wolfriverjoe

Ok, it's gotten silly. So I can post this: Well, think about it. The autistic guy was holding a truck. There was a truck used in the attack in France. Maybe the cop couldn't tell it was a toy. He felt threatened. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Truth is, this stupid phenomenon is happening everywhere. Some homeowner shot at a couple teenagers in their car which was stopped outside his house. He got suspicious, got his gun and went out to confront them, they fled, and he shot at them. Then there's the two idiots who were walking along the California coastline and fell down the cliff while playing the game. Murphy's Law is going to be busy for a while. The one in Florida has a thread over in SC. It has very little to do with Pokemon and a lot to do with an "Asshole with a gun" (in Yoink's words). Walking off a cliff or driving into a cop car, however... Stupid. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Just to take a break from all of the "Trumpiness", the Nevada GOP chair apparently failed geography. Really. The capital of Nevada is Carson City. Not Las Vegas (or Reno for Dragnet fans). http://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/19/nevadas-capital-las-vegas-so-says-state-gop-chief/87319086/ "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Where are you? There are a few places that will take a quad, but not a whole lot. It's a pretty special jump. I was at a DZ that took a bunch of paraplegics (no use of legs, right?) up a couple of weeks ago. I had never seen it done in person before. It's not a trivial task. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Are you saying a 24 year younger nude model married to a 70 year old billionaire is not an almost textbook definition of a trophy wife? Not sure how that is hateful to women? I am sure you can eloquently explain your thought process to me. He didn't write "hateful." He wrote "hatful". So obviously, your attitude towards women involves how their heads fill their hats. Some women choose to wear hats that barely go on their head (like berets and such). Those are fine. They don't need to only wear things that their head fills completely. You need to work on your hatful attitude. A "hat half full" is perfectly fine. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Are you still getting the feeling that they've missed the point? Yep. How about: "We could have had two dead, young kids as a result of a paranoid, idiotic resident who has no clue what the laws on gun use and self defense are." "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

That's pretty much it. A crime has to have been committed, and the person making the citizen's arrest needs pretty solid proof. Not necessarily 'witnessing' it, but solid proof. For example, if my car is stolen and I didn't see it get taken, but I find someone sitting in the driver's seat in a parking lot, then I can effect a citizen's arrest for car theft, detain the thief and call the cops. (kinda splitting hairs here, I know) BUT... Just like use of lethal force in self defense, my actions will be scrutinized by the authorities (cops & prosecutors) and if I was wrong, I may face consequences. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I disagree. There have been many incidents where a "citizen's arrest" have been made after an actual crime was committed, until police could arrive. And usually with multiple witnesses to corroborate the arresting citizen's side of the story. Very true. But there's a big difference between "arrest" and "detain." The key words "after an actual crime has been committed" are the important part. There was no crime committed here (at least not by the people in the car). For the "asshole with a gun" (in Yoink's very apt words) to detain people on simple suspicion is not a "citizen's arrest". It approaches kidnapping or unlawful restraint. To be honest, sitting in a parked car in the street may not reach the level of "articulable suspicion" necessary for a cop to be able to detain someone. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, then they stop being them and to actually consider them as individuals, as people just like me, with hopes and dreams, fears and faults, families and friends (who all have those hopes, dreams, fears and faults) means that I can't simply cubbyhole them, place blame for their problems squarely and solely on them, propose simplistic and idiotic solutions and ignore where those problems came from (which may or may not have anything to do with me). Nope. Not gonna happen. Far too easy to say they need to solve their problems. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

It's somewhat debatable as to whether or not they were a threat to him. If he put himself in front of the car, it's possible. However, that act of putting himself there removes pretty much any possible claim of self defense. Keep in mind that it's possible for them to be a threat, but for him to not be able to legally defend himself against that threat, based on his actions. A lot of people fail to understand this basic concept. And shooting at the car after it has gone past (and isn't a threat anymore) has zero claim of self defense. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

How many stars in the sky? How many grains of sand in the Sahara? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The old threads (there were actually 2 of them) had more. There actually was a lot of fascinating info in them. You just had to sort through the idiocy (not always easy). I gave up on it a few years ago. I doubt that this guy is the real hijacker, any more than any of the suspects named in the thread were. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

The car was stopped. He had time to look outside, grab a gun and get out there. They "accelerated towards him" after he pointed the gun at the car and told them to stop. He had no authority to do that. They didn't present a threat to him when he saw them. They were simply stopped in the road in front of his house. They didn't present a threat to him while he grabbed his gun and went out to confront them. They did present a threat to him when they drove towards him. But he pointed a gun at them first. ANYWHERE but Florida, this would be a clear cut case. Self defense would be tossed out immediately. But Florida is different. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

