peacefuljeffrey

Yes, it will be more difficult for her to shoot the guy. That doesnt remove her right to should she need to. Besides, I'm sure she could find another useful tool for the job were she to put her mind to it. (When a nutter broke into ex-beatle George Harrison's mansion he and his wife beat the living crap out of him with china lamps and fire pokers - just like a movie. Reading the full law report was quite chilling; they got up to some real medevil shit on this guy). Jesus christ are we not getting the same details in our respective news stories? What I read about George Harrison was that he was PUT NEAR DEATH IN THE ATTACK BY THE INTRUDER. Possibly because he and his wife had to use "china lamps and fire pokers" to do the job that a handgun is specifically designed to do? Do you really say that "Yes, it will be more difficult for her to shoot the guy. That doesnt remove her right to should she need to," with a straight face? Are you really suggesting that someone retains a right to shoot someone in self defense even when the government has taken away anything with which that person might do the actual shooting? That's rather like saying you still have the right to eat, as someone prevents you from ever obtaining food. More lawyer-talk bullshit. Thanks, but no thanks. Yeah, the problem with those examples is that even an "18 stone" bruiser can be lethally stabbed by the "10 stone" burglar who was concealing a knife on his person (you know, in contravention of the LAW). The biggest issue I see here is that you seem to think it's okay to force people, based on their stature, to expose themselves to certain risks that no one can know the severity of. How can the 18stoner know whether the intruder is concealing a lethal weapon? If a guy comes through the broken window of my living room, he's getting dealt with in a fast-and-hard manner, because that behavior alone implies a threat to my life. If he's not such a threat, he wouldn't be breaking in. And to make me wait until an actual and visible and credible threat is made, that means I have to walk the razor edge between wondering if he will attempt to shoot/stab me and having him actually make his best attempt -- at which point it might easily be too late for me to save my own life. Sort of like why you're allowed to shoot someone who points a gun at you: what's the alternative? Do you say, "Oh, you don't know he's actually intending to kill you until he fires a bullet your way"? Duh, wouldn't that be too late? I mean, taken to the extreme, you could say that if the guy fired at me, I should have to determine if the bullet is on a trajectory toward me otherwise it's not a true threat and I am not yet justified in shooting him. Our laws recognize these rights for a reason. The victim should not be under an obligation to wait for an earnest attempt at killing by a criminal before lethal reactionary force is applied. It's the law of the jungle: if you don't want someone defending against you with deadly force, don't aggress against him. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Check my profile dude. Heheheheheh.. I do love seeing a knowitall getting put in their place.. Could you explain? He told me to check his profile, presumably because he thought I did not realize he was in the U.K. I did know that, and that is why I said that it surprised me he didn't know about the state of his laws, given that he lives there. It's in the text of my post. So far, the only knowitall who's in his place is him, since I posted all the salient parts of the article I quoted that stipulate that the right of self-defense HAS suffered blows in the 20th century. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

No it hasn't. Did you read the entire article, or pass judgment on only what you think it said? Did you see this part?: But modern English governments have put public order ahead of the individual’s right to personal safety. First the government clamped down on private possession of guns; then it forbade people to carry any article that might be used for self-defense; finally, the vigor of that self-defense was to be judged by what, in hindsight, seemed "reasonable in the circumstances." and Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent. and That willingness was further undermined by a broad revision of criminal law in 1967 that altered the legal standard for self-defense. Now everything turns on what seems to be "reasonable" force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As Glanville Williams notes in his Textbook of Criminal Law, that requirement is "now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law." and Our courts are mindful that, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, "detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an upraised knife." But English courts have interpreted the 1953 act strictly and zealously. Among articles found illegally carried with offensive intentions are a sandbag, a pickaxe handle, a stone, and a drum of pepper. "Any article is capable of being an offensive weapon," concede the authors of Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, a popular legal text, although they add that if the article is unlikely to cause an injury the onus of proving intent to do so would be "very heavy." The 1967 act has not been helpful to those obliged to defend themselves either. Granville Williams points out: "For some reason that is not clear, the courts occasionally seem to regard the scandal of the killing of a robber as of greater moment than the safety of the robber’s victim in respect of his person and property." Don't forget: • In 1994 an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house while he called the police. When the officers arrived, they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to threaten or intimidate. In a similar incident the following year, when an elderly woman fired a toy cap pistol to drive off a group of youths who were threatening her, she was arrested for putting someone in fear. Now the police are pressing Parliament to make imitation guns illegal. To be frank, the only way I can see you reasonably coming to say that the article "talks about our right to carry arms" is if you judged it by its title and didn't read more than a few lines into it. That's why I've posted the pithy material, in case you are wondering. -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

