mr2mk1g

hehehe - you don't know the half of it. Hell yes there is a backlogged legal system, why do you think it takes a year or more for a big case to come to trial. Yes they make judgement calls based on the quality or quantity of evidence. But these are essentially tactical decisions that there simply isn’t enough evidence to have any hope of securing a conviction. But try to see the distinction between that kind of decision, and the kind the kind that would be involved in a claim of self-defence. In this in this instance there is oodles of evidence, all that is required is for someone to make up their mind what that evidence means – guilty or not guilty. That’s simply not the prosecutor job; it’s the jury’s.

Yes - the crown prosecutors are able to decline to prosecute a case where it is not in the public interest to do so. It is not very often used as prosecutors are not judge and jury - it's not their decision to make. It usually happens when someone's about to die and thus there's no real point in trying them as they'll only die 3 months into the sentance at best anyway. This would not appear to be one of those situations as there looks like there is a significant dispute as to the facts of where, when and how she shot the guy.

No, you know they’re not neutral, I never said they were. Under the adversarial system the US inherited from us each attorney’s job is to present the facts as best fits their side of the argument. If you want a system where the attorney’s are neutral try mainland Europe. You know all this - that once the jury has heard both partisan sides they then decide which facts they believe the most and give their verdict accordingly. Prosecutors are under a duty to put possible crimes before the courts and to put all the facts before the jury that tend to show the accused is guilty. If they don’t put those facts forward then no one will and no one will ever get convicted. That's how the system works. It doesn't matter if it's my mum or a hardened con - all the facts have to be put in order for the jury to decide - NOT the prosecutor alone.

Shock/provocation/temporary insanity are questions of fact and are therefore matters for the Jury to consider. Their applicability is a question of law for the judge to consider. The prosecutor is under a duty to charge the crime before any defences/mitigating circumstances/legal points and allow the judge and jury to make those decisions where appropriate. What if the prosecutor charged only manslaughter and it came out at trial that there was no head injury and the woman acted out of malice? Prosecutors are not Judge Dread. They are not there to make calls on questions of fact but merely to put things before juries. It is the jury that decides questions of fact and the judge that decides questions of law – never the prosecution and that’s the way it ought to be. To answer your question: if it’s my mum and she did the second scenario – she needs to be charged and the law upheld. That would suck, but so would what she had done. The law applies to all equally, not just to those people I don’t know.

Kinda depends on whether or not she'd murdered someone. Put your hand up if you know ALL of the facts of this case? Now put your hand up if you feel qualified to make a call on whether or not this woman should be convicted of Murder? My hand aint up, and I have several certificates that say I am qualified to make such determinations... but then I don't have ALL of the facts. So far I've heard the story change from one side of the equation to the other. First my minds eye sees her lying on the ground struggling with an armed assailant when her gun goes off. Next I see her calmly walk up to a guy in a truck who is in the process of escaping, aim at his head and blow his brains out. I don't know which is true, I suspect somewhere in the middle, but then - I was not there. Thus I don’t have all of the facts. Even people who were there do not have all the facts. That’s why we have courts – they collate all of the facts and sift through them. While you are all shouting at each other remember that you - the public - rarely hear the full story, and what you do hear is always heavily biased towards one side.

He's posting about pulling the rear risers appart not the toggles.

It's "metal storm" isn't it? - logical progression of the phalanx and goal keeper systems. H&K have been working on the G11 caseless weapon or ages - back when I stopped keeping up with industry developments it was supposed to be just about there... Inject some govt. money and they may come up with a reliable system... reliability is likely to be the issue though.

You're right about the reasoning behind the adoption of 5.56mm. The idea was that a wounded soldier takes up the time of at least a couple of dozen colleagues whereas it only takes 5 minutes to burry a dead guy. In the cold war attritional style combat this was the key factor – plus as a bonus you could carry around twice the number of rounds. This theory no longer holds true however as the West finds itself fighting zealots and engaged in short wars where tactics rule the day. This requires a weapon which allows you to kill and move on… not one which means you have to use your medics to care for their wounded. Even if you don’t care for their wounded, they’re not a drain on your enemies military as we’re fighting people that don’t have very good medical support structures in place. I think for the time being the US is stuck with the 5.56 round because of it’s NATO treaty obligations… but then NATO was set up for the same reasons behind the 5.56 – combat the Russians… that’s not really a concern anymore. I personally don’t see why on earth they’re even considering making this change. If a change is required then start from the ground up and re-think the situation the US finds itself in. Up the size of the projectile slightly or go down the sabot route. Go caseless: the technology’s there, it solves the weight issue of a larger round, and it allows some truly revolutionary weapon layouts.

