|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 18, 2014 18:06:05 GMT
We've all seem kidnappings on TV and in film, and...well looking at various myths from such sources seems like a great excuse for Jamie to tie Adam up and shove him in the trunk of a car.
What ideas/tropes are there for kidnappings thought? Keeping in mind that this is meant to be a reasonably family-friendly show, and showing how to pull off a kidnapping probably wouldn't go down to well with law enforcement agencies.
There is the classic 'hero escapes from being tied to a chair by breaking the chair', burning through ropes (without the hero suffering any serious burns in the process) and various ways of picking or removing handcuffs. But these are more 'escape' myths than specifically kidnap ones.
They could look at the old 'listening to sounds while being moved by vehicle and from that being able to retrace the route', and the related 'listening to background sounds to figure out where a call/tape was made'.
Then there is the old trope when the victim gets a glimpse of a kidnapper for a few seconds, so they decide they have to kill them - in this case might the kidnappers be worrying a little too much as to how well someone is going to be able to provide a description?
I'm thinking that MB could do something a little different with this. Having Adam and Jamie deal with the 'kidnap' side while the build team looks at the 'investigation' angle. Editing would allow them to put the two segments together to give the impression that they are taking part at the same time, even though they don't have to tackle their respective myths that way. As far as I can recall MB have never really tried to tie what both teams are doing together in this way before. They seem to either work together on one myth, or do separate myths that are loosely connected with whatever the theme is.
Thoughts and ideas?
|
|
|
|
Post by PK on Apr 18, 2014 22:01:30 GMT
I always questioned the idea of a piece of duct tape - or any kind of tape - making an effective gag. The two things I find questionable are: How well does it silence a victim? Sure, they cannot give a full-throated scream or speak words, but they should still be able to make a fair amount of noise. Also, with enough saliva you ought to be able to loosen the glue enough to get the gag at least partially off.
Another gag myth: How effective is a bandanna or cloth? I don't mean wadded up and stuffed in the victims mouth, but the way many movies show the bad guy whipping a handkerchief into a quick rope and "gagging" the victim by simply tying it around his head, like a bit for a horse.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 19, 2014 0:12:52 GMT
I doubt they could test the effectiveness of Chloroform, more's the pity.
one piece of advice I have seen offered to prospective kidnap victims is to kick out a taillight. that should be quite testable.
pretty much all the methods of securing a victim would be good to test.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Apr 19, 2014 2:55:22 GMT
They could test theseThe last one I know works as that is how you undo zip ties you want to reuse. It is just a matter of having something you can use to trip the locking tooth and then being able to do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 19, 2014 6:47:29 GMT
They could test theseThe last one I know works as that is how you undo zip ties you want to reuse. It is just a matter of having something you can use to trip the locking tooth and then being able to do it. I've released quite a few zip ties.haven't tried it with them around my wrists, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 20, 2014 12:43:19 GMT
I doubt they could test the effectiveness of Chloroform, more's the pity. one piece of advice I have seen offered to prospective kidnap victims is to kick out a taillight. that should be quite testable. pretty much all the methods of securing a victim would be good to test. No, they can't use chloroform or for that matter any knock out drugs. In the real world the dose has to be specifically tailored to the individual, otherwise it will either have no effect or kill the target. That is why there is someone standing there during operations monitoring the patient while applying anaesthesia. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 20, 2014 14:03:23 GMT
They could definitely test the classic "van pulls up, victim is grabbed off the street corner" scenario. they could do it with three versions: with the victim resisting (I.E. Tory) with the victim completely passive (Buster) and if neither of those worked, they could do a replicate the results with the victim assisting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 20, 2014 16:36:24 GMT
Testing without bystanders wouldn't exactly be helpful, since yes, you can grab someone and drag them into the back of a van if you take them by surprise or have numbers (police effectively do this all the time). The real question would be how likely it is for someone to get away with this when there are other people around. But this would be difficult and possibly dangerous to test to say nothing of the SFPD probably not being in favour of MB trying this.
The local PD would not be happy, because chances are that at least one onlooker is going to call 911 - which means they would have to make sure that the call was being made in connection to the test, and probably fill out a dozen forms detailing what happened. Having a patrol car sitting there is also unlikely to help, since if they sit there watching they will get abuse they don't deserve and could do without. (To say nothing of the possibility of misreporting the incident as 'SFPD watches someone get kidnapped and does nothing')
The danger aspect is that there is no way to accurately predict how random onlookers will react. Most are likely to just stand there, but there is a chance that one or more may decide to help the 'victim' by taking on the 'kidnappers'. At best this could result in someone getting punched in the face, at worst it could result in someone pulling out a gun*.
(*I'm not sure of the gun laws in SF, but even if the chances of the average citizen walking around with a firearm are low. There is always the real possibility that a local shop owner or resident may have a gun close to hand, or that one of the bystanders is an off duty cop.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 20, 2014 20:44:27 GMT
Testing without bystanders wouldn't exactly be helpful, since yes, you can grab someone and drag them into the back of a van if you take them by surprise or have numbers (police effectively do this all the time). The real question would be how likely it is for someone to get away with this when there are other people around. But this would be difficult and possibly dangerous to test to say nothing of the SFPD probably not being in favour of MB trying this. The local PD would not be happy, because chances are that at least one onlooker is going to call 911 - which means they would have to make sure that the call was being made in connection to the test, and probably fill out a dozen forms detailing what happened. Having a patrol car sitting there is also unlikely to help, since if they sit there watching they will get abuse they don't deserve and could do without. (To say nothing of the possibility of misreporting the incident as 'SFPD watches someone get kidnapped and does nothing') The danger aspect is that there is no way to accurately predict how random onlookers will react. Most are likely to just stand there, but there is a chance that one or more may decide to help the 'victim' by taking on the 'kidnappers'. At best this could result in someone getting punched in the face, at worst it could result in someone pulling out a gun*. (*I'm not sure of the gun laws in SF, but even if the chances of the average citizen walking around with a firearm are low. There is always the real possibility that a local shop owner or resident may have a gun close to hand, or that one of the bystanders is an off duty cop.) but the movie version has the van appearing, a couple guys popping the victim into the van, and the van disappearing again in a short time - so they could do time tests; even without the ability to do an unbiased bystander reaction test. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Apr 20, 2014 21:10:00 GMT
They could test theseThe last one I know works as that is how you undo zip ties you want to reuse. It is just a matter of having something you can use to trip the locking tooth and then being able to do it. Thanks for the link. I'm gonna be poking around that Art of Manliness site a lot now  I don't know that there's a lot to test though. Follow the link to the videos and they'll show you that it actually works. |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Apr 21, 2014 0:52:16 GMT
They could test theseThe last one I know works as that is how you undo zip ties you want to reuse. It is just a matter of having something you can use to trip the locking tooth and then being able to do it. Thanks for the link. I'm gonna be poking around that Art of Manliness site a lot now I don't know that there's a lot to test though. Follow the link to the videos and they'll show you that it actually works. Ah, I didn't get to watch the videos. Had to many folks sharing wifi that day. Yep, there is some "manly" information on that site.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 21, 2014 13:29:25 GMT
Observation; All of the tricks show require that you are tied with hands in front. As police will tell you, if you really have to tie someone's hands you put them behind their back.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 21, 2014 14:16:57 GMT
Observation; All of the tricks show require that you are tied with hands in front. As police will tell you, if you really have to tie someone's hands you put them behind their back. or chain them at their hips. but yes, hands behind the back makes things very awkward for other things as well - like getting to your feet. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Apr 21, 2014 18:53:28 GMT
Observation; All of the tricks show require that you are tied with hands in front. As police will tell you, if you really have to tie someone's hands you put them behind their back. They actually address that in an announcement they made after the videos were published. A manufacturer of "improved ziptie cuffs" called Jersey Cuffs invited them to test their product in public at an expo. Here's a quote from the site: "Jersey Tactical had been in contact with us about a month prior to the SHOT Show inquiring about sending us some for T&E. We’d agreed to meet up at the show so they could pass us some product. At the show, the owner gave me a personal demo of the second generation cuffs by placing them on me with my hands in front of my body, wrists together. These are the new model that features the small metal bar that acts as a “double lock.” He then challenged me to try and get out of them. Now mind you this is in front of a crowd of people in the path of SHOT Show traffic, which if you know the show, it’s busy! I then asked him twice if he was sure he wanted me to do that right in public like this, and answered with a resounding, yes. I raised my arms above my head, just like in the first video we show. SNAP! the product immediately broke apart at what we feel is the weakest link of restraints like these, (the locking mechanism) and fell to the floor... ...To Jersey Tactical’s credit, after the demonstration that I broke, the owner asked if I’d come out into the hallway away from the crowd and try breaking out of them behind my back. He affixed a new pair and I attempted it twice with no success. I feel that these have the potential of being defeated behind the back as well, even though I was unsuccessful at my attempt. In our videos another member of ITS is demonstrating the behind the back method because the truth of it is I suck at that technique. I haven’t perfected it yet, so we went with him in the video." I haven't been able to find the video he's referring to, but these guys don't exactly strike me as someone who'd make such a claim without being able to back it up, so it's out there somewhere. I just haven't found it yet. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 21, 2014 19:21:08 GMT
Observation; All of the tricks show require that you are tied with hands in front. As police will tell you, if you really have to tie someone's hands you put them behind their back. They actually address that in an announcement they made after the videos were published. A manufacturer of "improved ziptie cuffs" called Jersey Cuffs invited them to test their product in public at an expo. Here's a quote from the site: "Jersey Tactical had been in contact with us about a month prior to the SHOT Show inquiring about sending us some for T&E. We’d agreed to meet up at the show so they could pass us some product. At the show, the owner gave me a personal demo of the second generation cuffs by placing them on me with my hands in front of my body, wrists together. These are the new model that features the small metal bar that acts as a “double lock.” He then challenged me to try and get out of them. Now mind you this is in front of a crowd of people in the path of SHOT Show traffic, which if you know the show, it’s busy! I then asked him twice if he was sure he wanted me to do that right in public like this, and answered with a resounding, yes. I raised my arms above my head, just like in the first video we show. SNAP! the product immediately broke apart at what we feel is the weakest link of restraints like these, (the locking mechanism) and fell to the floor... ...To Jersey Tactical’s credit, after the demonstration that I broke, the owner asked if I’d come out into the hallway away from the crowd and try breaking out of them behind my back. He affixed a new pair and I attempted it twice with no success. I feel that these have the potential of being defeated behind the back as well, even though I was unsuccessful at my attempt. In our videos another member of ITS is demonstrating the behind the back method because the truth of it is I suck at that technique. I haven’t perfected it yet, so we went with him in the video." I haven't been able to find the video he's referring to, but these guys don't exactly strike me as someone who'd make such a claim without being able to back it up, so it's out there somewhere. I just haven't found it yet. of course, if you are unsupervised, it is easy for a person in decent health to change from behind the back to in front. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 30, 2014 5:56:56 GMT
I have a question after watching too many "Special agent" type James Bond or CI5 or Men in Black "Agents" getting themselves kidnapped by the bad guys....
You are a "Special forces" highly trained licensed to kill and probably black belt in more than one self defence.
Just how many "Goons" does it take to lift you into the back of the van if you dont exactly want to go?...
I suggest getting a retired or even serving "Special forces" person and just TRY to force them into the back of a van....
How many goons will it take?...
And before it gets mentioned, it takes one with a gun, I know an ex "Who Dares" Forces sergeant who if your less than 10ft away will stick that pop gun where its goina take a good surgeon several hours to get it out.....
Can we presume close quarters and not armed as the goons didnt expect a fight?...
And when I say goons, I mean those goons you see who all line up to take on the hero one at a time that you get in films, the ones who stand and wait for the next blow whilst you hit them, they type of goon who when hit has to be told to fall over?...
The bad guys never ever get the best goons do they?....
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 30, 2014 15:02:20 GMT
I have a question after watching too many "Special agent" type James Bond or CI5 or Men in Black "Agents" getting themselves kidnapped by the bad guys.... You are a "Special forces" highly trained licensed to kill and probably black belt in more than one self defence. Just how many "Goons" does it take to lift you into the back of the van if you dont exactly want to go?... I suggest getting a retired or even serving "Special forces" person and just TRY to force them into the back of a van.... How many goons will it take?... And before it gets mentioned, it takes one with a gun, I know an ex "Who Dares" Forces sergeant who if your less than 10ft away will stick that pop gun where its goina take a good surgeon several hours to get it out..... Can we presume close quarters and not armed as the goons didnt expect a fight?... And when I say goons, I mean those goons you see who all line up to take on the hero one at a time that you get in films, the ones who stand and wait for the next blow whilst you hit them, they type of goon who when hit has to be told to fall over?... The bad guys never ever get the best goons do they?.... It would be a great object lesson, but I doubt their insurance will allow it. - because you have the option of playacting it, or paying the goons' medical bills. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Apr 30, 2014 15:12:57 GMT
It varies from work to work how good the "goons" are. For example, when the G. I. Joe line released new versions of the bad guy trooper and bad guy officers, their "file cards" went to length to explain that they typically receive minimal training. Additional training is reserved for either those thugs who stand out somehow or those situations in which the thugs need to learn how to operate certain weapons systems. Additionally, various excuses have been given over the years by different questionably-canon sources as to why the Imperial Storm Troopers were of such varying competence. One hypothesis was that the Storm Trooper helmet interfered with peripheral vision (something supported by the one guy who his his head on the door), while a second has it that the Empire received an entire production run of blasters that was defective to the point that even a trained marksman couldn't put a blast in the same place twice. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 30, 2014 16:59:21 GMT
None of which is on topic.
Grabbing someone and bundling them into a van is not really something that is testable, as noted above. As was noted later asking someone to fight back risks injury to the cast, and not having the cast involved would automatically nix the idea from the start.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 30, 2014 17:10:04 GMT
None of which is on topic. Grabbing someone and bundling them into a van is not really something that is testable, as noted above. As was noted later asking someone to fight back risks injury to the cast, and not having the cast involved would automatically nix the idea from the start. I still think they could test the physical possibility of just getting the person into the van in the time allowed. |
|
