AndyBoyd

You are right. I hope I never have to face that situation either. There is risk either way. I'm sure there are also folks who will regret forever their decision to have a gun in their home. But as I've said, I have no problem with the safe and responsible gun owner.

I know I will get spanked by the pro-gun crowd for this, but please believe me, I am by no means anti-gun. Here is my take on this incident. This was a young college girl who had way too much to drink, and somehow got into the wrong house. Was she in the wrong? Of course. Did the homeowner have the right to use deadly force? I reluctantly agree that he did. But the reason I do not have a gun in my home is because I do not want to shoot someone like this. Yes, again, the homeowner had the right to shoot. But if he had killed her, he would have had to live with the fact that he killed a drunk, lost, harmless college kid for the rest of his life. I don't want that on my conscience. The risk I take is that I may not be able to defend myself against the real bad guy that breaks in. So I live with that risk. I guess I'd rather live with the risk of getting hurt or worse because I'm not armed than the risk of shooting some drunk, harmless kid and having to live with the guilt. I hope I haven't riled up the pro gun crowd too much. I repeat that I respect the right to bear arms and also this homeowner's right to do what he thought he needed to to defend himself. Fire away, so to speak, pro gunners.

I watched the video (it's back up), and looked at the photos. I've done about 2,000 tandems, and I can't figure out what the hell happenned. I couldn't get a student in that position if I tried. Is it just that the harness is very loose, or is there something else going on? And if the harness is that fucked up, how in the world does the TM not notice this before he exits? Leaving the TM's incompetence aside, what in the hell happenned here?

That's the tough one, right there. Some LO's are so busy building to the lowest common denominator they forget the more experienced people. Sometimes I just bust out and go do 4-way.

It depends on the goals for the jump. Back when I was doing 4-way, a successful jump was everybody on the same page, working on the things our coach taught us, feeling like we made progress as a team on the jump. As a fun jumper, a successful jump is everybody in the formation, turn a few points, have a good time. As a LO, a successful jump is where I can challenge the lower-time jumpers, but keep the up-jumpers on the load interested, and everyone lands with a smile. As a coach, a successful jump is where I see that light bulb turn on in my student, and they learn something. Notice how I didn't mention the amount of points once? My advice is to stop worrying about points. Learn how to fly and have some fun doing it. That's what success is for me in the sport.

I've been to law school. It sure doesn't sound like you have. You seem not to grasp the most basic things a first year (hell, first week) law school student would know.

You should ask the law school you attended for your money back. Juries do not find anyone "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." They find defendants either guilty or not guilty. The prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant has no burden whatsoever. And civil juries do not find that anyone "committed a crime." They find the defendant either liable or not liable.

Could you explain what you mean by this? You are aware of which party has the burden in a criminal case, right?

Like Drew says, you may be able to get away with it depending on certain variables. I've been on RW loads with people in FF suits and they were fine. But the baggier the suit, the harder it is to avoid getting floaty. And the lack of grippers is a real problem. Most FF suits I've seen have no grippers, or they have some crappy little flat grippers that are hard to find and grip. Buy a RW suit. You don't have to buy a new one. Look around for a used one that fits OK. You'll have an easier time learning RW with the right suit.

I'm not trying to justify anyone doing anything. Just trying to help people out with the law. Zimmerman was just an example.

Well, yeah, someone has to decide what's reasonable. That's the judge. Not everyone will agree with a given judge's rulings. That's what appeal courts are for.

that's subjective - Yes, it is, isn't it. And that seems to be a big part of the problem with the law. In legal terms, a subjective belief is the actual belief held by the individual in question. In the case we are talking about, the subjective belief would be what Zimmerman actually believed at the time. The reasonable belief is judged on an objective standard. What would a clear-thinking, rational person in Zimmerman's place believe? In order to assert "stand your ground," one's belief that one is in danger has to be reasonable. So here, Zimmerman's subjective belief doesn't matter. The question is, what would a rational person in his situation believe?

This case will be about stand your ground if his attorney makes that claim. But first, Zimmerman has to be charged. At that point, he will have several options. He could cut a deal, i.e. plea bargain. This seems unlikely given his attorney's public comments. If he chooses not to plea bargain, he can assert stand your ground, and try to have the case dismissed. Or he could go to trial and assert plain old self-defense. So, I suppose it is right to say the case is not necessarily about stand your ground. It could end up being ordinary self-defense. But if I were his attorney, I sure would take a shot at stand your ground immunity first rather than risking a trial.

Self-defense law is more complicated than it seems, and I'm not a FL attorney, so I don't want to steer anyone wrong. Self-defense and "stand your ground" seem to be different, but obviously related, principles in FL law. Andy9o8 posted a link in post 582 to a FL case that explained FL self-defense law. The FL "stand your ground"immunity statute states: "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." As I said in an earlier post, "stand your ground" in FL is different than self-defense. Self-defense is a defense to prosecution. This means if you are charged with murder, you can assert the defense of self-defense at trial. "Stand your ground" is immunity from prosecution. In other words, if you can prove you are entitled to "stand your ground" immunity at a pre-trial hearing, the court will dismiss the charges and there will be no trial. To use the example of the Zimmerman case (and I am NOT taking a position -- just using it as an example), IF the prosecution charges him, my understanding of the FL law is that if his attorney asserted "stand your ground", the court would hold a hearing at which witnesses, including Zimmerman, would testify as to what they saw. The attorneys would then argue whether those facts fit the statute or not. If the court thought the facts fit the statute, the court would dismiss the case. I have to reiterate that I am not a FL attorney, and I'm just taking my best shot at interpreting FL law.

I like the temperatures too. I could do without the allergies...

Minor mistake on my part. It is the defendant, not the prosecution, who bears the burden of showing that he should get immunity. For lawyers with access to Westlaw, the case is Darling v. State, 2012 WL 636305. The "stand your ground" issue is a peripheral issue in the case, but the court gives a quick, easy to understand overview of FL's "stand your ground" law. Sorry to interrupt with the actual legal principles. Carry on shouting at one another.

It would be helpful if a FL attorney would chime in here, at least on the law itself. Self-defense is a more complicated legal concept than most folks realize. Most states, including Illinois where I practice, have done away with the duty to retreat. A self-defense claim succeeds or fails based on the reasonableness of the actions taken given the facts. It seems to me that the "stand your ground" laws take self-defense a step further and expressly authorize the use of deadly force. Illinois' self-defense law does not do that. I don't want to get dragged into this debate, though. I'm just trying to help explain the law, if anyone cares.

This is only a reply to the strictly legal question of self defense in FL. I looked at a FL case today to see what the "stand your ground" law said. I printed it out, but left it at work, and I don't have Westlaw access at home. So I'm doing this from memory. Stand your ground in FL is not, strictly speaking, a defense. It is immunity from prosecution. If an individual is arrested for murder in FL, that person can assert "stand your ground." The trial court will then hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the individual should get immunity. The prosecution has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the individual should not get immunity. If the prosecution does not meet its burden, the case is dismissed. In the Trayvon Martin case, it seems that the prosecution thought it could not meet its burden and simply decided not to press charges at all. If charges are brought, Zimmerman will obviously assert "stand your ground," and the court will hold a hearing to see if the prosecution can go forward. Hope this helps explain the law. I'm staying out of this debate.

I am not interested in fighting over this. I only hit reply to mnealtx because it was the last post. It almost makes me cry for this country that this is what we have come to. So much anger. So much violence. And black parents have to warn their children not to wear hoodies, not to put their hands in their pockets, not to do anything, or they might get shot. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-black-sons-20120324,0,5582018.story A child is dead, and a man's life is destroyed. Over nothing. Nothing. So very sad.

If it was a white kid that got shot, Holder wouldn't have to get involved. The shooter would be in jail. Someone needs to stand up for this kid that got shot. If the redneck cops in FL won't do it, the feds need to step in.

This was my exact thought after hearing about this. It's My Lai all over again. When the mission has failed, and our troops have become so angry and feel so hopeless that they turn on the very people we are trying to help, it's time to come home. We can do no more good in that country. We are just piling misery on top of misery. Before someone jumps on me, of course I support and respect our troops. I am tired of seeing them come home in boxes over a lost cause. It breaks my heart. And incidents like this do as well. I just want our guys and girls over there to come home safely. It's time.

They are cute girls with nice voices. I hope their musical career is successful. I would love to see Santorum get the Repubican nomination for President. It would make for absolutely magnificent theater.

At your height and weight, in my humble opinion you may tend to be a bit floaty -- ie. falling a bit slow relative to the others you are jumping with. Tight spandex forearms can help increase your fall rate. They are comfortable. You can get slip-ons if you think you might need them to slow you down on some jumps. But with your body type, you will need to speed up rather than slow down on most jumps. I've got a Pit Special, with spandex forearms and comp grips. It's the best jumpsuit I've ever owned in 25 years in the sport.

I'm not a religious person, but I love Tim Tebow. He is pure class. During one of the Broncos regular season games, a receiver dropped a pass. The guy felt bad and was bumming out on the bench. Tebow went up to him and talked to him, full of positive energy, and told him he would catch the game-winning pass. The Broncos came back, and the guy caught the game-winner in the end zone. In an interview during the playoffs, Tebow said that winning the Super Bowl was not everything, but that the season had been an amazing journey win or lose, and that he felt very blessed to be where he was regardless of whether they won the Super Bowl. I could not care less about the guy's religious beliefs. But he seems like a fundamentally good person. I can't remember anyone else in the NFL ever saying that winning wasn't everything, that it was the journey that was important. How can you not like a guy like that regardless of whether you believe in a god? BTW, I'm sure you could find the two Tebow quotes on youtube or something, I just didn't bother to look for it.

You are 100% right. I don't know why I bother getting involved with these guys. The race-carders? No. People like you.