). Typically your average person shot with ANY firearm has a psychological disposition to stop. Problem comes with a person whose wiring is all screwed up (either from drugs or other "natural" factors) to the point of basically not feeling the physical pain nor displaying the psychological panic that should come from being shot.

A larger, more powerful handgun won't help much (and could be significantly worse if you lose any accuracy with the more powerful gun - a hit with a .22 is vastly superior to a miss with a .45). A 12-gauge shotgun slug is about as close to a shoulder-fired small arm guaranteed man-stopper as you're likely to find, but has it's own inherent problems (heavy, not useable one-handed despite what Rambo types do in movies, limited number of rounds in weapon).

Tactics and training are paramount. For an average citizen (not military nor law enforcement) the most important lesson to remember is awareness and avoidance - be aware of approaching problems so you can avoid them rather than engage in hostile action to begin with. And if you are forced by circumstance to engage, remember too that unlike cops you likely have the ability and lack of ultimate responsiblity that would allow you to FLEE the situation after the first few rounds are fired (giving you enough time to retretat/escape). In both scenarios I linked, the cops felt they HAD TO stay until the threat was stopped so others would not be harmed. You - on the other hand - could fire a few accurate rounds, knock the attacker off line, and then RUN LIKE HELL .... cardio is useful in our world in addition to the zombie world.

While handguns are not immediate man-stoppers, given enough time, they WILL stop a threath (through blood loss, internal trauma etc). Time = distance. So put enough distance between you and the wounded threat and let the threat bleed out.

As for headshots, I don't necessarily recommend them for average citizen self defense use as they are MUCH more difficult than COM shots you've hopefully trained for. And with this difficulty comes a drastically increased likelihood of a MISS. In all jurisdictions I'm aware of, YOU are liable for EVERY bullet that leaves your gun. Even if you are 100% ironclad justified in shooting at a threat, you are NOT justified for a MISS that inadvertently hits an innocent third party.

That said, if you're a competent and well practiced shooter and have the time and effort to devote to REAL practice (not just standing flat-footed putting round after round on a stantionary target at 10-15 yards) like drawing, side-stepping, shooting from retention, shooting while moving, shooting moving targets, point shooting, etc., then a great practice technique that you could use in a real life scenario if you feel confident enough in your abilities is the "Mozambique Drill" (Google that for detail) - in a nutshell, it's a "failure drill" that involves what should already be your learned method of a double-tap to center mass, follow this by a quick assessment of the target (did he stop or not?) and if the answer is "not" then follow up the double-tap with a coup de grace shot to the "T" of the head (the imaginary line betwen the eyes and down to the mouth). That should stop just about anything that walks or crawls on this Earth - but even that is not 100% guaranteed. If THAT doesn't stop them ... RUN LIKE HELL!

Edited by tex, 28 February 2012 - 04:20 PM.

[EStheChief]

I can't say I believe that Shane would save Rick if he was stuck in the bus. Shane may be one of the most entertaining and best characters on the show, but he would never turn back and help Rick. Yeah they were best friends, but for gods sake he threw a giant wrench thing at him five mins before the bus thing happened. Why would he turn back and risk his life for someone he just tried killing. Plus he would now have Lori and Carl to himself. Only reason I can see him turnIng back is if he realizes if he goes back with know Randall or Rick every one, especially dale, would think he killed Rick. Therefore he wouldn't get Lori or Carl to be very fond of him.

[DingDong09]

When he beats Rick in hand to hand and gets hold of his gun  he doesn't try to kill Rick but tries to finish off Randal, this shows imo that he considers Rick his friend regardless of whether or not they have a fight against one another. So I think he would - otherwise why would he have risked so much at the hospital for Rick? Dude's not a monster.

[Jimmy]

On one hand the Rick started the fight. He should of just let Shane kill Randall and they would of called it a day. If Shane was gonna kill Rick this wasn't the place or time. If he came back to the farm with a BS Rick died story Lori would of shot him. Tho of course Shane killing Rick is impossible, because the only character that is safe and guaranteed to never die unless the show is coming to the end is Rick.

[DingDong09]

Which is kind of a shame because I personally feel Rick is too morally bound and ends up making the kind of risks that ends up getting other characters killed. I feel Rick isn't strong enough and a lot of his luck comes from a protagonist shield rather than his personal guile. I am not a Daryl fan boy but to be honest I could see him being a much more reasonable protagonist because he wouldn't need a story shield to explain his high survivability.

[Anon]

tex, on 28 February 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Those scenarios are the outliers on the statistic spectrum to be sure (that's why they're newsworthy and studied). Typically your average person shot with ANY firearm has a psychological disposition to stop. Problem comes with a person whose wiring is all screwed up (either from drugs or other "natural" factors) to the point of basically not feeling the physical pain nor displaying the psychological panic that should come from being shot.

