he should have just killed the woman holding his kid
-
ShizaMinelli — 16 years ago(January 07, 2010 06:54 PM)
Agree 150%
I don't even have kids, just neices and nephews, but if anyone thought about hurting one of them they would be wishing for a bullet when I was done with them.
When you're 17 a cow can seem dangerous and forbiddenam I alone here? -
the_la_baker — 12 years ago(August 01, 2013 01:03 PM)
Killing a person is not an easy thing to do. Even when highly motivated and they are trying to kill you and/or loved ones(unless you are a psychopath). That is the reason the military changed their targets to have human silhouettes on them. So soldiers will get used to shooting at people.
"In-depth studies by the U.S. Army after the war showed that between 80 percent and 85 percent of the greatest generation never fired their weapons at an exposed enemy in combat, military psychologist Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman reports in Christianity Today. Many times they had the chance, but could not bring themselves to do it. They either withheld their fire altogether or else shot into the air, to the side, anywhere but at the fellow human beings their blood kin in biology, mind and mortality facing them across the line. This reluctance is even more remarkable given the incessant demonization of the enemy by the top brass, especially in the Pacific, where the Japanese soldiers and civilians were routinely portrayed by military propaganda as simian, subhuman creatures fit only for extermination.
Yet even with official license given to the most virulent prejudice, even with the sanction of a just cause (self-defense against aggression), even with the incitements of mortal fear, of grief and anger over slain comrades, even with all the moral chaos endemic to warfare, U.S. soldiers killed only with the greatest reluctance, in the direst extremity. These were not "warriors," bloodthirsty automatons with stripped-down brains and cauterized souls, slavering in Pavlovian fury at the bell-clap of command. No, they were real men, willing, as Grossman notes, to stand up for a cause, even die for it, but not willing, in the end, to transgress the natural law (implanted by God or evolution, take your pick) that says: Do not kill your own kind and every person of every race and nation is your own kind." -
o1977jp — 16 years ago(January 05, 2010 01:26 PM)
I disagree. I've never fired a gun before and I certainly wouldn't fire it for the first time in that situation, and risk screwing everything up. At that point in the movie the rational thing to do was to go along with their game and see what happens, and not turn into Super Accountant Man.
-
lorddeseiz — 12 years ago(December 14, 2013 04:38 PM)
i would have shot her between the eyes before she had a chance to shoot the kid.
No you wouldnt, ever shot anyone?
Everyone wants to be a cold as ice badass, lol
Collection
http://www.imdb.com/list/4zXrE3AAzT4/ -
liven1812 — 11 years ago(June 13, 2014 02:22 PM)
A lot of people here are wimps. I'm no keyboard commando. I am only "competent" with firearms. But there wouldn't be any hesitation beyond target acquisition to shoot that $*)@!. She couldn't pull the trigger with a .38 blasted through her brain. If reflexes did so, the shot hitting the girl would be completely left to chance.
At that point, you acquire the child, step into traffic, create a massive scene, and if you end up in prison for life you know your daughter lived because of you.