UncleEd
Member
And she also was mighty fine in using her HKS speed loader.
I understand Foster went to the FBI Academy for some training
before the film.
I understand Foster went to the FBI Academy for some training
before the film.
Movies, finger off the trigger!
- Thread starter UncleEd
- Start date
Old Dog
Member
So true. When I was growing up (in the '60s and '70s), anytime I ever saw anyone, including most grown-ups, handling firearms, the finger always, always gravitated on to the trigger. I spent a lot of time in deer camps starting when I was 12, and I still can't believe I never witnessed a negligent discharge... it was all lots of beer, bourbon, card games and guns.
P.S. I appreciate Jodie Foster the actor.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Virtually ALL people are conditioned, or otherwise impacted, by everything they experience...whether in a movie or otherwise.
And yes, I realize some types of experience have a larger impact than others.
This is the cornerstone of propaganda, advertisement (marketing), peer pressure, education, religion, and more.
The question of "how many of them happen because (reason)" is as old as mankind. How many of us here remember a parent asking us something along the lines of "If Johnny jumped off a cliff, would you do that, too?"
Whether we coddle people or not, whether we put disclaimers on everything or not, and even if we were to totally eliminate certain behaviors from media entirely, there are going to be a percentage of people who absolutely insist on being stupid.
This is part of human nature.
It didn't take Vulcan logic and control for me to realize that a huge fraction of what occurred during the Bugs Bunny Road Runner Show and Tom and Jerry were NOT actually safe activities to engage in.
Likewise, it also didn't take much for me to realize that all the shooting that went on in all the old Westerns I watched as a kid were likewise not safe activities to engage in.
I fully agree with you...that the number of people who are adversely affected by such matters is NOT insignificant. But the problem isn't going to be resolved by any other means than for people to learn the difference between reality and fantasy, between lawful and unlawful, between moral and immoral.
A movie is a form of entertainment. It can also be a form of propaganda, marketing, education, etc. People will always interpret them how their own internal filters guide them. When those people are not raised with good moral character to think for themselves and separate reality from fiction as they grow and mature, then they're going to have problems, and they'll have them no matter what other people try to do about it.
How would that help? Screen fiction is fantasy.
Foe most people, that willnever happen. For some, it will happen in the criminal justice system.
Other things can help. The least burdensome, I think, is responsible scriptwriting.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
People learn the difference between reality and fantasy as they grow up. It's part of what it means to raise a child to adulthood.
All children go through this, as it's human nature to do so. The measure of their success is largely a matter of how well they're raised.
And I think that people are often ignorant of the fact that "learning" is a life-long process. We are forever learning new aspects of the world around us...it's up to us as individuals to accept or reject what it all means. Including, unfortunately, via the criminal justice system.
The least burdensome on society as a whole is through dedicated and responsible raising of children. Unfortunately, there are far too many individuals who apparently look at parenting as excessively burdensome in itself. Through the single act of responsible parenting, my wife and I now have three children in their 20s who seem to understand such matters as this and have yet to be a burden on society...no arrests, no children out of wedlock, no apparent confusion in the difference between movies and real life, etc.
Suppose that, magically, all movies made from now on featured perfect trigger discipline by all characters. Do you honestly think that that would make any difference in the number of negligent discharges?
We are not speaking of stupid, reckless, or obviously unlawful behavior.
I have known a number of responsible persons who were responsibly raised by responsible parrents.
Thet ewre surpised to know that they could not threaten or use deadly force to prevent or terminate trespass, or theft, or to detain thieves.
How many parents know that?
Of course not.
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 2,149
Let me try to say what I think KB is trying to say a different way.
Do you remember the first Lethal Weapon movie?
The scene where Murtaugh and Riggs take a (suspected) drug dealer into custody at his home and Murtaugh deliberately shoots the suspect in the leg and even states that he deliberately shot the suspect in the leg so that he would be alive for questioning.
That is a common movie tactic and people believe it. How many times have you read on an internet gun forum that you should only shoot to wound or that you should fire a warning shot?
So what are you talking about then? What do you think should change about script writing?
Is that the fault of movies though? Do we honestly think that would change if they quit doing it in movies? Do we honestly think that movies that portrayed 100% "by the book" behavior by all good guys would sell?
The Night Rider
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2022
- Messages
- 2,149
True. To a degree. My point was that changing trigger discipline in movies wouldn't have an appreciable effect on the general populace. Changing the responses of "good guys" in movies to reflect the technically "correct" response to bad guys, (things like letting the bad guy steal things without shooting at him) would just result in movies that no one would watch.
i cannot disagree.
"Technically Correct"???? How about "lawful" and "realistic".
Do you really belileve that it is necessary to show people shooting at thieves to get people to watch movies? I call BS.
That depends on the period of time, place and specific circumstances. All things that may not be exactly the same for the folks in real life and the characters portrayed in a movie. A good reason for folks not to take what they see in movies too seriously.
I'm sure it was quite clear to most here that that was one specific example of a broader theme. My apologies if I didn't make that clear enough for you.
"Technically correct" would not apply in any of them.
I am sure that most people do not 'take what they see in movies too seriously". That's not the issue. The issue is the extent to which people reacing under dealy pressure may revert to what they have seen in movies.
It was a horrible example.
Oh? Why not? Here's the definition of "technically", according to Merriam Webster: "with regard to or in accordance with a strict or literal interpretation of something (such as a rule, a term, or an official description or designation)". Please explain why that would not apply in any situation. I'll assume, for now, that we don't need to look up the definition of "correct".
Ok. A man's entitled to his opinion.
Those who know anything at all about law understand thet something is either lawful or unlawful and that "technically correct" is not a proper way of describing somehing regarding lawful behavior.
I have seen people get badly tripped up by trying that--with serious consequences.
Now, it is true that once upon a time there was such as a thing as the "fleeing felon law". We have discussed it at length here. So, when the sheriff fired at the bank robbers as they rode away in a a story set in 1876, that was realistic. But it is not lawful today. One would hope that a citizen today, whan the fleeing felon law is a thing of the past, would not react the same way in his yard. To do so could result in long imprisonment.
Your example may have been a good one for explaining your views, but I think that contending that people will not watch movies unless good guys are shown committing crimes is ridiculous.
All a matter of opinion. I very seriously doubt that we'll ever know for sure, since movie makers are not about to start following the format that you suggest that they should. This will all have to remain in the realm of the theoretical. To be clear, I meant that you were entitled to your opinion, although I appreciate you extending the same sentiment.
Last edited:
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Hmmm...there are plenty of examples in law where it's not quite so binary as "either lawful or unlawful". People argue the meaning of words all the time, for example, which causes the courts to apply several different methods of divining the correct, or appropriate, meaning for a given case at hand. Things like common usage, industry usage, implied meanings, reasonableness, prior dealings, or parol evidence.
The Second Amendment is argued all over the place for this very reason, because people on one side or the other insist on assigning specific meanings to words, phrases, and even grammar.
The executive branches of the various levels of government apply their own interpretations/guidance where ambiguity is perceived to exist. The White House does this. The various state Attorney Generals do this. (They don't CREATE the laws, of course...they take a look at the wording of the laws and interpret them accordingly.)
An amusing one to me is the issue of the tomato as a fruit or a vegetable. That went to the courts because "money". And, wouldn't you know it, "money" won. Botanically, tomatoes are a fruit. And for a long time that's exactly how they were treated everywhere you went. Until 1893, when the Supreme Court, of all places, agreed unanimously that the tomato should be classified as a vegetable for the purposes of tariffs, ports, and customs. This way they could be taxed as a vegetable under the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883.
It was very clear to EVERYBODY that tomatoes were fruits and fruits, by the letter of the law, are clearly not taxable. Therefore no duties/tariffs should be collected on them. A perfect example of your statement of "technically correct" not being a proper way of describing something legally. (It's just one way.)
Lets see if we can comb through that a bit.
The laws in our states came down from opinions formulated over time by learned judges in England--except for Louisiana, whose laws came from France. The laws here evolved as our courts modified the common law. In most jurisdictions, the laws have been added to and modified by acts of the legislatures.
On occasion , the laws have been questioned in appeals of trial court verdicts. Appellate courts review the laws, considering natural law, Constitutional Law. established legal principals, precedent, and so on. Their rulings may result in changes in the law; that is what we call "case law". The process may be escalated to higher courts, and the lower court rulings may be affirmed or changed.
Laws may also be amended or eliminated by the legislatures.
At any stage in the process, the law is the law--period. It is "binary", if you will. The word "technically" does not enter into the lexicon.
CapnMac
Member
Yes, and featured cigar smoking in the sealed environment of an SSBN.
Basically an anti-nuke screed using the anti-VN war trope using a submarine setting that managed to be less-accurate than Down Periscope (which was made a year later).
And that one was not entertaining to me, but, I was apparently not the target audience, either.
Screenwriters can only write what they know, and with a bias towards the visual, things that can be photographed. And, "to tell the story" they will bend the facts to the medium. In the biopic A Beautiful Mind, John Nash's very real schizophrenia is depicted as a series of visual hallucinations, despite the fact that Nash had auditory ones. But, hidden voices and sounds do not photograph well. So, they changed 'the facts' used. And, in fairness, it would have been a more complicated movie to make, cleaving to the facts.
To abuse Shakespeare, "The play's the thing" and the only thing for the screenwriter. Which does surface an interesting notion--why do screenwriters not make stories about screenwriting, the topic they know best?
Perhaps a better way to frame OP's initial question, is "Why do we accept the premise that movies/entertainment are 'real'?" The US entertainment industry is vast, it's a billion dollar industry, both domestically and as an export. Which may be why "we" give it as much credence as we do.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
This is an interesting facet I hadn't considered in a long time.
The whole paradigm over the acceptance of smoking has radically shifted over the six decades I've been around. And this covers virtually all aspects of life.
Atmospheric controls on submarines was one of the first things I learned about when I checked into my first command. You could only have certain types/brands of shaving cream, for example, because some cans of shaving cream were pressurized with atmospheric contaminants not allowed on board.
When I joined the Navy in 1985, smoking was everywhere. I remember being detailed to clean up cigarette butts outside the barracks in Great Lakes, for example. The first boat I went to (USS Henry Clay, SSBN-625 Gold Crew) had ashtrays at every watch station. Maneuvering, in the Engineroom, had enough ashtrays positioned to cover all four watchstanders in that tight space.
Below is a picture of Maneuvering on an S5W submarine showing people sitting in places for Throttleman, Reactor Operator, Electrical Operator, and the Engineering Officer of the Watch would have been in the back, right hand corner if he were there. The two red arrows show the holders for the ashtrays that used to be there for the Throttleman and Reactor Operator. If you were a non-smoker back then, it generally wasn't much of a problem because smoking was EVERYWHERE in society...so much so that non-smokers weren't generally bothered by it. But if you WEREN'T used to it...Maneuvering could be a heck of a smoke pit to have to sit a six hour watch in.
As a NUB (Non-useful Body, as non-qualified people were affectionately referred to), I quickly learned the value of cigarettes as a non-smoker. I would bring a couple cartons under way and about halfway through a three month deployment I'd break them out. On a Boomer they would be worth their weight in gold to a NUB trying to get a senior qualified person to find the time to give me a systems checkout so I could keep making progress on my qualifications. Because smokers, no matter how many cigarettes they'd pack for an underway, always seem to burn through them long before the end of the deployment. And unlike fast attack subs, boomers don't pull into ports in the middle of strategic deployments.
Snuff is also valuable...as this is not typically forbidden on watch. And if it is, it's easier to get away with since there's no smoke to advertise it.
The Navy had big plans, all centered around the magical year "2000". The Navy was going to be "smoke free". The Navy was going to be "paperless". Blah, blah, blah. Bottom line...didn't happen.
On subs, they designated one, maybe two, smoking areas, which typically had limited times. No smoking on watch stations. As far as I know, smoking still occurs on subs under much the same rules set by their respective commands. It's not nearly so prevalent as it used to be back in my early days, though. And now there is vaping, too.
Anyway...for those who didn't know, that's a bit of history on smoking aboard submarines. Couldn't have your favorite can of shaving cream "back in the day", but smoke 'em if you've got 'em!
RetiredUSNChief
Member
If "the law is the law" and always binary, then there wouldn't be much need for attorneys, since everything would always be so clear cut.
Attorneys get paid to do what they do, and capitalizing on ambiguities in the law is part of that. The plain fact is that sometimes the law ISN'T the law, either under specific circumstances, specific interpretations, or even at all. That doesn't obviate the fact that those laws EXIST in that state at that time.
And sometimes "the law is the law" ends up being not applicable at all because it's been declared unconstitutional. Or it was otherwise made null and void by other laws, but not amended or removed from the books. (Not talking about a law not enforced...that's a different situation.)
It is until it isn't.
Yes, just as I described. But that occurs in a different stage in the process, or, better expressed, at a different point on the timeline.
????
The law is the law. Perhaps you are thinking abut whether and how the law should be applied in different circumstances. That is up to the trial judge.
And whether what a citizen is alleged to have done is lawful or not is a different subject. At trial, the finders of fact will evaluate, based on evidence presented, whether he did it, why, how, what he knew at the time, and what he was thinking, and assess the question of guilt in accordance with the facts and the jury instructions. The latter describe the law and how it is to be applied.
Once in very a great while, the appeal of a verdict may bring about new case law that changes of things; again, that is later on the timeline. But much more often, appeals are associated with issues concerning the conduct of the trial--concerns about the admissibility or validity of evidence, about the jury instructions, and so on. But that's a different subject.