My day was made both yesterday and today by getting to send flirty messages back and forth with this girl at work. She's a really nice, good-hearted girl one year older than me, who has a 2-year-old son and a deadbeat-dad husband who's totally screwed up her life by using all their money to buy drugs. He's pretty much out of her life, heart and mind at this point, but he left her with a heap of bills and troubles. On top of that she has to commute over an hour to work where she makes only about $11 something an hour. (The health benefits are almost 100% of why she stays on.) Anyway, she's had herself quite a past, too. She talks about her crazier younger days, and the whackos she spent time with, and her alcohol abuse (which she's recovered from). Now she's still hot -- but lacks self-confidence about her looks now, even though she's plenty fine and has a GREAT figure!). Anyway, she and I were sending instant messages at work and they started to get so raunchy that we instead began just dropping off sticky-notes at each other's desk! I'm not sure if I'm correctly sensing that she has an attraction for me, but we're building this buddy friendship that I could see turning into something. For cripes sake, I actually feel like I have a CRUSH on someone, for the first time in years! Some of the stuff in her messages today made my day. Even if this doesn't go where it seems like it could, it will have been fun just for the anticipation. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Cool, good to hear that you're doing something about it and making progress. Me, I'm not overweight, but in the last two years I've put on a layer of padding on my otherwise flat stomach and I need seriously to resolve to work it back off before it becomes something noticeable. Right now, no one knows about it but me, and they can't see it in my clothes. But I used to wear a 31 waist, now I wear a 34. I don't like that. Gotta start more exercise. - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Dude, WAY cool! You should be proud. Sounds like you have a helluva kid! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I urge you all to read the article posted HERE Nope - the lone woman should shoot the bastard, our law allows her to. Where someone breaks into your home at night this may automatically be treated as a threat to your personal safty. Therefore she is permitted to use lethal force. This is really funny, actually. "She should shoot the bastard." WITH WHAT?! Your loathesome idiot lawmakers (rulers) TOOK [I]AWAY[/I] YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE GUNS! REMEMBER? I don't know where you get this claim that you're allowed self defense. Everything I've read in the past 11 years says otherwise. England has whittled down the right of self defense to a point of near-nonexistence. I think you're under a woeful misunderstanding of the law under which you're living, particularly for someone who lives there. You think you're better-off than you actually are. Don't you know that you are forbidden from carrying ANYTHING that can feasibly be used as a weapon? I urge you all to read the article posted HERE - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

My mind is not made up about this subject, however... If one considers that one has a very finite time to live on earth (and some believe this is all the time we have, period); and some of that time is spent working hard to accumulate the creature comforts that aid in making life pleasant; and every item one works for and purchases represents some amount of the TIME one has in his life; and some criminal decides to STEAL that item, which EQUATES TO THE SPENT PORTION OF YOUR FINITE LIFE; I see a rationale for using force against that thief. If I worked for the $22,400 it cost to buy my car, and someone takes that car (ok, for this example assume no insurance), if I have to let that theft happen because I can't use force to stop the thief, I will have to work for another $22,400 to buy a replacement. That will REQUIRE me to spend another tremendous chunk of my time, redundantly. I should be able to spend that time in leisure, or in other pursuits. The thief, having necessitated my working to replace the car, has stolen my TIME: more valuable than any material object. A better example would be my Sony camcorder, which some piece of shit stole from SoBe back in December: no insurance on that, so if I want it again, I HAVE TO SPEND PART OF MY LIFE TO EARN THE MONEY TO GET A NEW ONE. That's a large part of why I think it should be okay to blast the shit out of thieves. People say, "Oh, well, you can't justify violence in such cases, because camcorders can be replaced." Well, who can reimburse me for parts of my LIFETIME? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Dude, why do you have to be such a...a... fuckin' lawyer. You stated UNFUCKINGEQUIVOCALLY that there is "nowhere in the US" where deadly force is legally allowed for defense of property. Several people have posted the very fucking text of the law in Texas that PROVES YOU WRONG. So what do you do? You split hairs, parse semantics, and hem and fuckin' haw and do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE BUT ADMIT YOU WERE FUCKING *WRONG*! If you ever wonder why people you meet give you the impression that they fuckin' hate lawyers, know this: It's probably because YOU SEEM TO ALL BE THE VERY EPITOME OF FUCKING DISINGENUOUSNESS AND DUPLICITY. When cornered, you twist shit around. Listen, there are times when the most manly thing you can do is admit error -- and when everyone can see that you're making a pathetic attempt to evade that admission, it makes you look like a pussy. Why not just fuckin' suck it up?? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

What's shocking is that you're a lawyer, yet you state as "fact" that we don't have that legal right "anywhere in the U.S.," in apparent ignorance of the fact that that IS the way the law is in Texas. (Unless I'm very mistaken, in Texas deadly force can be used in cases like someone's on your driveway trying to steal your car.) - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Whew! Thought from the subject that this was gonna be another gun thread! -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hey, does that mean that Michigan is the state that Springfield is in?? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I didn't say I didn't flail. Well, maybe I didn't exactly flail, but I sure as hell wouldn't bet that I was graceful. I remember feeling my legs go over one way, and then I sent them back the other way (as I've seen people doing in videos). I can't wait to get some coached jumps done with video, and really get to see what the hell I've been doing in my sits and head-downs. And um, just to clarify, I really was fishing for "way to gos" when I started this thread, not "Oh, hey, how about this other skill one can learn?"... I don't beg for compliments and attention too often, but head-down is a fair one. I notice you did not say that I didn't piss you off with the gun threads... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I've heard you badmouth both Texas and Oklahoma. Now I didn't say that I loved all the terrain of this country... Besides, there'd still be boring ass flat land if you took those states away Grandpa Simpson: "I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I'll recognize Missourah!" - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Hey, who says you need a boxcutter to pull off a hijacking? Quade, I musta pissed you off something fierce in the gun-threads for you to hop on in here, not congratulate me on my first head-down freefall, and then make a post that has, shall we say, the most tenuous connection to mine... 'Sup, man? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Yeehaaa you're right. Those boys are second only to the NRA for effective lobbying and representation of their members. I'm proud to have maintained my membership for the last 14 years -- even though I wasn't flying for 11 of those. I got my ten-year pin a few years back and I guess I'm due for my 15 year pretty soon, if they have one. Join AOPA and USPA and NRA if you haven't already.

I was told when I first began AFP jumps to join USPA and order a Skydiver's Information Manual (SIM). The 2004 SIM came with the A-license proficiency card as well as the A-license category checklist. I think your instructors should have at least told you to obtain this stuff. How is a student going to know it even exists, much less that they need to get it in order to get licensed? Once I had mine, no one lit a fire under me to get it filled out -- I had to pin down my instructor to go over jumps with me and get the quals done. For me, it was the prospect of forever doing solo jumps that made me get it accomplished. Currently, my A card has been mailed to Virginia and hopefully I'll have my new A-license membership card soon!

Sure, I'll make Sunshine a sandwich... Who's gonna be the other slice of bread? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Heyo, just shouting out my jubilation -- I went head-down today!!! All on my own, after getting reasonably comfortable in my sit. I used the techniques I saw in Virtual Journey (the video and the book). Yeah, I'm sure it was sloppy and ugly and not real stable, but I was fo'-sho' upside down after doing a cartwheel transition! Totally F-in' Awesome!!! Now for a few coaching jumps to work on it some more... Virtual-beers all around for DZ.commers! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

QuoteConnecticut: Qui transtulit sustinet (Latin, "He who transplanted, sustains") - "He who cutsaway a mal, survives." Iowa: Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain - "Our skydives we prize and our rigs we will maintain." Missouri: Salus populi suprema lex esto (Latin, "Let the good of the people be the supreme law") - "Let the BSRs be the supreme law." Puerto Rico: Johannes est nomen eius (Latin, "John is his name") - "Olav is his name." (And I agree WTF?!) New York: Excelsior (Latin, "Higher") - "Uh, no, lower." and likewise: Wisconsin: Forward - "Uh, no, downward." - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Man, some of those ACTUAL mottos seem like they were written by IDIOTS who just couldn't think of anything good. What the hell is the "Sic Semper Tyrannus" one all about? Isn't that what Boothe said when he shot Lincoln? And I'd have to ask Virginia: "Umm, WHAT always to tyrants"?! And that touchy-feely shit from some of the others: "Equal rights." Blah blah blah. Is that supposed to somehow sum-up the state? I thought mottos were supposed to kinda go toward doing that. Some of those are a LITtle specific... - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Umm, when you... when you get your webpage up, r-right? - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Thanks - I wasn't doing a great job on my own thread here.... Anybody from Arizona? Texas? New York - Come on, I Expect 50 state motto's!!! I would like to post these puppies on my Webpage when i get it up Edited You're welcome. I did that in part because nothing bores me as badly as discussions about football. 50 states, huh? Are there dropzones in Alaska?? That'd be awesome. And are there any in Hawaii? Who here jumps/has jumped in HI? I'd love to do that! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

I promise never to go to Montana. Your gun culture is freaking scary, your gun deaths are scarier, why do you insist on carrying weapons everywhere with you, we dont, and ppl dont die why dont you try it. Wow!!! You don't carry guns, and so you have NO DEATH over there?! Where is this magical place?! Give me a break. Over half the gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides -- and studies of suicide have found that those inclined to it substitute the means if one type is made unavailable to them. Of the remaining deaths, very very few are accidents (the accidental death rate due to firearms has declined in every year since statistics began to be kept, and continues to decline) and many of the rest are bad-guy-on-bad-guy violence (i.e. gang-bangers capping each other). I love the anti-gun logic that says that as long as someone isn't killed with a GUN, it's okay to be killed in some other way. But you're saying that no one dies there, because you have no guns. Amazing! You MUST share your secret with the rest of the uncivilized world! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

Shit, if you came over here I'd make you some fettucine alfredo! Hustle, hustle, hustle! - -Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"