He is arguing that he was using the force for self defense because they were driving at him, presenting a threat to him. The fact that he put himself into that position should negate the self defense claim. But, then again, GZ put himself into the position he ended up in. And successfully claimed self defense. I have to wonder what the outcome would be if the occupants in the car were killed and weren't able to present their side of the story, just as I wonder what would have happened if TM survived and was able to present his side of the story. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Well, the mere "presence of a gun" isn't a threat. There are guns in courthouses and airports. It's just prohibited for ordinary civilians (yes, I'm yanking your chain just a bit). And "within a certain perimeter" is certainly reasonable (that was in my post). Aren't 1stA & 4thA rights suspended there too? Protesters aren't allowed to hold rallies or make speeches within a certain perimeter. Entrants are subject to search. But the entire city? The whole municipal area? A bit of overreach IMO. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

That's a toughie. Keep in mind that it's a "right". Like it or not, it's in the BOR and the SC has ruled that it's an individual right. How would you feel if they suggested suspending first amendment rights in the city for the duration? Nobody would be allowed to peaceable assemble for protests or make public speeches that were of a "certain tone." Or how about the 4th? Cops could search anyone and anywhere in the city that they chose for the duration of the convention. Banning guns in the immediate area of the convention? Fine. But the entire city? I'd be more comfortable with the cops making a statement about what "carry" and "brandishing" mean, the differences between the two and that anyone brandishing a gun would be viewed as a direct threat. I understand that it would be a clear "we will shoot you for..." statement. And that there would be a strong chance of an idiot or two being shot. Again, it's a toughie. Suspending rights because the "cops are afraid" isn't a good precedent to set. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

I would hope he is charged with a number of crimes. I wouldn't, however be too surprised if he isn't convicted. Texas may have the reputation of the place where self-defense is broadly applied, but Florida is the the place where it actually happens. The Martin/Zimmerman incident is the most famous, but there have been several cases where people have started a fight, and when they began to lose that fight, used deadly force to keep from losing. And then successfully claimed "self defense." This isn't "Castle Doctrine" (no requirement for retreat in your own home, forcible entry into an occupied dwelling constitutes "intent" on the part of the assailant) or "Stand Your Ground" (no requirement to retreat from a place you have a legal right to be). This is an "idiot with a gun" confronting someone in a public street. Ryoder's list of potential charges: is a pretty good summation. He went out and confronted them. He ordered them to "stop". He shot at them. Ordinary citizens have no power to detain people in public. That's reserved for the cops. He could potentially face some sort of kidnapping or false imprisonment charges. "Standard" self defense requires what's commonly known as an "Unwilling participant", that is a situation that the person claiming self defense didn't willingly enter into. It also requires that it be "unavoidable", that meaning that there was no way to have avoided the confrontation in the first place. Most places also require "retreat was not an option", which is exactly what it says it it. Both Castle and SYG remove this as a requirement (but not the other two). At least they do in normal places. As I said above, however, Florida is different. I would expect the prosecutor will study the police report and make the decision. That's the usual procedure. Remember in the TM/GZ shooting case, the local prosecutor decided against pressing charges. It wasn't until the outcry and protests that they took another look at it and decided charges were warranted. It may take a bit of time. I'm pretty strongly pro-gun rights and pro-self defense. But this is, as Yoink called it, an "asshole with a gun." He assumed a whole bunch of things, grabbed his gun and tried to "play cop". I think it would have been "poetic justice" if he had been run over. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Just like San Bernadino and Orlando. The "Lone Wolf" terrorist, not connected with a larger group, no real indications before the high profile incident. They seem to use the idea that they are connected to Daesh because they know perfectly well it will generate more publicity than if they were thought to simply be a single (or couple of) disturbed individual(s). The couple in SB seemed to have actual ideological motivations. The guy in Orlando seemed to just be angry at the crowd that frequented the nightclub (he had a history there). I see no real indication that the guy in Nice wanted anything more that to "go out in a blaze of glory." All indications are that his "devoutness" was seriously lacking. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

When I took my rigger course, the lead instructor/DPRE had presses and dies for the symbols he was going to assign. The students had the option of purchasing it from him, or getting one on their own (ParaGear or whoever). Since he offered it for the same price as ParaGear, everyone that I took the class with bought it from him. It was a "convenience" thing he offered. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

What "larger problem"? In Ferguson, the shooting was justified. Unarmed doesn't mean "not a threat." BUT... Look at how the cops handled it. They left the body sit out (in August) for over 6 hours while they did their "investigation". How long would a dead cop lay there before they would see it was properly seen to (out of respect for the dead cop, of course)? When questions were asked, the cops either lied or stonewalled. They fully expected their version of the story to be accepted at face value. But it turned out to not be the truth. AND the subsequent investigation found widespread, systemic racism and abuse of the populace by the cops. The riots were as much a reaction to a long and persistent pattern of discrimination as they were to the shooting. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Actually it's a minority. It's a vocal, determined and dedicated minority, but it's a minority. And most are not "willing to pay any price in violence." I'm certainly not. I'd support ideas that will actually reduce violence, not simply take rights away. It's just that I have yet to see a measure proposed that will do anything. Most of what is proposed is in the "Do something, do anything to make me feel safe" category (I've said this before). Background checks for every transfer? How many recent high profile shootings happened with weapons that the owner acquired through a dealer with a check? (virtually all of them) Magazine capacities? The shooters at Columbine had 10 round mags. Bigger ones were too expensive. The shooter in DC used a shotgun. Ban "Assault Weapons"? VA Tech, the Giffords shooting in AZ, Ft Hood and numerous others used pistols. Everyone who vilifies the NRA forgets or ignores the things they have done to go after criminals in ways that don't restrict the rights of the rest of the population. Remember "3 Strikes"? That was pushed hard by the NRA. It turned out to be a bad idea, but at least it was a "go after the criminals, not the guns" idea. The "Project Exile" in VA was another one. Federal prosecutors would file charges in many "gun involved" crimes. 5 years minimum, and the charges couldn't be plea bargained away. It worked to a certain degree. NRA supported it. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

That's the most insane statement I've heard. All the hysteria about the number of blacks killed by LEO........is NOTHING compared to the monthly number just killed in Chicago. Your a very frequent poster here.....find me a thread that anywhere as long and as detailed as when a white cop is involved in a killing of a black man. Ferguson.....post after post after post .....hundreds. Now show me the post where all my liberal friends discuss as emotionally the black on black murder rate. Well, part of that is the media. Black on black violence simply doesn't get the headlines. Also, I have yet to see any vocal defense of, say a gang banger who kills a kid. I don't see anyone saying how "he has a tough job", or "he just wants to go home at the end of his shift." I don't see the Mayor or Chief of Police refusing to release video of an incident, claiming that it would be detrimental to the investigation. I don't see any reaction that "the kid should have not been there" or any of that sort of 'victim blaming' so prevalent with police involved shootings. I do see the community at large reacting with revulsion and outrage at it. I see community leaders calling for action. It's just that, like the killings themselves, the media doesn't give it a whole lot of attention. And last, but certainly not least, I don't see any criminals running around in cars that have the words "To Protect And Serve" written on the side. Criminals commit crimes. That's what they do. The cops are supposed to be part of the solution, not being out there committing murder. THAT is why it's a problem. When the people who are supposed to be protecting the community are out there killing people, it's a problem. The cops have gotten their way for so long, now that there's commonly video evidence of what really happened (and video that the cops can't keep to themselves), a lot of these shootings are getting noticed. Some (many?) are justified. Michael Brown in Ferguson was. But the way the cops handled it showed their contempt for the public. So every shooting, justified or not, will be closely scrutinized. We've seen three indictments of cops for killing in the past year (Chicago, Cincinnati and North Charleston). We will likely see another in Minnesota. Compare that to how rare those sorts of indictments have been in the past. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

So then, why is is alright to prohibit fully automatic weapons? Why are only AR-15s allowed and not M16s? Why are these outrageous laws allowed to exist in the face of your 2nd amendment rights? Because of a rather odd Supreme Court ruling back in the 30s. One where the defendant wasn't represented at the SC in any way. One where the District Court found the NFA unconstitutional. One where the US Government argued that the 2nd protected a citizens right to own military hardware. They defended the NFA by claiming that the items named in the NFA weren't in that category (which could have easily been refuted). LINK And open carry is pretty well covered by the statement "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Bingo. Trump seems to have brought all these people (using that term loosely) out from under their rocks, rotting stumps and other icky places. He's validating their ugliness. Their hatred, xenophobia and bigotry. And if he's elected, I think they are going to feel like they can be like that even more. Really frightening. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

The last 288 Manta I landed was on worn out student gear, and I'm sure my impression is colored by that experience. But I have a hard time seeing a 288 Manta being a solution. Why? It's a large canopy, designed for students. It's slow, docile and lands easy. I think it would be a good solution. Ragged out old F111 ones are kind of unforgiving, but I've jumped newer ones that were quite nice. I know an "old guy" who jumps one. ZP topskin, F111 bottom. He loves it. Flight Concepts shows them as available on their site. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Who says that shooting back is the main reason? I've never heard that (even from the "wannabes"). The main reason for civilian carry is self defense. Not stopping criminals, not protecting property, none of that. That's the job of the police. The cops have duties, responsibilities and powers that ordinary civilians simply don't have. Except for Florida, the idea of "run away" before shooting is a really good idea. Even in the "stand your ground" places, if escape is a viable option, take it. The consequences for a civilian using deadly force in a self defense situation are pretty severe, even if it was justifiable. You, me or anyone else would not get a paid vacation, or a union-provided defense lawyer, or policies and procedures designed to protect our rights (cops get those). When AggieDave was on here regularly, he commented that an average "no bill" grand jury result for a civilian shooting someone would cost the shooter about $50,000 in defense costs ("no bill" is when the grand jury decides charges aren't warranted). That aligns with what I have heard. I was always taught that "run, hide, fight" is a good way to view this sort of situation. Get away if you (and those you want to defend) can. Hide if you can't get away. Fight back if there is no other alternative. "There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo