Southern_Man

I wonder how many DRX are out there in the field? Any idea why the LES wsa introduced and then withdrawn? Of maybe it wasn't introduced? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

We've already covered that the detail of the unpaid fine is irrelevant to the issue. It certainly is not irrelevant when it is YOU that gets arrested. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Are these available on sport rigs? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I think this is exactly what happened. Of course I think Obama's comments were out of line, too. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I think you lose your medical and are not able to pilot at all if you are caught taking illegal drugs, however. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Dan, why don't you care about the children??? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

I was trying to figure out how the stand your ground law deals with somebody being taunted into a fight. Actually quite seperate from this particular incident, though that did give rise to the question. If I taunt somebody into a fight by telling him how good his sisters pussy was and then kill him since I feared for my life, would this law protect that type of behaviour? Well, once you've shot him dead then he can't testify to your words or actions but you can testify that he was physically threatening you, so... Again, to relate this back to the original crime, we don't know what words Zimmerman or Martin uttered, or who took the first steps towards the other one, who raised or threw a fist first, etc. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

OK, a search has revealed RiggerRob's post on the Strong MARD from PIA 2011--apparently it is intended for tandems. I admit that I don't fully understand all of this, it is all so much simpler with a diagram.: The reserve also includes a new type of MARD (Main Assisted Reserve Deployment). The "Air Anchor" RSL has a ring on the bottom that slides along the reserve bridle. A 1-ring release system - temporarily - attaches the RSL to the bridle and is held closed by a piece of black flex cable. If the RSL wins the race, it pulls against a (covered) bag-stop-ring and lifts the free-bag. If the pilot-chute wins the race, the ring (on the bottom of the RSL) slides away from the steel cable and the RSL dis-connects, similar to Socerer and Skyhook. SEI showed video Air Anchor drop tests. The reserve bridle configuration is not "frozen" so I suggested sewing on a stiffened (similar to a steering toggle) extra piece of webbing - or at a bare minimum sewing some contrasting thread to remind field riggers where to do the needle fold for the staging loop. SEI also said that all of their older canopies are compatible with the new system, to ease conversion costs for DZs that already operate Dual Hawks. They have tested SET 400 and SET 366 - as reserves - in various military rigs and will offer them as reserves in the new system. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Available - not sure. In development - Strong and Jerry B are working on designs. Not sure if they are on the market yet, but wanted to leave the option open as I just dunno... JW I believe the RAX is Jerry's design (actually an Infinity design) that is freely available to any rig manufacturer that wants it (no patent). I understand that Eric Fradet has a system but he intends it for military installation only? maybe? I do not know much at all about the Strong MARD in development. As I tend not to be an early adopterd I would want to see all of these things on the market for a while before I would be willing to adopt any of them...let other people be the beta testers and find out where the flaws and limitations are... "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

So, just a couple of questions.... What other MARDs are out there and available on sport gear besides the skyhook? I am aware some version of the RAX system was recently put on some gear in Europe, but I think that was military only. What is the proportion of jumps in which the Skyhook does not work as designed (using the cutaway main as a pilot chute) and simply works as an RSL? I've seen anecdotal reports that put this number as high as 10%, I don't know if that is accurate but it seems awfully high to me. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Is there still places to do that in the US? I thought there was some rule that donors can't be compensated with money. A place I used to go to would give you 2 movie tickets for donating, which was pretty nice. Yes, you can still sell plasma, at least. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You are doing that all by yourself. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Except as a practical matter, the fact that the police were so willing and capable of violating his rights in the first instance should give anybody cause to worry about handing over more power to the police in the second instance. At the very least, requiring a warrant before a strip search (as was routinely required before 9/11) would allow him to get in front of a judge sooner. What happened to him in an abomination. I hope he wins a huge lawsuit against the police department and town. Personally I think the police should be liable for false imprisonment charges, although I know that will never happen. I'm not sure why he did not raise a civil rights claim. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

You started this exact same topic last year: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4132897;search_string=new%20normal;#4132894 "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Albert Florence had paid his fine and had paperwork with him to prove that he had paid it. What would you have had him to do? "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

personally, the falsely arrested and jailed for multiple days leaps out as the bigger offence to liberty here. I also don't see how you can treat prisoners differently based on whether or not they may be guilty of a significant crime. All prisoners get the same process. They are both offenses to liberty to me. The fact that he was subject to such and unreasonable arrest and detention is just another reason why we should not be handing civil liberties over without judicial oversight. Before 9/11 the courts routinely required warrants for strip searches. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Check with me after a few hundred jumps.

He had already paid the fine--years earlier. He carried evidence with him that he had paid the fine. He carried that evidence because he had previously been stopped several times before. The cops did not care and arrested him anyway, despite him having committed no crime. At the very least having to go to court to justify the strip search might have given Albert Florence a chance to present his evidence before a judge earlier and prevented him from spending six days in jail. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Just my opinion but I don't think the justices are going to take to kindly to public grandstanding: "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

The reason to prohibit unreasonable search and seizure is the tendency of the government to wield their power capriciously and without restraint. Nothing illustrates that more than this case, in which the guy had ALREADY paid the fine and yet was detained, arrested, strip searched, and then held in jail for six days. That's horrible. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Every single time I've encountered the need for this sort of information, the company ALWAYS required a warrant (rightfully and thankfully so), barring some sort of exigent circumstances. 911-hangups with background noise that could indicate a situation in which someone could be in danger, that is one example of an exigent circumstance. Needing to track a drug dealer, that isn't an exigent circumstance and requires a warrant. So the short version based on my professional experience is as follows: 1. Information for investigations = warrant needed. 2. Information needed to immediately respond to help someone who may be in immediate danger = no warrant needed. It is good that is your experience, it appears that is not the universal experience based on the article and the ACLU report underlying it. Quite a few police departments reported not needing warrants to access that information. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

Yes, I believe a warrant should be needed. The fact that we even need to debate that shows how far civil liberties have been eroded in this country. It is disturbing that so many cell companies are apparently cooperating and even profiting from selling this information to police departments. AT&T, Bellsouth, Cricket, metroCPS, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon were all companies listed as supplying information (although in fairness it is unclear if any of them ONLY provided information with a warrant). Customers should contact their services providers. The only way to disable your GPS/Cell tracking is by removing the battery when your phone is not in use--some phones send-receive information even when off. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

This just seems, constitutionally, like a no-brainer. We are not a third world country that allows the government to suspend constitutional guarantees at any time. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

They should, since goverment pays for indigent burial costs. Where? I'd like to know. AFAIK, there is a small social security death benefit ($500 if memory serves me correctly. That is not based on anybody being indigent. There are no other government programs where I live that pay for indigent burial costs. "What if there were no hypothetical questions?"