HeadCone

That's the big question and it might depend on what you know the suspect did. Starting a potentially long and always dangerous chase and then knocking his car off the road seems like overkill when all the guy did was roll through a stop sign. So maybe here you just get the plate number and mail a ticket. But, what if the guy was known to be a rapist/murder? *Now* is it ok to give chase and use deadly force? If so, then where do you draw the line? How bad of a thing does someone have to do? Do you chase a stop sign roller througher? -- not what happened here, but on the low end of bad Do you chase speeders? -- the kid was at first just a speeder Do you chase wreckless drivers? -- then he became a wreckless driver Do you chase a drug dealer? -- the cop thought the chase was part of an undercover drug sting Do you chase a rapist/murder? -- the high end of bad Do you NOT chase a wreckless driver when they started driving wrecklessly just to get away from you, but you DO chase a wreckless driver in other instances? Does that policy make any sense? OR, do you never chase anyone (no matter what you know they did) because the danger to the public is too great? Wouldn't that policy damn near mean that I could just take the plate off my car and drive as fast as I wanted? In the Scott/Harris case, I side with the cop and say that this was an appropriate use of deadly force. The kid was driving wrecklessly and the cop should be given the authority to take him out. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I was kind of thinking that myself. How is deadly force defined? From the Brief for Respondent Victor Harris: [The cop's] own department’s Use of Force Policy provided a clearly understandable definition of “deadly force,” stating as follows: “Force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or other serious injury is considered deadly force.” -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Do you know anyone who feels that using an AAD is safer than not using an AAD skydived less because they had an AAD? Do you know anyone who had less sex because they had birth control? Don't get mired in the details. When you give someone protection from the consequences of their actions, you're supporting their actions. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

You are correct, the son in my skydiving example is already skydiving. The gift of the CYPRES may or may not increase the number of skydives the son makes. However, one thing it won't do, is make the son think "I'm going to skydive less now that I have an AAD." The AAD is going to make the son skydive more often or, at least, more comfortably. Therefore, it supports his skydiving and that's a *very* short step (if any at all) to encouragement. (Again, I don't want an AAD debate. Let's just assume that both the mother and son feel that an AAD makes skydiving safer.) Same thing with a parent who gives their child birth control. The child may or may not have more sex, but the decision to have sex will be made easier because they have birth control. Saying that the mother is likely supporting herself may be true but is a side effect. Generally, even if the secret intention of the giver of protection is to make the giver feel more comfortable with the recipients actions, giving someone protection from the consequences of their actions is supporting (even encouraging) their actions. That doesn't change just because there's a stigma associated with said actions. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I don't know. I think if they high-jacked a couple of little old black ladies instead of a young, white, good-looking, presumably "rich" couple driving an SUV, that things probably would have turned out different. Maybe they'd still be killers, but not like this. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Considering that there's no punishment strong enough for adequate retribution or deterrence from something like this happening again, there should be no punishment per se. What should happen is that these monsters get their status of existence reduced to sub-human and no longer have any human rights (as should all people who commit heinous crimes like this). The beasts then become property of the scientific and/or medical communities. A panel of scientists and doctors will decide the ultimate fate of these beasts. Some maybe used for experimentation considered to inhumane for humans (give one of them AIDS and let it advance untreated to a certain stage then administer experimental drugs to see if they work). Others, may simply have their organs and any other useful tissue farmed for transplant into deserving humans. In any case, let's get some good for society out of these animals (no offense intended towards pet owners). Also, to those who don't think this was a racially motivated crime based on the fact that it started out as a high-jacking, I'd like to mention that it could have started off as a simple high-jacking and became racially motivated afterwards. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Here's a link to another report on the story: http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=6122097 Video Transcript: Newscaster: "Here in the Roanoke valley a police officer allegedly rear-ended a teenager on I-81. She says the officer had pointed a gun at her then threatened to kill her once they both pulled over." Voiceover: "Destinee Puckett was on her way to Salem headed south on the interstate when she moved into the left lane trying to pass a truck." Puckett: "And he came flying up behind me ..." Voiceover: "Eric Cmeyla stayed right on her tail as the 17 year old in front of him held her speed at the posted limit of 60 mph. The silver VW Jetta remained about one car length behind her." Puckett: "Then reaching? that point I tapped my brakes to let him know to back up a little bit because he was too close." Voiceover: "She tapped on the brake pedal several times she says, then noticed something in her rear view mirror" Puckett: "and he had a gun pointed over his steering wheel and he started, like, lunging it forward while he was yelling someting. And then I panicked and slammed on my brakes and he hit me." Voiceover: "Both cars pulled over on the shoulder of the interstate just north of exit 140" Puckett: "He came up to my window and he tapped on the window with the gun .. he showed me his badge .. said 'I'm a police officer' ... 'I could shoot you right now if I wanted to' I heard that" Newscaster: "Eric David Cmeyla has been with the Greenville, SC police department six months, he's still in training. The 41 year old officer is charged with branishing a firearm and following too close in Roanoke county. He was released on his own recognisance the same day. We were unable to reach Cmeyla. The number he gave police has been disconnected and his attorney declined comment until his case comes up in April" On Cmeyla: Sounds to me like he got pissed off at some idiot driver and couldn't contain himself. Those charges seem appropriate if not actually too light. He should not be allowed to become a police officer. On Puckett: She's young and doesn't know how to drive. She was probably driving too slow and she may have actually pulled out in front of Cmeyla. She didn't deserve to have a gun waved at her and all the other shit, but when you drive with your head up your ass, you're gonna piss people off. I do think I smell some bullshit though. She was only going the speed limit -- yeah right. Before or after she got tailgated? Was traffic too thick to move over or was she passing a truck? If you're passing a truck, then pass the damn truck and move over. "I tapped my brakes to let him know to back up a little bit because he was too close." -- or were you fucking with the guy tailgating you? She didn't deserve this, but I don't think she's little miss innocent either. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Yah, another analogy. A mother buys her son a CYPRES. She says, "I don't like you skydiving, but if you're going to do it anyway, I want you to use this." She wishes he didn't skydive at all, but realizes there's nothing she can do about it. So, she buys him protection. Here, she doesn't like it, doesn't condone it, but she *is* supporting his skydiving by giving him something to make it safer (please no AAD debate!). Likewise when a parent gives their daughter the pill and some condoms, they may not like she's having (or might have) sex, they may not condone it, but they *are* supporting her ability to have (safe) sex. If you don't call that supporting, then we're just nitpicking over the definition of the term. And BTW, I haven't (or at least didn't intent to) express an opinion one way or the other about whether or not giving a kid birth control is a good thing. Me saying that "giving a kid birth control is supporting their sex life" isn't the same as blasting the decision to give a kid birth control. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Yup. The best way to discourage kids from having sex is to give them lots and lots of condoms (as long as it comes with an awefully damn good speech). --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

