Southern_Man

The requirements (really recommendations) for currency leave a lot open to interpretation. It is not really a question of what is the minimum requirement but a question of what you need to return to jumping safety. You do not have all that many jumps and 6-7 years out is a long time. I'd expect to sit through an entire first jump course again and make a a couple of jumps with supervision (or even if they let you off supervision after one rock-solid jump, consider paying for a couple of coached jumps, it is a good investment for you). "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I think this was a silly stop and a simple pretext to harass somebody. I do not think they should have stopped him at all. I do believe that ultimately the police do have the ability to cite him, if indeed he crossed against a traffic signal, which best I can tell is the specific infraction he was charged with. I have searched google maps using zoom and street view and cannot, to this point, find the particular intersection he was alleged to have crossed. I do think he has to identify himself if he is cited, although he does not have to provide a physical ID. He is within his rights to ask if this is a custodial stop and he is within his rights to walk away if it is not. I do not think the man posed any threat to the officers, the public, or himself. I believe that the force used was well above that minimally necessary to perform their duties. I don't see any level of violence being used by the suspect. I see ample evidence for a charge of resisting without violence. Do you see anything that indicates that a charge of resisting with violence or a charge of battery on a police officer is warranted? I am not asking whether it is standard procedure in cases of this type, because I am well aware that the officers will hit you with every charge conceivably possible to cover their ass and make their assault appear warranted. It is possible that he hit the officer while thrashing as volts went through his body but I do not see any act of violence out of him. I am very critical of law enforcement because there are way too many instances of people using their badge as a pretext to harass and assault people, as in this video. Unfortunately when you are a citizen on the receiving end of harassment and bullying then you have next to no recourse. I don't know anything about that but I will look into it. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

so let him walk away? Choose which laws to enforce? Yes, let him walk away. He posed no threat to anybody. He did not endanger himself or anybody else by crossing against the signal. The police escalated the situation then assaulted him then made up some bogus, trumped up charges to try to cover their ass. Florida already sets priorities for law enforcement. The listed priorities indicate that it is only a priority to enforce pedestrian violations when they lead to cars having to swerve or brake forcefully. These policemen obviously had an agenda other than guarding public safety. This is not up to your usual high standards. I didn't see any evidence to controvert the criminal charges; yet you insist the police made it up. Logically, letting this guy walk away is the equivalent of letting traffic violations go if the driver doesn't care to pull over when signaled. Is that your suggestion? He broke the law. The officers attempted to deal with it in an appropriate fashion. The guy refused. He was arrested. He resisted arrest. The officers handled it extremely well. The cops were within their right to issue him a citation. They were not within their rights to escalate the sitatuion to violence. They were not within their rights to charge the guy with trumped up charges. These were cops clearly looking for a pre-textual stop. Yup, the guy should have provided his name an address when the cop wrote him a citation, but I find a lot more to criticize in the cops for needlessly escalating a situation to a violent confrontation. If there is no need to escalate force, then the cops should not escalate force. They are trained specifically with non-violent methods to handcuff passively resisting subjects, as this guy was. If they can't figure out, between the two of them, how to get handcuffs on a guy standing still, then they need to be sent back to training. I'd suggest as a first step that they tell the guy he's under arrest and start reading him his rights. That may be enough to notify him that it's serious enough that he should stop trying to demand a statute number and should shut up and put his hands behind his back. As a second step, they should tell the guy that since they're arresting him, if he doesn't put his hands behind his back, then he's resisting arrest, and that's an additional, potential felony charge. All of this could be accomplished easily within those 30 seconds, and a lot more efficiently than shoving a taser into the guy's face. He's also not as likely to pull 20 feet away at that point. Leave the taser for when he does an affirmative action, like pushing them, running, etc. Standing still does not qualify. The taser is not a compliance device. It's a less-violent alternative to a gun. You wouldn't shoot someone for not putting their hands behind their back if they're not doing anything else, so you shouldn't tase them either. The woman with the camera should not have kept yelling at the officers (not helpful, plus extremely distracting with her video). She should not have been carrying without a license. Nonetheless, this guy was very fortunate this incident was caught on video. Without video he most likely would have been injured much worse. He also likely would not be able to fight the ridiculous trumped up charges of battery on a police officer and resisting with violence. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

so let him walk away? Choose which laws to enforce? Yes, let him walk away. He posed no threat to anybody. He did not endanger himself or anybody else by crossing against the signal. The police escalated the situation then assaulted him then made up some bogus, trumped up charges to try to cover their ass. Florida already sets priorities for law enforcement. The listed priorities indicate that it is only a priority to enforce pedestrian violations when they lead to cars having to swerve or brake forcefully. These policemen obviously had an agenda other than guarding public safety. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I believe that being tased and then cuffed resulted in less injury to him and to the officers as opposed to if they had used force to subdue him. There was no reason to use force at all. Frankly the whole thing smacks of the guy being harassed for WWB. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I wouldn't think the loitering statute has anything to do with it either but it is the authority I can find for a police officer to require ID. Can you cite a statutory authority for the officer to ask for an ID under Florida law? He did ask once if he was being detained and he was told he was not. At that point he should have stopped all interaction with the officer and walked away. instead the police officers tasered him three times and then arrested him and charged him--"Peurifoy is facing charges of resisting with violence and battery on a law enforcement officer" Did anybody see any resisting with violence? Any batter on a police officer? I sure didn't. Trump up charges. Good thing it was on video or I bet he would have come out of it with some serious bruises, broken bones, etc. Here's what Taser says about their products "Our industry leading Electronic Control Devices (ECDs) are used worldwide by law enforcement, military, correctional, professional security, and personal protection markets. TASER ECDs use proprietary technology to incapacitate dangerous, combative, or high-risk subjects who pose a risk to law enforcement/correctional officers, innocent citizens, or themselves in a manner that is generally recognized as a safer alternative to other uses of force." Does anybody believe that this guy was dangerous, combative, or high risk or posed a risk to law enforcement officers, innocent citizens, or himself? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

According to what I can read in the law (and I freely admit that I am not an expert) the police can ask for an ID in the circumstances listed in the statute above. They are also explicitly free to ask for an ID anytime they take you into custody. They are not allowed, under the law, to simply stop you and ask you for ID when you are not in custody. The victim would have been better advised to ask if he was under arrest or whether he was free to go then to consistently ask the officers for a statute. Regardless, the officers did not have any authority to ask him for ID unless they were arresting him. (this is different for traffic stops and also different in other states). The officers never say that he was being stopped for jaywalking, unless I missed it. Officers are not allowed to arrest you for exercising your rights, as they apparently did with this guy. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Well, that would make it pretty easy to murder anyone you wanted to. Just carry a gun around, pick a fight with someone, and then shoot them in "self defense." That Texas guy who was posted about earlier in this thread wouldn't be in jail right now if the law allowed for this. The Florida Statute anticipates and explicitly allows shooting somebody in such a situation. The text of the statute includes some requirements but you absolutely can pick a fight with somebody, back off (or give the appearance of same) in some manner, and then shoot them and claim Stand your Ground. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I saw officers following their use of force continuum to the letter. Someone they saw breaking a law was not complying with a lawful request to show ID. Now... how does stopping a jaywalker escalate to someone being tazed? We saw it on video. Having someone with you interfering with police business doesn't help the situation. Refusing lawful request doesn't help the situation. Don't lay this all on the officers. Officers on the street follow established procedures. If you start asking that they use their own judgement, then you start asking them to ignore policy and process. Is that what you really want? Something is wrong when the use of force continuum involves tazing somebody who is not resisting and poses no threat of harm to anybody, including the officers. I do not believe the cops ever had the ability to require the man to provide ID, as the Florida "stop and identify" statute is pretty explicit in limiting the officers ability to demand ID to instances of loitering or prowling. Maybe that is why the officers did not want to provide an explanation or cite a statute. Here is the text of the FL code: 856.021 Loitering or prowling; penalty.— (1) It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. (2) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern. (3) Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Frankly I am shocked at hoe freely and frequently people on here who claim to be conservatives are willing to dispense with civil liberties. Civil liberties are for all of us and protect all of us. These cops should be investigated for violations of the 14th amendment. The city may also be liable for a large lawsuit (if there is a lawyer willing to take the case on contingency). "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. That is entirely irrelevant to this article, which is about TANF and the requirements for states in that program. That is a totally and completely separate program from Social Security. Usually when politicians talk about "welfare" they are talking about TANF. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I didn't see officers reacting to disrespect. Did you see a valid reason for the officers to tazer that person? I saw a man who was not resisting and posed absolutely no threat. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Graston is a common treatment for Illotibial band syndrome, which is common in runners. It is a sort of form of active release therapy (technically both of these therapies are proprietary, but the similarities are pretty obvious). It has a pretty good rate of success for ITBS. There are a bunch of videos on the web demostrating it. I haven't had Graston but did have ART. Not comfortable but effective. I don't know anything about using it on the shoulder. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Citizens have no duty to respect police officers. The police officers totally overreacted and repeatedly escalated that situation. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

3.5K of the 90's is about 5.5k of 2010 After following these forms for a few years I understand what you mean, but why is this so? Why has the current perception of "low" gotten higher? Do canopys open slower nowadays? Are newer jumpers less skilled at quickly getting stable? Is it current training that discourages low (2k-3k) altitude exit skills? Are folks dying more from low altitude exits? Is it use of AAD's? I was trained with the early AFF methods that required at least one low exit to graduate and I went on to do many low exits just for fun or for safety reasons (the plane was on fire at the time) I was not unusualy skilled, bold or scared either, it seems it was just more common to do jump and dumps then. More students trained AFF than static line. More snivel in canopies mean people open higher. Wider AAD use, combined w/ snivel means that more people open higher. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Yes, it is an interesting topic. Thanks for your reply, it was helpful in my understanding. Can the Vigil collect data (so it can improve its results) while still not being allowed to fire? Is there a reason it has such a low arming altitude (I know this has been covered before but I just can't remember). "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Hi Nigel, I am not an engineer [or in any kind of technical field]. Can you describe what a successive approximation algorithm is? Would the operation of the Vigil be harmed in any way if it armed higher? Why does it arm at the low altitude? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Are you a student? Most dropzones want clear goggles on their students. Talk to your instructor. If you are licensed then at least here in the states you are allowed to use whatever you want. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

SSI is means tested. It is not paid to surviving children. Both of your statements are true when applied to SSDI but not SSI. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Just seen a few Romney adds here Iowa was supposed to be a safe Obama vote I guess I was wrong I don't really notice it (since I try to ignore ads and don't watch much TV) but my daughter pointed out that Obama ads are outpacing Romney ads by a wide margin here in VA. VA has been mostly a Republican presidential state for 40+ years but Obama won it last time. I haven't paid attention to state polls here but will have to look at it. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

We are mixing apples and oranges here. SSI (supplemental security income), although administered by the same Social Security Administration that administers Social Security benefits, is not funded through Social Security taxes and is not an earned benefit. It is for people who do not have enough of a work record (enough quarters of credit) to draw on the disability benefits portion of Social Security. Perhaps you were thinking of SSDI--different programs. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Very courageous of Mr. Chambers. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/07/us/a-leaders-renunciation-of-ex-gay-tenets-causes-a-schism.html?pagewanted=all Very interesting. Reparative therapy always seemed to me to be a very limited model based on accepting and enshrining that homosexual behavior and urges came only for psycho-social developmental factors. I never could believe that things were that simple. I did not know Spitzer had disowned his own article until I read it in there. I will have to look for information on that. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

In my (admittedly very limited) experience it has been the helicopter operator, not the DZO, who has been requesting the higher experience. I have usually seen B license and sometimes 100 jumps as requirements. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

He apparently has the touch of death as well. http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Restaurant-owner-dies-hours-after-Obama-visit-3689431.php No Autopsy, wonder what else he is hiding. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Yes; they clearly are ignoring the well documented 30% advantage of the prosthetic in the name of looking PC. Also, the fact he couldn't make the times necessary, so they changed or suspended the requirements to get him in - ridiculous. Just to be clear, Pistorus met the qualifying times set by the IOC and neither the IOC nor the CAS changed anything to allow him to run. Athletes south Africa is one fo the countries that has set higher standards for their athletes to compete than just meeting the IOC standard (Canada and New Zealand are other countries that do this) and Athletics South Africa apparently waived their higher qualification for him. Which is what I said in different words. Basically, they bent their own criteria to let him in. That makes it no question that he is receiving special treatment. The only question is why, and my opinion is that they want to look politically progressive and correct. It's going to bite them in the ass one way or another because drawing the line on when and what kind of mechanical devices can be used is going to get very messy. OK, it was a little unclear to me who had the PC agenda and who was bending what rules. Athletics South Africa changed the standards for qualifying for their Olympic team. ASA is a hopelessly corrupt and mismanaged body. I don't know what their PC agenda is, it appears to me they just want to win as many medals as possible. CAS made what is, IMHO, a bad ruling on the advantage question. I do not know what their motivation was for that ruling. They did not have all of the evidence they could have, so it is possible the ruling was sound based on the evidence presented. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Yes, there is no way to anticipate every possible situation. Many things have to be decided on an individual basis. The CAS concluded (wrongly and based on incomplete evidence in my opinion, but my opinion is not relevant) that the blades did not give him an advantage. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"