chuckbrown

Touche. I'll leave this thread to the UK posters.

That's the case with most states. Actually, I'm not aware of any states where gender matters. If there's sexual contact without consent, there's a criminal violation irrespective of the sex of the perpetrator or victim.

That'll depend on the canopy size, winds, your weight. No matter how long it takes, if you do it up high you'll get a chance to see how the canopy responds to different control inputs without having to worry about the ground eating you up. You'll never learn the stall point just by landing since you never actually go into a full stall until after your feet touch the ground (hopefully).

People are free to ignore your posts and not respond if they don't want to. No need to apologize. As they say there are no stupid questions, just questions asked by stupid people. Just kiddin'.

It's a good idea to practice stalls at a relatively high altitude so you'll know at what point the canopy will stall. You may eventually find yourself landing off the DZ and having to sink your canopy into a very tight landing area. By knowing the stall point, you won't accidently stall your canopy at too low an altitude to fully recover. Plus, it's fun to play with your canopy.

You're right it's a family issue, not one for the Congress or the President to get involved in.

I've been waiting for someone to bring this up. Pulling the plug is good enough for DeLay and his family unless he can score political points by being against it. Now for everyone who says a feeding tube is different from a ventilator, have at it.

It's all about looking good going to the plane.

I'm pretty sure you're gonna get beaten by people wanting the rig for themselves. Even if they have no concept of how it works.

Betcha didn't know that Pakistan paid for these planes 15 years ago, but was hosed by the Congress when their nuclear program was revealed. Congress said no planes, but we'll keep the money. Ah, our representatives... gotta love 'em. Good for Bush. He's secured Pakistan's alliance for years to come. The Indian's will get over this. Hell, both countries are already nuclear powers, so how the hell are F-16s gonna tip the balance of power?

Glen Beck's radio program had a couple of callers who witnessed first hand about the antics of this Schiavo character. The one said that Schiavo tried to recruit him into a male prostitution ring when he was in the 9th grade, and the other said he was in the same maternity ward with Schiavo (as new-borns)and saw him crawl out of his bassinette and smother a baby in the next bassinette. Seriously, why shouldn't Schiavo get on with his life? He's known for 15 years that his wife will never recover. And she never will no matter what the Cheshire Quack says. If I'm ever like that, my SO better get on with her life because we're all gonna die and we better make the best of life while we can. As for Schiavo's credibility and motives, I think the courts have probably seen a few more cases like this than any of us and are in a much better position to make the decisions they've made. And with much less emotion. This is a sad case of one part of the family that wants to move on and another part of the family that can't let go of their daughter and have an obvious hatred of their son-in-law.

D'oh!

'Cuz it's on a skydiving website?

Coulda fooled me - mine's working fine. Firefox

The doctors have said she will never recover. This is not like the case of a person who came out of a coma. Her cerebral cortex has disintegrated and has been replaced by spinal fluid (according to the medical testimony). Her brain's not just dead, it's gone and nothing will bring it back. What's happening to Terry happens everyday across the country. What's the difference? A political connection to the President's brother who's been involved in this case for years. This is a loathsome and disgusting spectacle.

I was trying to help the original poster with answers to his question without him having to wait for everybody to chime in with their .02 on this topic. Feel free to discuss.

While I'm not a Southerner, I can say that I made the very same statement (the war's over, you lost, get over it) to a very proper Tennessee belle I was dating. She damned near ripped my balls off. This is a very sensitive issue in many parts of the South. Mainly among people with nothing better to do.

We had an instructor in our static line course handling the radio to help students land. The first thing he'd say when their canopy opened was "You're gonna die." Me personally, I was very scared, but as soon as I was out of the plane I knew it was where I belonged. This is an incredible sport.

Be careful where you say that or some good ole boys'll make you squeal like a pig.

I think that plane had hare brakes.

Unless his prior testimony is inconsistent with what he testified at the present trial, it's hearsay. (Edited to add: actually it is hearsay, but admissible under an exception). I didn't make up the rules, I just know them. You can question him at the second trial, and then say "well that's not what you said at an earlier trial, now is it?" And then go back to his prior testimony to show that it's different. If in the current trial, your investigator says "I do A for murder investigations," you can introduce his prior testimony if he said "I do B for murder investigations." The defense point being that the investigator does a poor job of investigating crime and his conclusions can't be trusted.

As they say, shut up and jump. You'll be glad you did.

If you don't have the witness in court testifying, it's hearsay, unless an exception applies. The whole purpose behind the hearsay rule is for the witness to come forward and be seen and heard by the jury so they can look the witness in the eye and decide whether they want to believe them.

If you're asking the defendant, it's generally not admissible to do that on the theory that you want the jury to convict for the crime charged not because the defendant is a bad person (had prior convictions). If you're asking that of a witness it may be admissible if you're seeking to impeach the credibility of the witness and the prior crime was for, say, fraud. An aggravated assault conviction probably wouldn't be admissible to impeach a witness for his credibility, but, then again the judge might allow it.

Hearsay: An out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. If it was said out of court and is being offered for the truth of the statement it's hearsay and is inadmissible. Unless one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule applies, but that's another lesson.