I’m placing this in general questions simply because I’m looking for specific things - so apologies in advance if in the wrong section.
Anyway, so common movie plot devices that don’t exist in the real world, but are widely believed to be true by the majority.
The best one I can think of is the theory that people only fall to the floor when shot in the torso because they have seen it numerous times in the movies - so they instinctively follow this behaviour. Why Do People Fall Down When Shot? | RealClearScience
You can break out the glass in a modern high-rise building.
You can’t. Next time you have nothing better to do: Look for small red reflectors on or under the windows of the nearby high rise. Those mark the windows which can be broken for fire-fighting or evacuation of people. The rest would require an axe or explosive.
I’ve never considered that before, but now you mention it, it makes sense. You’d not want someone tripping over 30 floors up and stumbling into a window. they’d have to be strong.
It sounds like it wasn’t the glass that broke; it was the frame the glass was held in. The glass was strong enough to not break, but probably he had weakened the structure in which it rested in by throwing himself at it so many times.
I recently watched Braveheart with a friend. Toward the beginning, I remarked that I had read that there was no good historical evidence that droit du seigneur/jus primae noctis had ever actually been practiced. My friend replied "well, but is there any evidence it wasn’t practiced? "
Well, that sounds like a distinction without a difference to me: If the window pane is completely out, the window is just as open as if the window pane had broken into fragments and some large fragments were out. More open, in fact, because now I don’t have to remove any pieces of window to have a completely open hole.
And it is possible construction has changed in the 20+ years since the story I linked to.
I’ve posted this elsewhere on these boards, but last summer I was on a jury, and was surprised that contra courtroom dramas, when the attorneys raised an objection, they didn’t specify a reason. They didn’t say “objection, your honor! He’s baiting the witness!” They just said “objection!” and the judge would either sustain or overrule. If if happened several times in quick succession, they would approach the bench and discuss the reasons for the objection with the judge, out of earshot of the jury. The judge specifically told us that they did that because mentioning the reasons could bias the jury.
If the fellow had been using the same window for his demonstration, he may well have weakened the frame.
Very few windows, I’m guessing, are made so the glass will pop out.
There was a theory that an intact glass pane, from height, would/could come down as a scythe, making a mess of people on the ground.
Even if it came down vertically, it would weigh enough to kill.
So: no, I don’t think the glass popping out of the frame was intended.
Even his final demonstration proved the strength of the glass.
That lawyers will badger somebody into confessing in the witness stand, or that it’s a common occurrence. Or that they’ll ask a witness a question when they don’t already know the answer… it’s a courtroom, not a fishing expedition.
At least in the courtroom dramas I’ve seen, the lawyers aren’t looking for facts, they’re simply trying to make the witness look like either a liar or a moron.
Here in MN hunters seeking to get the state law against suppressors lifted had to fight the Hollywood myth that “silencers” turn a gun into a barely audible assassination weapon.
“You only use 10% of your brain!” Most notably used as the entire premise of the film Lucy, but it crops up quite often in media and inspirational Facebook posts alike. Uh . . . in what world would it, evolutionary speaking, make sense for 90% of our brains to be dead weight?