But now you're talking about the probability of having sex due to possessing birth control. As many a high school boy knows, merely having a condom in your wallet doesn't guarantee you're going to get laid. Going back to the thread title. If we change the wording to "Is a doctor giving you a vesectomy supporting/encouraging you to have sex?". My answer: yes. Does a kid in possession of birth control have more, less, or the same amount of sex as a kid without? That's a separate issue. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I sawy. I strive to keep things simple in debates like this, then I over-edit, post, and it comes out all confusing. Dang! --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

No. It encourages them to drive. When a boy and girl have sex, they may or may not have to deal with the consequences of the cost of the girl getting pregnant. When a person drives, they may or may not have to deal with the consequences of the cost of getting into an accident. Birth control is protection from the cost of the girl getting pregnant. Car insurance is protection from the cost of getting into an accident. Providing a kid birth control is supporting/encouraging the kid to have sex because you're providing them protection from the consequences. Providing a kid car insurance is supporting/encouraging the kid to drive because you're providing them protection from the consequences. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I am saying yes it encourages them. I am also saying there are other issues which are separate. They are related and confusing (verb) the specific issue addressed by the thread title. I may have 'over-paragraphed' . The last three sentences (two paragraphs) may have been better as one paragraph. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Of course it does! I can't believe so many people voted no. When you give something to someone for them to use, you 're supporting and encouraging them to use that item. It doesn't get any simpler than that. The people who voted "no" just don't want to admit this encourages kids to have sex. And I think they're mixing in other concepts. Whether or not you like your kids having sex, whether or not giving kids birth control is a good thing, and whether or not providing them birth control encourages their sex life are all entirely separate issues. -Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I really have to wonder why he did this. Why didn't he take care of this at the time? I saw a show about this on A&E. He and his son and brother got arrested, posted bail, came back to the U.S., and pretended like nothing happened. The one guy even said it always was on the back of his mind. The other thought the statute of limitations ran out. What the hell? What would make think they could jump bail and Mexico would just forget about it? They're heroes for capturing the rapist but that was just stupid. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

