Miami police kill naked man who bit off victim's face

mrreeegh

I'm ready

If you need me, I'll be in a bunker.

Freezer wrote:

UPDATE: As if this story wasn't weird enough: Toxicology reports showed only trace amounts of marijuana in Rudy Eugene's system. No "bath salts", no acid, no PCP. Nothing that would (reasonably) explain someone going apeshit like that.

Great.


Now my friend will have even more ammunition to feed his "Zombir Apocolypse" theory. I give him two weeks before he locks himself in his basement with his five hunting rifles.

^
>hunting rifles

Any Zombie Apocalypseman (yes, it's a real thing, shut up) worth his salt sticks to pump action shotguns, chainsaws, and maybe automatic weapons if they have them. I mean, what are FIVE hunting rifles going to do? Four are going to watch him try to reload one before zombies eat him.

He'd be as well off with one rifle and a baseball bat.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

^
>hunting rifles

Any Zombie Apocalypseman (yes, it's a real thing, shut up) worth his salt sticks to pump action shotguns, chainsaws, and maybe automatic weapons if they have them. I mean, what are FIVE hunting rifles going to do? Four are going to watch him try to reload one before zombies eat him.

He'd be as well off with one rifle and a baseball bat.

For the average person, you're more accurate with a rifle than an automatic weapon. When you have to hit a small target area (in this case, the brain), it's better to take one shot at a time rather than use a machine gun which kicks up with each shot. More recoil = less accuracy.

Of course, for the layman, a shotgun would be best.

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

^
>hunting rifles

Any Zombie Apocalypseman (yes, it's a real thing, shut up) worth his salt sticks to pump action shotguns, chainsaws, and maybe automatic weapons if they have them. I mean, what are FIVE hunting rifles going to do? Four are going to watch him try to reload one before zombies eat him.

He'd be as well off with one rifle and a baseball bat.

He'd be well off forgetting all this stuff, and worrying about the other "harmless" conspiracy theories. Like the government watching you through the TV, and all that other wonderful stuff.

Maximilia wrote:

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

^
>hunting rifles

Any Zombie Apocalypseman (yes, it's a real thing, shut up) worth his salt sticks to pump action shotguns, chainsaws, and maybe automatic weapons if they have them. I mean, what are FIVE hunting rifles going to do? Four are going to watch him try to reload one before zombies eat him.

He'd be as well off with one rifle and a baseball bat.

For the average person, you're more accurate with a rifle than an automatic weapon. When you have to hit a small target area (in this case, the brain), it's better to take one shot at a time rather than use a machine gun which kicks up with each shot. More recoil = less accuracy.

Of course, for the layman, a shotgun would be best.

That depends what type of zombies you're dealing with. Some only die because of brain injury, MOST will die if you inflict enough general damage (whole lotta DAKKA at center mass), some only die if you amputate limbs. If you're dealing with slow, stupid zombies, melee weapons and adequate conditioning should keep you alive, provided to don't do something stupid and back yourself into a corner. If you're unfortunate enough to get the fast, fairly smart zombies, you're going to need heavy weaponry, explosives, and/or some form of choke point to funnel them through. In this situation you're better off not moving, as the zombies are at least as fast as you, and you're carrying weapons. Moving just takes you out of any defensive position you had.

Fire can help or hurt. If the fire is hot enough to kill them, great, if not, you now have to deal with FLAMING zombies. What I'm trying to say is less Molotov cocktail and more pipe bomb.

Trust me, I've played a LOT of video games.

Aaaaaugh this thread is gun cancer

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Any Zombie Apocalypseman (yes, it's a real thing, shut up) worth his salt sticks to pump action shotguns, chainsaws, and maybe automatic weapons if they have them. I mean, what are FIVE hunting rifles going to do? Four are going to watch him try to reload one before zombies eat him.

He'd be as well off with one rifle and a baseball bat.

Chainsaw: Heavy, noisy, uses gas that can be used in generators.
Pump-action shotguns: No. You wanna show that you mean business, you pick up a Saiga-12 with a Wraithmaker.

Maximilia wrote:

For the average person, you're more accurate with a rifle than an automatic weapon. When you have to hit a small target area (in this case, the brain), it's better to take one shot at a time rather than use a machine gun which kicks up with each shot. More recoil = less accuracy.

Recoil doesn't have any effect on the first shot; there's nothing inherently inaccurate with switching to full auto. The benefit to squeezing off a short burst is that you've got more bullets hitting fairly close to each other, increasing hit probability and damage.

The fact that they're also really hard to obtain legally means that they're most likely in the hands of enthusiasts who can control them.

Quote :

Of course, for the layman, a shotgun would be best.

Shotguns are great in general, but for an amateur, a pump-action is one short-stroke away from disaster. The recoil can also induce a lot of flinch, throwing off shots... and with shotguns, you have to aim them just like everything else. The depiction of how they work in media is... flawed.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

That depends what type of zombies you're dealing with. Some only die because of brain injury, MOST will die if you inflict enough general damage (whole lotta DAKKA at center mass), some only die if you amputate limbs.

Too much game balancing muddying the water. Hell, if you want to lay down a lot of fire, your best bet is to get something belt-fed and aim at crotch height. You can't walk or run on a shattered pelvis. When they drop, you've got an easy follow-up shot on their head.

Quote :

If you're dealing with slow, stupid zombies, melee weapons and adequate conditioning should keep you alive, provided to don't do something stupid and back yourself into a corner.

Getting up close and personal with an enemy that can only hurt you in hand-to-hand is for fucking idiots. Stick to guns, wear some motorcycle gear just in case.

Quote :

If you're unfortunate enough to get the fast, fairly smart zombies, you're going to need heavy weaponry, explosives, and/or some form of choke point to funnel them through. In this situation you're better off not moving, as the zombies are at least as fast as you, and you're carrying weapons. Moving just takes you out of any defensive position you had.

Or you could just be sneaky with a suppressed weapon, but, let's face it, that'll never happen in video games.

Penny wrote:

Chainsaw: Heavy, noisy, uses gas that can be used in generators.

And fucking BADASS. Where's your sense for the theatrical?

Besides, in the early stages on a zombie apocalypse, the power should still be on. Even the fast, slightly more intelligent that flat brain dead zombies aren't smart enough to deliberately go after power plants or anything like that. It's just dumb luck if and when they stumble onto something that supplies electricity.

Quote :

Pump-action shotguns: No. You wanna show that you mean business, you pick up a Saiga-12 with a Wraithmaker.

If I'm ever in a zombie apocalypse while serving in the Russian special forces, use exactly that.

Quote :

Shotguns are great in general, but for an amateur, a pump-action is one short-stroke away from disaster. The recoil can also induce a lot of flinch, throwing off shots... and with shotguns, you have to aim them just like everything else. The depiction of how they work in media is... flawed.

Yeah, unless you've sawed the barrel off to a nub, it's not going to spray the room. But you don't have to be TERRIBLY precise. Aim at torso, problem should be solved.

Quote :

Getting up close and personal with an enemy that can only hurt you in hand-to-hand is for fucking idiots. Stick to guns, wear some motorcycle gear just in case.

Not everyone has an armory under their bed. And the slow zombies are easy to out jog, and when one catches up to you, clobber it in the head. The dumb zombies aren't really capable of defending themselves, so you should be able to get at the head unguarded. With a nine iron, it's dead. It's a good option if you have space, only have to deal with a small number of them, and are low on ammo or forgot to bring your M249.

MOST people living in bumblefuck nowhere are best off making a bee line for the local police station. I've watched a lot of zombie movies and shit, so I speak with the authority of someone who needs to go outside more when I say that the police have usually either shit the bed entirely and left behind a stable building with emergency power and firearms on desks and in unlocked containers, or are still there in force and you can hide behind them until they fix it.

Surely drunken amateurs playing with police equipment could only end well.

Penguin: With shotguns, you don't have to be quite so precise. You aim in the general area at the torso or head (like Mikey said) and you should hit your target. And no, recoil doesn't have any impact on the first shot, but taking in mind the panic that a person would be in firing, and the chances of firing wildly with not doing any significant damage goes up with an automatic weapon. A semi-automatic and a rifle both would be best since at least you wouldn't end up spraying wildly and missing everything.

EDIT: Of course, that same panic in mind, people are probably going to miss everything anyway, firing singly or not.

This all being in theory, of course. Until the Zpocalypse happens, we'll never know.

Mikey: HEH. Well, just like cops leave all their guns lying on desks, farmhouses are surprisingly always well stocked with first aid kits and boxes of ammunition everywhere.

Quote :

Mikey: HEH. Well, just like cops leave all their guns lying on desks, farmhouses are surprisingly always well stocked with first aid kits and boxes of ammunition everywhere.

Or farming equipment.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

And fucking BADASS. Where's your sense for the theatrical?

My sense of the theatrical died when the most badass thing in the universe (calling down a danger close airstrike on one's own position) was reduced to comedy relief by Michael Bay.

LEFT CHEEK LEFT CHEEK LEFT CHEEK

Quote :

Besides, in the early stages on a zombie apocalypse, the power should still be on. Even the fast, slightly more intelligent that flat brain dead zombies aren't smart enough to deliberately go after power plants or anything like that. It's just dumb luck if and when they stumble onto something that supplies electricity.

It's not about the zombies WRT power outages. In a zombie apocalypse, nobody's showing up to work, right? Have you ever had your power knocked out by the weather? Imagine how much slower power would be restored in the winter storm season if hardly anyone could be convinced to fix it. It's not about the strength and reliability of the power plant, it's about the reliability of the REST of the grid, which is a lot more flimsy.

And in any case, if you're following the Zombie Survival Guide's advice, you're destroying staircases and stockpiling provisions, including hundreds of gallons of gasoline. Guess what happens when one fucktard in an apartment building "fortress" improperly stores a hundred gallons of HAZMAT: An apartment building is set on fire and everyone inside is now denied an easy escape route.

In the midst of a zombie apocalypse, you have a plethora of morons destroying the cities they live in thanks to the shitty advice of a New Yorker who thought he'd seen enough movies and read enough things on the Internet to know what the fuck he was talking about. Humanity's greatest enemy is humanity, and it hasn't even had a chance to get to the Walking Dead level where people are trying to steal from or eat each other. No, human stupidity is humanity's greatest enemy: Dipshits accidentally setting fire to dense urban environments when the fire department is too busy trying to save their own.

This sort of thing is even touched on in the L4D comic of all places: Zoey and her father, assuming they know how the fuck to deal with zombies thanks to pop culture, agree that he has to die because he's been bitten. Zoey obliges. Zoey later finds out that the gene granting immunity to the zombie plague is passed on down the father's side and thus, she has murdered her father for no good reason.

Now imagine the possibility that electricity is controlled by a post-apocalyptic gang that seeks to control the power grid. You MIGHT want that gas for a few things other than flashy combat.

Quote :

If I'm ever in a zombie apocalypse while serving in the Russian special forces, use exactly that.

If I was in the zombie apocalypse while serving in the Spetsnaz, I'd know that I'd attained true enlightenment. That, or I'd died and gone to Valhalla.

Quote :

Yeah, unless you've sawed the barrel off to a nub, it's not going to spray the room. But you don't have to be TERRIBLY precise. Aim at torso, problem should be solved.

Assuming this follows L4D logic, where expecting headshots from the few survivors is unreasonable. I'm not sure how much shotgun experience everyone here has, but I know that at about 25 yards, the pattern made by my shotgun (short barrel, no choke) with 00 buckshot is only slightly larger than my fist. Shooting a zombie in the chest with it will only hit zombie chest. If that hit fails to sever the spinal cord, it is useless.

And, unless you're willing to pay a fat tax stamp, shortening your shotgun's barrel far enough to open the spread wider than that is illegal.

Quote :

Not everyone has an armory under their bed.

That's their loss. A brand new nine can be had for $180, the same price as an entry level chainsaw. It's easy to find places to practice with a pistol. With a chainsaw, not so much. And I don't have any data to back this up, but I'm willing to bet more Americans have guns than they have chainsaws. A chainsaw's peacetime uses include: Cutting brush. Everything else is better suited to a myriad of other cutting tools. There is no way to recreationally practice chainsawing if you're not a chainsaw sculptor. Yet I don't see many people arguing for combining circular saws with extension cords and generators to make the perfect anti-zombie weapon.

A chainsaw is the weapon of a short-sighted airhead. A bimbo. And I don't think either one of use can pull off a cheerleader uniform, Mikey.

Quote :

And the slow zombies are easy to out jog, and when one catches up to you, clobber it in the head. The dumb zombies aren't really capable of defending themselves, so you should be able to get at the head unguarded. With a nine iron, it's dead.

Golf clubs are such flimsy weapons... but if you think you can defeat more than one humanoid target with head trauma via golf club, be my guest.

Quote :

It's a good option if you have space, only have to deal with a small number of them, and are low on ammo or forgot to bring your M249.

This is where the motorcycle gear comes in. Seriously. It's bite-proof, you can shove a zombie off-balance, and then curb stomp him.

Quote :

MOST people living in bumblefuck nowhere are best off making a bee line for the local police station.

Most people living in Bumblefuck, USA have guns of some kind.

