skypuppy

These are not civilians, though... The point being that these "toys" can do some serious damage... More than your average handgun. We give up A LOT of personal freedoms in the name of safety... A simple every-day example: you can't drive a car at whatever speed you like... As a society, we have decided that beyond a certain speed is just too dangerous. Even though most of the time nothing at all happens, it is just not worth the risk. In a similar way, some people would ban semi or fully automatic riffles for civilians - because the potential harm that can be done is too big. Do people who drive still speed despite it being illegal? Yes. Do people still own/use illegal weapons? Yes. Most people would agree that speed limits, annoying as they are, *do* increase safety. Why are gun lovers so reluctant to admit that some limits in gun ownership would do the same? Now if the law is not enforced and the crime is too rampant, they may be right... But at what point is personal freedom (to own a gun for "fun") overridden by safety (because too many people who SHOULDN'T own one CAN get one - totally legally)? so take a look at the statistics - what, less than 10 PERCENT of homicides are carried out with long guns, only a FRACTION OF THOSE are carried out with ar-15s. Something north of SIXTY PERCENT are carried out with handguns, which you seem to saying are safe. Why ban something that's only responsible for a bare fraction of the homicides? Is it because the media hypes up 4 or 5 incidents a year where ar-15 might be used (and that couldn't have been carried out with any other type of gun?) If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Really, you don't believe that it could be a combination of the two? Some inherent understanding with some parental guidance? nope. not at all. If you grow up south of the border in mexico, your whole being is totally different from someone growing up north of the border. that's why you have law enforcement officers running drugs and protection, people going to a witch doctor to find out what to do in business deals, etc. morals are trained thing - and a luxury for many. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

This is what people seem to be ignoring when they bitch about higher pull altitudes. I don't think it's incorrect to say that every single jumper who went in with a partially deployed reserve will still be alive today if they had another 500 ft. . don't believe this for a minute. I believe you could safely say 'some' of these jumpers who went in with a partially deployed reserve might still be alive, but if the bag's trapped in the pack tray, 2 1/2 seconds more freefall isn't necessarily going to bring it out... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

these two brazilian murders both from this weekend... this one from the latin american herald tribune Tourist Murdered in Brazilian Resort City RIO DE JANEIRO – A 24-year-old tourist from Argentina was murdered in Buzios, a resort city in Brazil’s Rio de Janeiro state, during an argument with a man over a tour package, police said. Marcelo Alejandro Fernandez Vilac was shot early Saturday during a heated argument on one of the main streets in Buzios, a resort city on the coast of northern Rio de Janeiro state that has become popular with Argentine tourists. Carlos Alberto Gomes de Jesus, who sells tour packages, was identified as the shooter, police said. “This man was recognized by eyewitnesses, including people who were with the Argentine at the time of the crime, as the author of the shot,” precinct chief Mario Jose Lamblet said. “We have released a photo of him to the press,” Lamblet said, adding that “he has been in contact with police and said he wants to surrender.” Investigators found the weapon used in the murder during the search for the suspect, Lamblet said. Gomes de Jesus allegedly sold the Argentine tourist tickets for the Samba school parade in Rio de Janeiro, the main event during the city’s Carnival, eyewitnesses said. Fernandez Vilac, who had been in Brazil for about a month, had repeatedly demanded his tickets and the dispute ended with the shooting. Buzios, where the Southern Hemisphere tourist season is at its peak, is full of tourists who plan to attend the Carnival in Rio de Janeiro, located 191 kilometers (118 miles) away. Or maybe this one... Italian Tourist Murdered in Brazil RIO DE JANEIRO – An Italian tourist was shot to death during a mugging in the northeastern Brazilian city of Fortaleza, police said Monday. Giuseppe Paparone, 52, was killed Sunday night by criminals who mugged him as he was waiting with his friends for a mechanic to arrive to fix a problem with the group’s vehicle. Two armed men riding bicycles arrived at the site of the breakdown and, after forcing the tourists to give up their belongings, they fired several times without any apparent motive at Paparone and then took flight, police said. The friends of the victim took him to the General Hospital in Fortaleza, where Paparone was pronounced dead on arrival. Shortly thereafter, police captured one of the killers, who was recognized by the dead man’s friends. Fortaleza, the capital of the state of Ceara, is one of the main tourist centers in northeastern Brazil, particularly for Italians, Germans and Portuguese. EFE If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