There's an interesting article on the The Straight Dope here: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_165.html Basically, without any other interferance and in a vacuum, you'll pendulum back and forth forever. Add air resistance and you'll pendulum back and forth but slow down until you settle in the middle. On a related note, if you're looking to make such a tunnel, you may be interested in the Wiki's map of antipodes (just to see if there's land or water on the exact opposite side of the earth from you): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipodes --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Gotta love this classic: Perhaps one of the most interesting words in the English language today, is the word fuck. Of all the English words beginning with f, fuck is the single one referred to as the "f-word". It's the one magical word. Just by it's sound it can describe pain, pleasure, hate and love. Fuck, as most of the other words in English, has arrived from Germany. Fuck from German's "fliechen" which mean to strike. In English, fuck folds into many grammatical categories. As a transital verb for instance, "John fucked Shirley". As an intransitive verb; "Shirley fucks". It's meaning is not always sexual, it can be used as an adjective such as; John's doing all the fucking work. As part of an adverb; "Shirley talks too fucking much", as an adverb enhancing an adjective; Shirley is fucking beautiful. As a noun; "I don't give a fuck". As part of a word: "abso-fucking-lutely" or "in-fucking-credible". Or as almost every word in a sentence: "fuck the fucking fuckers!". As you must realize, there aren't many words with the versitility such as the word fuck,as in these examples used as the following words: - fraud: "I got fucked" - trouble: "I guess I'm really fucked now" - dismay: "Oh, fuck it!" - aggresion: "don't fuck with me, buddy!" - difficulty: "I don't understand this fucking question" - inquery: "who the fuck was that?" - dissatisfaction: "I don't like what the fuck is going on here" - incompetence: "he's a fuck-off!" - dismissal: "why don't you go outside and fuck yourself?" I'm sure you can think of many more examples. With all these multipurpoused applications, how can anyone be offended when you use the word? Use this unique, flexibel word more often in your daily speech. It will identify the quality of your character immediately. Say it loudly and proudly: FUCK YOU! -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Not that it matters where, but I believe this happened in Pittsburgh (Allegheny County). The same story but references Pittsburgh: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/08/toddler.death.ap/index.html --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

States try to ban driver distractions After we get eating, drinking, smoking, and everything else in that article banned, we should implement the following: There should be grip zones on the steering wheel. One for each hand. While the vehicle is moving, it should be illegal for your hands to be anywhere other than on the grips zones. Car manufacturers should then be required to put gear select buttons on the wheels in the grips zones. This way you can changes gears without taking your hands off the wheel. If you want to want to mess with the windows or a/c, you'll have to pull over and stop. It would be acceptable for manufactures to put controls for these devices in the grip zones so you can use them while driving. Manual transmission vehicles should not be allowed on public streets. You should have to retrofit the steering wheel with buttons or not drive it at all. While driving, the only acceptable places for your eyes to be looking are: out the front windshield at the side/rear view mirrors (two seconds max) out the side window (while turning or merging only) out the rear window (while parking only) Looking anywhere else for more than one second should be illegal. Radios and all other entertainment/luxury devices should be non functional while the vehicle is moving. This includes GPS navigation devices. Learn how to get there before starting your trip. If you're lost, pull over safely, stop the vehicle, and learn how to get there from your new starting point. There will be no talking while the vehicle is in motion. Passengers must always have their eyes looking out one of the windows. Of coarse I'm not actually advocating all this stuff, but I bet there's at least one jackass politician out there who would think there's a lot of good ideas here. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

I hope Keith Urban wins because I can't stand that Keith Urban guy. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Apparently not. Did you see the one that ends with one guy getting smacked with a huge crescent wrench and the other being smashed under the hood of the car? Slapstick. Yup. All the funnier. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

There was mountain lion at a DZ BBQ once. It was quite good. Of coarse there were lots of "eating pussy" jokes. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

There's a difference between implying that being gay makes one "unmanly" and advocating violence against gays. This ad does not advocate violence against gays which was the point of my post. --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Considering that in between the kiss and the violence (referring to the most controversial wrench/car hood one) there's this dialog: Hat Guy: "I think we just accidentally kissed." No-hat Guy: "Quick do something manly." ...and considering that Hat Guy clearly stands there allowing himself to get hit with the wrench ...and considering that No-hat Guy clearly bends over allowing himself to get hit with the car hood ...it seems pretty unreasonable if not completely outrageous that anyone would say this ad advocates violence against gays. Even in this ad, it's clear these are just two guys who wanted to reaffirm their "manhood." This is clearly a case of people just looking for something to bitch about. --Head And, oh yeah, it did say "Do Not Attempt", so there. -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/

Somebody likes to eat beats! --Head -- Turn off the internet! Join Citizens United Negating Technology For Life And People's Safety! http://www.citizensunitednegatingtechnology.org/