Quote :

I've watched a lot of zombie movies and shit, so I speak with the authority of someone who needs to go outside more when I say that the police have usually either shit the bed entirely and left behind a stable building with emergency power and firearms on desks and in unlocked containers, or are still there in force and you can hide behind them until they fix it.

All you need is plucky Deputy Rick to access all of it. Short of that, you're SOL.

Quote :

Surely drunken amateurs playing with police equipment could only end well.

Seen it. It does, provided there's an audience with cameras.

Maximilia wrote:

Penguin: With shotguns, you don't have to be quite so precise. You aim in the general area at the torso or head (like Mikey said) and you should hit your target.

Right. The real benefit to a shotgun loaded with buckshot (as opposed to slugs, and if anyone says "birdshot" I'll dismember them and ship them to Timbuktu), is that if you aim at the head, some of your shot might destroy non-vital targets like the jaw and so on, but at least something should hit and damage the brain.

It's just the notion that if you aim in the general direction of your target that shotguns will make up the difference that I have a quibble with.

Quote :

And no, recoil doesn't have any impact on the first shot, but taking in mind the panic that a person would be in firing, and the chances of firing wildly with not doing any significant damage goes up with an automatic weapon. A semi-automatic and a rifle both would be best since at least you wouldn't end up spraying wildly and missing everything.

Well, this is trying to solve a training problem mechanically. This is why the M16 is now semi-automatic or burst-fire instead of semi- or full-automatic. Some bean-counter looked at how many bullets it took to kill enemies when troops were equipped with full-auto M16s, and shat a brick. Americans, as a culture, (often whether we're aware of it or not), have always considered marksmanship a must. Spending 200,000 bullets per enemy seemed absolutely abhorrent. But, here's the thing: All that shooting, mocked as "spray and pray" by detractors, was cover fire. Suppressive fire. It had a tactical use. If you put a lot of lead in the air around your enemy, he's going to try and stay in cover. If he's ducking down in cover, he's not shooting at your guys. If your guys aren't being shot at, they can get out of THEIR cover and move to a spot where they can take better shots at the enemy. The horrendous ratio of bullets to enemy soldiers killed was actually a GOOD thing, but we didn't understand this until it's too late.

This goes back to WW2. German soldiers had bolt-action rifles and were supported by a machine gun at the squad level. They relied on machine guns for covering fire. Americans had machine guns at the company level, but everyone was issued semi-auto M1 Garands. In both cases, the Americans and Germans found they could provide covering fire at the squad level; but the American model was actually far more flexible. It's just that all of this ran counter to the idea that infantry combat should be won by skilled marksman taking well-aimed shots at enemy troops. (Incidentally, the switch to burst-fire rifles and squad automatic weapons more closely resembles the WW2 German model today).

Those were so I could deliver these :

Second-guessing the way people equipped with modern weapons will shoot dates back to the civil war, when generals thought giving their troops repeating firearms would make them waste ammunition, decreasing their combat efficiency and causing a logistical nightmare as they desperately tried to keep up with the demand for ammo. But as it turned out, time and again, for nearly two centuries now, the faster weapons' rate of fire, the more effective the force equipped with those weapons is.

At the end of the day, what really matters is the amount of available ammo, rather than the kind of gun it's shot through.

And when you get right down to it: Covering/suppressing fire assumes your enemy will duck. If your enemy is too stupid to duck, so much the better.

Quote :

EDIT: Of course, that same panic in mind, people are probably going to miss everything anyway, firing singly or not.

And that's a big part of why "Amateurs talk tactics, experts talk logistics."

The more supplies you have (beans, bullets and Billy clubs) the more options you have.

Did you really just suggest a Hi Point? That's like someone asking about a car and you recommend this nice Yugo over here.

Serioiusly, though; I had no idea Hi Point still existed.

Hi-Point might be cheap crap, but they work. Yeah, their pistols aren't that popular, but their pistol caliber carbines enjoyed some kind of cheap shooting renaissance.

Penguin wrote:

Hi-Point might be cheap crap, but they work.

If I had the choice between a Hi-Point and a bat, I'd take the bat. Don't really know about Hi-Point rifles, but I'm suspicious of any firearm that tries that hard to look "cool."

Okay, I've never heard of Hi-Point looking cool. "Ugly," "crap," "cheap," "disgusting," yes, but never "cool."

Well, someone must think they're cool, otherwise why would they keep making those unnecessarily large, over-detailed monstrosities?

Because they're cheap and people buy them?

You'd think streamlining the design would make them cheaper...