A larger, more powerful handgun won't help much (and could be significantly worse if you lose any accuracy with the more powerful gun - a hit with a .22 is vastly superior to a miss with a .45). A 12-gauge shotgun slug is about as close to a shoulder-fired small arm guaranteed man-stopper as you're likely to find, but has it's own inherent problems (heavy, not useable one-handed despite what Rambo types do in movies, limited number of rounds in weapon).

Tactics and training are paramount. For an average citizen (not military nor law enforcement) the most important lesson to remember is awareness and avoidance - be aware of approaching problems so you can avoid them rather than engage in hostile action to begin with. And if you are forced by circumstance to engage, remember too that unlike cops you likely have the ability and lack of ultimate responsiblity that would allow you to FLEE the situation after the first few rounds are fired (giving you enough time to retretat/escape). In both scenarios I linked, the cops felt they HAD TO stay until the threat was stopped so others would not be harmed. You - on the other hand - could fire a few accurate rounds, knock the attacker off line, and then RUN LIKE HELL .... cardio is useful in our world in addition to the zombie world.

While handguns are not immediate man-stoppers, given enough time, they WILL stop a threath (through blood loss, internal trauma etc). Time = distance. So put enough distance between you and the wounded threat and let the threat bleed out.

As for headshots, I don't necessarily recommend them for average citizen self defense use as they are MUCH more difficult than COM shots you've hopefully trained for. And with this difficulty comes a drastically increased likelihood of a MISS. In all jurisdictions I'm aware of, YOU are liable for EVERY bullet that leaves your gun. Even if you are 100% ironclad justified in shooting at a threat, you are NOT justified for a MISS that inadvertently hits an innocent third party.

That said, if you're a competent and well practiced shooter and have the time and effort to devote to REAL practice (not just standing flat-footed putting round after round on a stantionary target at 10-15 yards) like drawing, side-stepping, shooting from retention, shooting while moving, shooting moving targets, point shooting, etc., then a great practice technique that you could use in a real life scenario if you feel confident enough in your abilities is the "Mozambique Drill" (Google that for detail) - in a nutshell, it's a "failure drill" that involves what should already be your learned method of a double-tap to center mass, follow this by a quick assessment of the target (did he stop or not?) and if the answer is "not" then follow up the double-tap with a coup de grace shot to the "T" of the head (the imaginary line betwen the eyes and down to the mouth). That should stop just about anything that walks or crawls on this Earth - but even that is not 100% guaranteed. If THAT doesn't stop them ... RUN LIKE HELL!

I prefer aiming for the center of the collar bone, the spine is directly behind and left and right are the shoulders, and due to mussel rise follow up shots hit neck and head. Remember don't stop shooting till the target hits the floor. For home defense I like pump shotguns, the action of the slide is a nice deterrent for most prowlers. If you are in your home defending your fam, you need to do what it takes to keep them safe and secure.

PS: a flashlight mounted on the gun will keep your target blind and is also a great deterrent.

[Weasel Slayer]

He definitely would not have saved him. Nor would he have escaped with Randall. Haha. Woulda shot him right then and there.

When I saw Rick leaving I was shocked, but at the same time I was happy to see him leaving Shane there (seemingly). Rick is too nice of a guy to do that, though.

[daenerys]

Would Shane have saved Rick from the bus?  Absolutely yes.  Rick is his best friend, and despite their differences he loves the guy  No way would he have left him behind.

[THE WALKING DEAD ADDICT]

I don't think Shane would save Rick because before all the walkers came Shane had just tried to kill Rick and epicly failed so I doubt he would save Rick.

In that situation...

Rick would: and rescue Shane.


Shane would:  and drive away.

[Flex]

ill just leave this here.

[Barry Cade]

Flex, on 03 March 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

ill just leave this here.

I can relate to this post. Sometimes, when I see an icecream, I get a bit antsy.

[Azrael]

I think shane would have saved Rick. He would have done it in the same way that Rick saved him, but a little bit different.


Instead of taping Randall to the drivers seat and having him drive. Shane would have taped his hands and feet, like a hog tie, then stuck him on the hood of the car. He would then drive full speed, while blowing the horn, to where the zombies are. Then slam on the brakes and launch Randall out in front of the bus. Then he would yell at Rick to head for the back of the bus, as the zombies converge on their new meal, Randal. Rick jumps out the back of the bus and they drive away.

Then Shane says to Rick: M'ask you somthin, isat zombie save of the week or wat?

Just my take on it.

[SkunkWorks]

I found Shane's caveman throwing skills amusing.  Shane would've blasted Randall in the head and left Rick on the bus to fend for himself.  Shane would have no problem pulling an Otis #2.

[Survivor#125323466]

I think maybe Shane would have saved Rick in the same situation, if the circumstances had been any different. I mean they just had this huge brawl, and Shane would have killed Rick if he had got the chance, so i would have to say no, he would not have done the same for Rick.