hmmm. let's see, I guess you're wrong on both counts... http://www.laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=14095&ArticleId=406129 LIMA – The Polish couple that went missing more than a month ago in the Peruvian jungle was murdered during a robbery while boating down a river in Peru’s Ucayali region, police told Efe. Jaroslaw Frackiewicz, 70, and Celina Mroz, 58, were killed on May 26 or May 27 as they rowed their kayak down the Urubamba River, having come to Peru to enjoy that sport, police in the city of Atalaya said. When the Polish couple was reported missing that had been seen for the last time in Atalaya on May 25, police launched an investigation that led to the arrest of a 29-year-old Peruvian citizen. That individual, a member of the Shaninka tribe, confessed during questioning that he had witnessed the crime, though he blamed it on the two people he was with at the time. The three Peruvians were drinking the traditional alcoholic beverage masato when they saw the Polish couple coming down the river and decided to rob them, the suspect said. One of the Peruvians then supposedly fired his shotgun and wounded Frackiewicz, after which the three boarded a canoe to catch up with the kayak and finish off the two tourists. They later dismembered the bodies, weighted down the remains with rocks and sank them into the depths of the river, according to two witnesses who saw the suspected murderers rowing the Polish couple’s kayak. Some of the couple’s belongings were found at the home of the only suspect under arrest, police said. The investigation continues as authorities search for the other two suspects, who apparently fled the area. or, a different case, same circumstances.... David du Plessis, 24 from Cape Town, S. Africa shot while kayaking on the Ucayali River on 8/25/12. Still recovering with multiple bullets in his body, one in the muscle of his heart. David was left for dead but was determine to not die in the * with his parents never finding his body or what happened to him. So he ran for hours with bullets in his head, back, chest, leg to find someone to help him. Finally some remote villagers took him for several hours by river to an area hospital to be airlifted to Lima. We are grateful he is recovering and because he is young will survive this ordeal .In David du Plessis' case, it was a South African brewery in Pucallya, Peru that paid for him to be airlifted to Lima for emergency surgery and intensive care until his family could reach him. The police were suppose to protect him and didn't. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I guess what they're trying to achieve is if people take too long on procedures, the aad can fire higher, which MAY allow it open the reserve before they bounce. But the only way to get the aad set higher is if the manufacturers are assured that people are deploying their mains high enuf that they will have no more liability after changing the activiation altitude. I still disagree with making EVERYONE comply with a rule that only some might benefit from. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

You should research the first decade of tandem jumping, then If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

If they're only raising the firing altitude 250 feet from 750 to 1 k, why wouldn't they just raise opening altitude to 2250, instead of 2500? Opening altitude in Canuckistan for experienced jumpers is 2200 If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Normal? No, not really. Possible, sure. Completely and totally. In a "real" blackout, the person can continue to interact, sometimes behaving normally, other times behaving way out of character. They may remember parts, some clearly, others hazily. Or they may remember absolutely nothing, sometimes over the span of a day or two. This isn't "convenient forgetting" to escape responsibility. This is genuine lack of recollection of events (again, a "real" blackout) They may pass out at some point, to awaken later with no idea where they are or how they got there. Or they may come out of the blackout in the middle of doing something. Again, with no idea where they are, how they got there or what they are doing. They aren't normal, they aren't funny. They are pretty dangerous. There's more than a few people in jails and prisons for doing stuff while in a blackout. They committed the crime and have no recollection of it. Some people laugh about them, but they are a pretty strong warning sign that the person needs to cut back. I guess it might depend on your definition of 'normal'. As you yourself said, there's more than a few people in jails and prisons for doing stuff while in a blackout, and that's just the ones who got caught. So, especially considering that usually it's just someone being silly or mean or inappropriate, and not criminal (unless maybe dui), it is perhaps a lot more common than we like to think (again, though, not as much as when I was a teenager and beer was $6 for a 2-4 here in Ontario, and there was no driving under the influence charge). But if a substantial percentage of the population still does it, than maybe it is not 'not normal'. Or maybe it's normal for young people who drink? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

yup. I trust you to pack my student chutes, and tandem rigs. I trust you to drop my s/l students. i trust you to take up my tandem students, and train and jump with my pff students. But do I trust you to know when you can have a beer? Do I even just tell you to hold off for a few minutes? No I actually have to go around and TAKE your beer away from you. and next week there'll be another post about something else, and then the week after, something else. but you stay there, Peter... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

This. Best post in the thread to answer the "double standard," and nobody even responded. This just in..you just did. The whole point of this case was that there was absolutely no reason " For that matter, deadly force in self defense that gets challenged in court doesn't happen very often." That's why the special prosecutor in this case should be disbarred for bypassing a grand jury AND for prosecutorial malpractice in not presenting exculpatory evidence. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Did Bush look at Baghdad and lobby that the policies that led to the devastation of Baghdad should be put into effect everywhere so that the whole of the US can be similar? Obama has used Dubya as his model for being President. Might as well use Chicago as a model for the country. OK, so why post pictures of somewhere that is NOT Chicago? THIS is Obama's city. THIS is Obama's city. THIS is Obama's city. obama had absolutely f'n nothing to do with building that city. He was lucky to be there. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Seriously? You actually took me literally? OK, whatever. something about a boy crying 'wolf' too many times... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

...which is why cowboys are so terrifying. I've made my point, multiple times now. I'm done. You 'think' you've made your point. But then again it was TM's actions, not his race, that caused Z to look at him twice. Again, he was 'acting weird and looking like he was on drugs'. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Oh, stop. I addressed this silliness several times in that other thread you started. Your little for-the-record disclaimer notwithstanding, he wasn't "thug looking"; he was a young black male who was casually dressed; and it's asinine on multiple levels to describe wearing a hooded sweatshirt as "thug looking". He was profiled because he was acting 'like he was on drugs' - and, it turns out that he was on drugs. The whole case was a waste of resources, and it's too bad zimmerman can't sue the state for going after him without a case. The special prosecutor who by-passed a grand jury should be disbarred over this. (and the pres should be censured for sticking his oar into an open case). If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Being from across the pond what is it to you? Why don't you worry about the muslims who decapitated that soldier walking on the streets of london and whether they'll get fair trials, considering it was all on tape? There are at least a half-dozen Canadian DZ.com-ers (can you think of any?) who regularly participate in SC threads about issues or events occurring in the US. And that's just one example of how we all discuss events in multiple countries. It's pretty hypocritical for you to hold Skyrad to a different standard. Discuss, maybe. Don't usually bring it up. And with the similar situation in UK right now, why not ask about that? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Come on Rob... I'm simply wondering with the recent highly publicized decapitation of a soldier in the UK by muslim terrorist-types why he has to ask if the boston bomber can get a fair trial. what's the difference with the uk situation?> If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

In canada unless a position of trust or dependency is violate, age of consent is 14. PRB 99-3E Print Copy CANADA'S LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT TO SEXUAL ACTIVITY Amendments to the Criminal Code in 1988 repealed the aforementioned unlawful intercourse and seduction offences. In their place, Bill C-15 created new offences called "sexual interference" and "invitation to sexual touching" that now prohibit adults from engaging in virtually any kind of sexual contact with either boys or girls under the age of 14, irrespective of consent. Introduced at the same time, the offence of "sexual exploitation" also makes it an offence for an adult to have any such contact with boys and girls over 14 but under 18, where a relationship of trust or authority exists between the adult and child. In summary then, except for the offences of buggery and gross indecency, the age of consent for sexual activity has at no time been set higher than 14 in Canada, although prior laws did make men vulnerable to prosecution for sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, 18, or even 21 in certain qualified circumstances. As noted above, the 1988 amendments to the Criminal Code repealing those provisions were contained in Bill C-15, which was introduced by the then Justice Minister, Ramon Hnatyshyn. CURRENT LAW The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Being from across the pond what is it to you? Why don't you worry about the muslims who decapitated that soldier walking on the streets of london and whether they'll get fair trials, considering it was all on tape? If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

As if GZ could have caught TM. Really. He was out of shape. We know he didn't catch him, Martin came back. And Martin was not a whole lot smaller than GZ, we also know he enjoyed street-fighting. Your sympathies are somewhat misplaced. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

The evidence showed that Martin was the attacker. Are we talking about the same case? I missed that evidence. Can you expand on that? I heard testimony both ways on who the voice yelling for help was... Where was the evidence that showed Martin attacked Zimmerman (after running away and being chased down by Zimmerman.....)? IMO you come running me down after I have tried to get away, THAT is the first act of aggression. From then on I am defending myself. I welcome the evidence that showed Martin was the one who initiated contact body to body though. I see a young kid much less mature and physically capable as Zimmerman, who was chased down by an armed older man, and killed....I am 29 years old...I would never chase a 17 year old kid down and assault/murder him....much less while being on the phone with 911.....after witnessing NOTHING other than a kid walking down the street. I know you were military, you guys shoot first ask questions later. I am a peaceful cat, I ask questions, and then RUN AWAY like Martin did, and pray someone all militant like Zimmerman doesn't chase me down and kill me. Ultimately here it seems it boils down to the old schoolyard "Who threw the first punch" I would argue chasing someone down in an aggressive manner is the first punch, but I welcome opposing views that it must be an actual assault...I just saw no evidence presented of who threw the first punch....other than self serving statements of the winner.. Post that evidence up. You think GZ could have 'run down' TM and still had enuf breath left to talk to him, let alone attack him? Come on man, you saw him, he's out of shape! Anyway, much of the time GZ was 'running down' TM he was on the phone to 911 -- didn't sound to me like he was running. Your scenario is very unlikely. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Actually, it should have gone to a grand jury where they would have decided there wasn't enuf evidence to warrant a charge, let alone get a conviction...for anything... If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

Exactly the question I raised way back towards the beginning of this thread when SYG was being discussed. I think the defense pretty much abandoned the SYG aspect of self-defense early on.Sure, the defense didn't invoke SYG, although the juror who has been talking to Anderson Cooper has brought it up, so it apparently influenced her thinking at least. What intrigues me is that the same people who have been so vocal in support of SYG through this and other discussions now say Martin should have just gone home. I'm curious in a general sort of way, not just in regard to this particular case: how can you say that people who feel threatened have no duty to retreat, yet say if Martin felt threatened, he should have just gone home. Why should one person have backed down but not the other? What rule governs that? Is the guy with the concealed gun always in the right, by default? It would seem so. Again, it's too bad in this particular case that neither participant backed down. Don TM had no reason to feel threatened and therefore no reason to SYG. GZ followed him at a distance, talking on the phone. That is not threatening. Hell, he was far enuf ahead that GZ lost sight of him. THEN TM doubled back and started wailing on GZ. That is assault, and GZ is allowed to defend himself. Doubling back and confronting someone who had actually lost sight of you is not STANDING YOUR GROUND. It is provoking a confrontation. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

All true. None of that has anything to do with how the fight started. Sure he did. I don't accept his unsworn statements at face value. Sure. Again, all that shows is that Zimmerman was losing. It doesn't speak to how the fight started. Holy shit, aren't you a lawyer? The fact that the evidence did not show that Zimmerman was the attacker is not the same as showing Martin was. It's simple logic. I hope you're just trying to use rhetoric, and don't think the two are logically equivalent. There's no evidence about how the fight started to reject. I accept that Zimmerman was losing when he shot Martin. That's pretty plain. There is no evidence about how he got into that position. And I'll reiterate for the with-us-or-agin-us crowd. I think Zimmerman should have been acquitted, due to LACK OF EVIDENCE. A grand jury should have failed to bring charges against Z due to LACK OF EVIDENCE If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

I'm curious why Martin should have just gone home, but it was perfectly fine for Zimmerman to get out of his truck and follow Martin. Granted, the confrontation would not have happened had either of them not acted as they did. But, why does "stand your ground" reasoning apply to Zimmerman and not Martin? When two people are in a place they are allowed to be, and not violating any laws, is there some super-secret rule that says who can "stand their ground" and who should back down and go home? Don well, I would say as a long time resident, GZ had every right to investigate and report a suspicious stranger (on drugs, was what he said). And even a duty as a member of neighborhood watch. Trayvon, a guest in the area, had no such duty. And following is not violating a law - sucker-punching someone is. If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead. Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone