View Single Post
Old November 13, 2012, 01:40 AM   #75
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
younggunz4life, you make a valid point with regard to some posts being over the top.

Glenn, I respect you, and don't wish to start a flame war, but sometimes strong words merit strong responses.

With regard to the various problems and risks posed in the incident under discussion, some feel their points are "end of discussion" show-stoppers. They may be, for them...

Again, I haven't seen the video, but whether the wall is 14' or 11', it has a fence on top of it. Based on that description, I am not suggesting a flying leap over the top. I am suggesting climbing over the rail, using the rail and its uprights to lower ones body down the wall until one's hands are at bottom of uprights, top of wall, and dropping from there. If the wall is 14', and I do that properly, my hands above my head, my feet are nearly 8' below the top of the wall. Is a 6' drop unsurvivable?

Of course, if I screw that up, I could fall 14', but the plan would not be to screw it up.

(Edit: Realized that, since I haven't seen the video, the fence could be solid plexi-glass. If so, hanging by hands from a 4' fence, with a 14' wall - what I assume to be worst case - the drop is now 10-11', so we are in PLF territory; not fun, probably hurt later if not injured then, but still survivable.)

I have gone over tougher obstacles than that. I can still do a fair number of pull-ups, and sometimes climb ropes. I have good grip strength.

So what is so impossible about that?

Next challenge: the dogs.

As noted, I had thought the numbers were smaller. So, it's 11 dogs. As modified, I'd shoot at the outer ones, assuming a safe angle; this would hopefully scatter them, and get the pack in general moving toward their den before I climbed over, clambered down the fence, and dropped off the wall.

Given that the other option would be watching a toddler get eaten alive, the risk does not seem unreasonable.

Then again, I am the type who believes in intervening, if there is a reasonable chance of success. Others believe in being good witnesses. It is a basic but major philosophical difference.

As to whether my family could get along without me, I'd hope they would not have to. But, due to the nature of my job, I already have life insurance policies for over $1M, and my wife is an RN with a job that pays well, so I am not quite as concerned about this as others might be. If I were really worried about it, I would not be in my current line of work, or in my present work location (Afghanistan; my insurance is valid in combat zones, too).

Now, if a situation were truly one where I had no chance of success - say a 20 foot or greater drop; or crocodiles instead of a dog pack; or a house already fully engulfed in flames - then, no, I would not charge in. I don't believe in dramatic, romantic, but pointless gestures.

I do believe in taking direct action where it has a decent chance of working.

I do not believe in letting a child die, horribly, while I do nothing, if there is something I could do that has any reasonable chance of success.

Last edited by MLeake; November 13, 2012 at 01:45 AM.
MLeake is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04439 seconds with 7 queries