That's a very big NO. Not the Cark one at least - there are 3 "NO STEP" stickers on the wing and there's a big portion of the plane breaf dedicated to how big a hole they're gonna rip in your ass if you step on the wing. There was talk of possible steps over the wing and the like for front floaters, but I doubt any of those ideas came from the factory.

I'll be back in March for a custom Safire II, don't you worry.

Manual, but very smoth with pulleys and shit. Other than the pulleys it was pretty much the same as the Otter doors you have at Perris (or most other skydive planes for that matter). Apparently cost 30k and they were bitching about what they'd do to you if you broke it. I'd have built em two for that if they'd asked. Maybe a powered door is an optional extra that we'll see on some planes and not others?

There's a matching one on the inside and a huge step outside, plus a second step for the camer guys (attached).

And here's a few general pics of the plane just for fun and a bit of an idea of the inside. (that red bar in the 4th pic by the way is the static line strong point)

Ok, no video as I forgot that I needed a firewire port when I built my new pc two days ago. So here's some pic's. These are a few frame grabs from a 3-way horny gorrila exit. You can see the tail passing well clear of Timmy's head. I guess the wide angle lens makes it appear much closer than it is mind... but I assure you it's miles away. And finally a ground shot to show the the body of the plane.

no that’s not what they're doing. They are simply blocking the brains receptors to specific chemicals - such as nicotine or cocaine. Its got nothing to do with altering whether or not you are prone to addiction.

I'm dead against this, and from the scuttlebutt there was about this a month ago it's simply never going to happen. At least not in the next decade - no public support and difficult ethical issues. I wonder what people think about the separate issues. How about we try to separate them out? What if the vaccine was in relation to cigarettes only? What if all kids were vaccinated against starting smoking? I don't expect many people to change their minds on that basis only - but it does at least force people to consider only the ethical issues and to ignore the practical issues such as impacting on the proper use of opiates.

Tell you what everyone - I've got some pics from the other weekend jumping one of these and some video of me exiting - I'll see if I can post it tonight. There's one good shot I can think of where I'm last out on a 10 way... that should give a shot of how big the interior is. The stereo's cool

er... ok: yes there's a low ceiling, that does mean stooping, but there's plenty of room once sat down. There are also (a very cool feature) grab rails along the ceiling to assist you in getting up, (at least there were on the one I jumped - everyone loved this idea and wished more jump ships had them). I had no problem on the camera step - I'm 6'2". It was very comfortable and easy to use. Inside, yes you stoop - just like on virtually all mid-sized jump ships... is that that much of an issue? Capacity is 18 - climb rate fully loaded is something like 12 in 12... or there abouts, I forget but I'm sure someone will post a link to their site. Point is it's still nice and quick - very big engine see

Wow. She's gonna grow up to be one hell of a woman.

Always found them to be very helpful. You'll probably get a response from the horses mouth anyway soon enough as half the staff post on here. Could it simply be a stock issue or that an item you've ordered is litterally being manufactured for you? Remember that whilst they supply you, someone else has to supply them and manufacturers in the skydiving industry rarely have large stock levels... things are often (if not usually or always depending on the product) built to order. What was it that you ordered?

Anyone got the hiccups? I got the cure for you:

Anything's possible... but I wouldn't. The Gunner is very flexible and has very rounded sides that flare out round those over-sized dytter pockets. Your camera would sit further away from your head than nessasery because of this and you'd have to fill the gap between the mounting bracket and helmet with heavy filler. That's a less than ideal situation... but it could be made to work. I always understood that a good camera helmet would be stiffer than the Gunner too so as to minimise movement in the camera. Have you considered buying a second helmet for camera? That way you will always be able to jump without camera when you want.

Nope. Where were you two weeks ago? Sheesh! We spent a week and a half trying to convince the gun loby on here that the UK and the US were poles appart when it came to gun crime. There's probably about 10 pages of me and nac and a couple of others trying to convince people of what you just posted... I mean exactly what you just posted. If only we'd had an "insider" to agree with us at the time.

That's one step removed from the stance some people have taken, on here and in the wider gun loby. Your stance is one which, in essence, I agree with.

I've never been to a DZ that does not have at least some limited non-student gear for rent. Some are better than others. Some DZ's have fantastic demo programs, often attached to their shop/dealer/loft. Smaller DZ's have only one or two poor examples up for rent.... but like I said - there's always some gear.