dorbie

It's probably a bad idea to hold onto it during main depoyment since your arm could get pretty heavy under openning shock loading and inadvertenly deploy the reserve. The handle itself especially partly seated shouldn't be enough to pull the pin.

How the heck did this ever make the news, if he's out of the service and it's unrelated to the casualties. Something stinks about the way this has been handled.

That's a compelling case against roadblocks, which is an orthogonal issue. I wouldn't support roadblocks, nor would I allow anyone from MADD near an investigation or arrest. .10 vs. .08 is marginal, the average fatality at .17 tells us very little, certainly the limit should be lower than .17 if that's the case. Rewording another statistic, 1/3 of alcohol related accidents occur < .14 BAC, but of couse the author said 2/3 occur above .14 because he's suggesting limits are set too low but the information just isn't there to support the argument.

But low wage immigrants cannot generally do the more skilled jobs, you need to outsource those. Really to undermine your economy and wreck your industry at the fastest pace your leaders and captains of industry must be given both tools.

Importing the labor is SO passé. Just outsource the jobs. One does not preclude the other.

It's a free and competitive insurance market. That high figure indicates that drunk drivers pose a significantly increased liability due to high rates of recidivism, the additional risk of being in an accident and the added culpability due to being intoxicated. That hardly characterizes a scenario where the punishment is excessive given the potential harm.

Exactly! The whole binary liquids thing is a new problem but confiscating nail files and pocket knives is a sign of insipid leadership.

You were THERE and saw that? Or are you going off of one guys word? Maybe he ran the red light and the cop let him off that charge? He admitted to TAKING IT OFF and then trying to SNEAK it back on. reread what he wrote. If I saw a guy trying to SNEAK something, I would not bet he did it right the first time. Well he ran a red, not a yellow according to the cop, and he was seen putting on his seatbelt after he stopped. You mean like running a red light? You'd have to be willfully naive to believe that the cop is going to ticket him for invented charges and not for the red light. The OP is the context of this discussion, but I'm taking the OPs word and the cop's actions into consideration. It is clear he should never have been stopped given the scenario presented. Your attitude of inventing new imaginary crimes like "running a yellow" is informative though. You can backpedal now and claim it's now "running a red" but the fact is you originally claimed this was just dandy to be stopped for this non-offence. It is not OK. The cop said he saw the seatbelt off earlier. That's an invention post facto to reinforce his subsequent observation. It's OK to say he saw the seatbelt being fastened, it is not OK to claim he saw it off earlier at the light, that is a lie fabricated to undermine any defense.

Oaf is an attack right? you can't play fair so you attack people. You wanna talk about contempt? Act like an adult. Caling someone as bad as Saddam after misrepresenting their views is an attack, a severe and deeply offensive one. You repeat your misrepresentation, I have never written such a thing and you're repeating it despite a correction. You repeat the false claim. One more time, I have said no such thing. In fact I am defending others who have been attacked in this thread for holding that opinion. Not following a thread is one thing but persisting after you have been given the correction is cynical. Your attempts to unjustly smear someone who disagrees with you are transparent despite your appeals to maturity.

No, wanting a guy to be tortured so you can feel better is just as bad as what Saddam did. I wanted justice for Saddam, but torture was unneeded and wanting it makes you as bad as him. Firstly I didn't want it, so don't put words into my mouth. Unbelievable, little did I realize when I woke this morning that some oaf would accuse me of being as bad as Saddam Hussein for defending the opinion of another. You are beneath contempt. Entire societies used to want traitors hanged drawn & quartered, they used to show up to witness that & see other criminals suffer breaking on the wheel or placed in stocks or see highwaymen caged in iron maidens to die slowly of starvation & exposure. Strangely they were God fearing predominantly good people and would never commit mass murder nor would they ever dream of it. They just weren't fed your diet of Disney saccharin from birth and had different standards, those people are very little changed from you or I. Each society paints the human with its version of a civilized veneer and our empathy for others is certainly malleable. Our actions separate us from Saddam, and that is not simply confined to opinions on how a single criminal should be treated. Saddam's atrocities, systematic torture, and mass murder are too numerous and gruesome to mention here. That someone thinks his demise does not fit his crimes does not make that person as bad as Saddam. You & others pretending this guy was an ordinary criminal and accusing posters of being just like him is downright obscene, but fortunately is a poor reflection on you, not your accused. There's room in this world for people who think his punishment was light considering his crimes. I sometimes reflect of the hereafter for a man like Saddam, it's an unknown of course, but what if it's the simple realization of who you are when you get up from your seat in Plato's cave? Then of course I reflect on Saddam's humanity and ponder how much of him there is in all of us, next one is led to consider the lessons we can learn about ourselves from his monstrous actions and how we might have conducted ourselves if given the opportunity to seize absolute power. There are no answers, just an exploration of thoughts. You might start a similar process of pondering how much of your fellow posters there is in you before saying they're as bad as Saddam.

Wow! Look at the title of this thread and reflect upon how this officer's conduct undermined his profession. I'm not saying one incident & it's curtains, but if this is typical of how the guy conducts himself it's a problem. Eat donuts? Do you know how that stereotype came about? Donut shops used to be the only eats open 24hrs. That's not the case in NY. We have a 24 hour hot/cold food delis on every street corner, sometimes even two on every street and we have 24 hour diners every few blocks or so. Donuts are a thing of the past in NY bro. It's old news. Most of the new school cops are very conscientious about their diets and they work out. Yup sorry.

Hey stud. In this case the guy ran a yellow or red light (not an issue since he didn't get a ticket for it. The ADMITTED to taking it off and then trying to sneak it back on. The cop sees a guy try to sneak his seat betl back on and thinks he didn't have it on in the first place...How many folks try to sneak on a seat belt when stopped? He would have had a much better change to just claim to have taken it off than trying to claim he was sneaking it back on. As for the license, cops do not need to know laws from other states. Sheesh. There's no such thing as running a yellow light, he was stopped for running a red which he did not do. If no ticket then why was he stopped? Driving through on amber is often the safest option and every driver does it. You seek to selectively pick his "confession" there is no confession, he confessed to WEARING HIS SEATBELT. When cops go around inventing new offences like running yellow lights and being seen fastening a seatbelt we all suffer. Stick to the real crimes hotrod, there are enough violators out there without cops running around labelling innocent people as violators of their own list of fantasy offences.

Context is everything, he seems to be arguing for the status quo, what heavy punishment? Currently you get your driving privileges revoked and a fine which seems absolutely appropriate, most other consequences stem from insurance companies charging you market rates based on RISK which they have a pretty good handle on. If you're a repeat offender or you hurt someone then the penalty increases. The fact is society has deemed this unacceptable conduct via an elected legislature because of the pile of corpses this judge mentions. The problem is drunk drivers don't expect they'll cause an accident when they start out. Punishing the few who do will not make drunks reflect on their risk taking with other's lives. 2000 dead a year isn't even the appropriate statistic to look at although it's a heck of a pile of corpses and ignores people maimed and other lives wrecked. How many more would be killed or maimed if DUI were more prevalent?

In what way is wanting someone who killed others to die in a similar fashion the same as ordering these atrocities? How can you even compare that? As the man said, it makes YOU just as bad as HIM. That's as foolish as saying a cop who arrests a kidnapper and anyone else who even desires appropriate sentencing is just as bad as the criminal being arrested because he's detaining him, worse even since the kidnapper will be detained for many years. As usual you have no sense of proportionality when pushing your manifesto.

But you are saying there should be no enforcement at that level and far above it effectively signalling the same thing to offenders. There's a spectrum of consumption, abuse and risk associated with this. The limit has been set by legislators based on one goal, reducing the danger on the road. One less, and for 6 months to a couple of years depending. Thankfully no. Maybe you should write your MP or senator/congressman and campaign for an increase in the limit if you feel this way, wherever the limit is set it will be enforced by the police. I assure you your view that someone is fit to drive after up to five beers is in the minority outside the confines of your local boozer.

No, it's a question for legislators, the BAC limits are typically very clear.

Again, WTF? You think up to 5 beers driving home the police shouldn't be stopping you?! Newsflash buddy, you shouldn't be near a set of car keys, that is fucked up for driving, and if the police stop you they've done their job. You need a friggin reality check dude. If you don't think that's driving impaired you're in denial and probably need help. I shudder to imagine what your definition of a fucked up driver is, maybe they should only test drivers that have wrapped their vehicle around a convenient lamp post. This has got to be a troll right? Tell me you're trolling.

WTF? Your post is almost comical, what's up, did you get nailed for DUI after hoping they'd let it slide? Just think of all the people who don't DWI because every bozo who does and is caught get's nailed to the wall. How many lives do you think that saves? It seems to me that DWI has become less and less acceptable as time has gone on through enforcement and public awareness campaigns and that has undoubtedly saved many lives.

It is not anything other than showing respect and doing everthing you can to make the cop feel safer as he approaches the vehicle. You don't have to do it, but it is nice and they have a hard and dangerous job. Simple fact is he saw the seatbelt being put on. The person admitted to it. I guess you think cops should have Xray vision. I expect him to have integrity, conjecture is not a substitute, especially when you're asserting something as fact in opposition to a plausible explanation. It's about time some of these guys were given yellow vests instead of badges so that their status as traffic revenue generators is appropriately recognized. "America's Finest!!!!", Yeeeehaaaaww!!!!

I blame Thatcher & the Poll Tax for this.

"Check please." (US spelling)

The U.S. judge clearly had no say, so your point is moot. You can't stop people shopping any old crap before a judge. Then why was the case before him? You read the part where I clearly said "You can't stop people....", I think there's a comprehension gap here.

No, there isn't. There's plenty of "legal advice" quite readily available from non-lawyers, to be sure. But through the years, as I've heard one story, after another, after another, of people getting "legal advice" from: cops, paralegals, their dads who are successful businessmen, clerical employees down at the courthouse, social workers, MBAs who have taken 1 or 2 business law courses, accountants, judge's secretaries, people who have had a couple civil or criminal cases of their own, lawyers' moms, and (possibly worst of all) law students – I've come to realize: Yes, there's a lot of legal advice available from non-lawyers, and most of it is pretty bad. And you never ever pay through the nose for bad legal advice from a lawyer.

Yup Z-Hils is great, great setup, friendly people & a good vibe & nice bonfire etc. after the jumping. Famous gear makers right there too, I only have good things to say about the place.

I never said otherwise. But I read he was spouting a lot of piffle about Iraq being nothing without him at some point. Still, how many of us would face the gallows with as much fortitude?