mr2mk1g

Does anyone know when the Vatican is going to excommunicate his ass as a heretic?

I went away earlier this year and did 80 jumps back to back on a Spectre 170 and Pilot 168 loaded to about 1.3:1. They were in identically sized Wings containers and neither canopy had more than a couple of hundred jumps on them. The Pilot will have a significantly lighter toggle pressure than the Spectre. Both will open extremely softly and on heading. Technically there is a higher risk that the Pilot will have heading complications on opening but I have not experienced a single incidence of this in all the jumps I’ve done on Pilots. The flare point of the Spectre is higher than the Pilot. This is not something better or worse – it just means your hands will be in a different position when you land. Remember this and fly the canopy through the flare – don’t just mechanically put your hands in the position you normally do to flare your Spectre. The Pilot will give you a longer surf easier than the Spectre although both will surf if you know how. The Pilot will float significantly longer than the Spectre and can be given an extremely flat glide angle in half to deep brakes. Both fly well in deep brakes although I absolutely love the slow flight characteristics of the Pilot. Both turn snappily with the toggles. I much prefer the riser turns on the Pilot and it seems to be happier in a front riser dive although neither will stay in a dive long without input. Both have pretty high riser pressure. This is all simply my opinion based on personal experience. Note my experience level in relying upon it.

In England you can do everything but kill in defence of property alone – as such there is no law which in itself permits the use of lethal force in defence of mere property. You are fully entitled to kill in defence of yourself however and it is often the case that someone who is presented with a threat to their property also considers them self to be in immediate danger. Imagine a burglar in the middle of the night or perhaps a pack of rioters outside your home – both may only wish to take your property but both would probably cause the home owner to fear for their personal safety. As the reasonability test is subjective it is eminently possible for scenarios to arise where it is legal to use lethal force in defence of what is objectively only an attempted theft. The applicable phrase (from s.3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967) is: "A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.". Although the law in its present form goes back many centuries and much of the more precise definition is found in case law dating back to at least the 1700's. For the sake of brevity however I'm sure the above is sufficient. The case is called Attorney-General's Reference (No. 2 of 1983). It was found that a shop owner created petrol bombs for the lawful purpose of self defence. This could only be possible if the use of petrol bombs in self defence can be lawful under certain circumstances. There would be little difficulty relying on this case in court if necessary.

um... "interesting" post...

damnit, missed the "the" out when I changed "UK" to "England".

In England, burglary is trespassing plus theft (or merely the intent to steal). Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intent to permanently deprive the other of it. And robbery is theft + the use of force (threatened or real). We don't have an offence of larceny so I don't know what it is.

In the England you are permitted to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself, another, your possessions, for the prevention of crime or to affect a lawful arrest. It has been this way for a long time and I see no reason to change it. This right extends to lethal force, although it has been judged that it can only be reasonable to use lethal force in defence of yourself or another rather than mere property. I guess the legal system has concluded that a TV just isn't worth that much. The reasonableness of the force used is a test based on all of the circumstances as believed by the home owner. The jury must consider what the home owner thought the facts were rather than what they actually were. If the level of force used was reasonable under those circumstances then it was legal. If the jury consider that based on the facts as the home owner believed them the level of force was unreasonable, that is to say excessive, then it was not legal. So if you come downstairs and see a burglar with your DVD player you may attack him. You may do so with a weapon and you may do so as a pre-emptive strike. You may do this to protect your DVD player from theft or merely to affect the arrest of the burglar. The level of force you use must be proportionate to the threat as you see it. If you thought the burglar might have a knife for example that he may use against you, you would be justified in using more force than if you thought they were unarmed. You would not be justified in killing them however unless you felt threatened – although this is quite likely under the circumstances anyway. Let's look at your scenario – the person who shoots an unarmed burglar. Prosecution would only follow if it was thought that the force used was unreasonable under all of the circumstances as the accused saw them. So you must put yourself into the mindset of the accused. You must forget whether or not the burglar is actually armed and instead consider if the home owner believed they could be armed or even if the homeowner believed there to be a threat to them irrespective of the burglar's possession of weaponry. Then, armed with those circumstances you must consider if the act of shooting the burglar was reasonable, or unreasonable and excessive. You might vote that they were excessive. 11 others on the jury might vote that it was not. Under other circumstances the rest of the jury might agree with you. This is why we use juries.

ah, she not taken over yet or are you just trying to insist on the old guard really being the one's who actually still hold the power?

To be thoroughly inclusive I might add: The German leader, Angela Merckel today announced that Germany interpreted the French riots as a sign of weakness and as such they would begin an immediate invasion... of Belgium. British PM Tony Blair also made a statement confirming that he had signed a pact with the Portuguese President and was mobilizing British Forces to invade Spain in response to the Parisian unrest. Meanwhile a British Fleet lies off the Island of Walcheren where it is thought an expeditionary force will be landed later in the day. British hospitals and mortuaries are being readied for the thousands of dead and dying troops expected, although no military resistance is actually anticipated from any opposing army. (ok so maybe only scholars of military history will actually get it...)

Only in an effort to join in the fun you understand: In a press release today Bush rescinded his earlier orders to send 5 Marines to assist France with their recent social unrest. Citing previous US military action in France the President confirmed that the troubles in Paris had not yet been going on long enough but that the US would indeed become involved but not for at least 3 or 4 years and then only if Japan attacked them.

Nope: Crumpet Biscuits Neither of which should be confused with: Scones

Skydiver Air Speed vs. True Air Speed At higher altitudes the air is thinner - thus less drag - thus you are actually traveling through space faster than you would at lower altitudes. Thus a TAS airspeed graph would be show a steady reduction in speed as you fell lower and lower and encountered thicker air. L&B have accounted for this and given us SAS. This eliminates the difference created by the thickening air and shows the airspeed as constant. This is because as skydivers we don't see a change. We might technically be getting slightly slower but we are always pushing through air molecules at the same rate and thus the 'wind' we feel remains constant. SAS is therefore much more useful to us as it is a measure of what our body is doing relative to its environment rather than of the environment relative to our body.

I've asked jokingly before - but I really do wish to petition the administration of this site now. Can we please have a [slaps head in despair] smiley?

First jump student (S/L) deliberately spiraling from 200ft down to about 30ft while his instructor was screaming at him through the radio (after earlier tamer requests were ignored) to let his arms up and stop the turn. Student then flared at 30ft, stalled out the canopy and landed like a sack of shit. Walked back to the DZ bragging about how crappy skydiving was and how he thought it would be much more of a rush and that riding a motorbike was far scarier. He got his ass chewed off by the CCI and told never to come back.

Actually there is precident for the legality in the UK of the defence of a shop during a riot with the use of petrol bombs! Take note Frechies - here in England it is perfectly legal set fire to rioters to defend your shit.

I don't agree that the example you post is "terrorism" but there are a hell of a lot of examples out there of animal rights fucks committing acts of terrorism. I get so fucking mad somtimes when I hear about their latest stunt on the radio. Fuckers. Time we arrested a couple of them and handed them over to our "allies". Well perhaps not, but they really do need smacking down with a few big arrests and long long jail sentences. Did I say they were fuckers?

Did you seriously just warn him for being personally attacked?

I just pooed myself laughing.

Yes. Lots. I like it a lot. Shame you folks can't indulge. My favorite bar round here was called "Ether" - decked out like something from Space Odyssey 2001 - they had a selection of about 20 different labels and a lovely blonde barmaid. Pitty is it just closed down but there are plenty more.

I agree with you entirely too - save to note that there's a distinct correlation between "shit" and "poverty".

Oh I agree - personally I tend to believe the police version that it was just two numnutz trying to run off from the police. But that doesn't mean that the popular image in Paris on which the riots are based is that of the burning teens being chased by 'brutal' cops. Call it 'faulty intelligence' if you will.

yeah but you got a link in.

They did: 1992, LA: A bunch of poor, unemployed black people riot after police beat the crap out of a black guy. 2005, Paris: A bunch of poor, unemployed black people riot after police chase two kids into an electricity sub-station where they fry as they burn to death. You're right that the religion of the majority of the rioters is immaterial (note not all either set of rioters are even the same religion). It's only retards and racist newspapers pushing an agenda who are suggesting otherwise.

well... technically putting stuff up on the web is legally very analogus to publishing it in the local press.

Oh, by the way: Go to www.ebuyer.co.uk They have everything you need, prices you won’t be able to beat, reviews and user feedback including ratings (great for those of us who don’t live and breath computer brands and their associated reputation) they do fast free delivery, they’re reliable and are extremely professional about any refunds / exchanges that might crop up. Its your one-stop-shop to satisfaction.