yoink

That's a joke of a suggestion. It's straight out of fantasy. What sfzombie is suggesting is the absolute best possible outcome. You have to consider what happens if the throw misses. Or doesn't distract the assailant enough. Now you've got the same situation with someone getting stabbed and I guarantee you that every single one of you would be on here absolutely CRUCIFYING the officer when that bodycam footage was released.

Irrelevant to this situation. We're dealing with what actually happened, and what should happen in America. Cops aren't going to be disarmed here, ever, so it's a pointless conversation to compare a completely different policing and cultural structure. A better question would be 'did the cop follow procedure, and if we think those procedures are wrong how should they be changed?' Given that the police force will always be armed in the US, how are the procedures written for an armed police force in a way that protects both the civilians and AND the police to the best ability.

There’s been a shit amount of armchair quarterbacking going on around this case before any evidence was seen. Including in here. Your post sums up my feelings on it, having seen the video. Tragic but justifiable use of force.

Dude. A year ago you were a poster who I thought was worth reading - your posts were generally well constructed and thought out. But you've lost the plot on this vaccine stuff to the point where in my mind you're now fringe-lunatic on the subject. You've doubled down on your misunderstanding of the science for the past 7 months or so, with no sign of stopping. Look at what you're typing. In the same paragraph you go from 'half of americans have taken the vaccine' (which is demonstrably wrong with even the simplest google search), to 'literally the entire population has taken it'. You're not even consistent in your attempt to get your crazy across. Science uses facts, not hyperbole. I get it - you want people vaccinated. So do I. But this isn't the way to get your message across. I don't want an argument. This is my one attempt to try and get you to see that you're not in a good place when it comes to posting on this subject. If you choose not to believe me, so be it.

I suspect they did, but won’t admit to it - at least not to their neighbors. I’ve heard of a load of that going on.

I don’t envy the job of the prison warden and guards trying to make sure he does.

I'm no lawyer. He said it was the 'Merger' doctrine? I'm looking at the message now and he says ' he may or may not get sentenced on all three charges' and 'if one offense is essentially a lesser included offense of another, you can't be sentenced on both' and that it comes down to the statutory elements of the charges which may be something the lawyers and judge hash out during sentencing. If you know the details of why he's wrong let me know and I'll pass it on, but I'm not just going to say 'some dudes on the internet say you're wrong' to him.

He may well only get sentenced on one charge. If someone is convicted of theft and armed robbery as two charges, for example, they only get charged for the armed robbery one as theft is a subset of that and you can’t be charged twice for the same crime. Double jeopardy and all. At least that’s how a lawyer friend explained it to me.

20 years in jail or packing tandems? Tough call.

Really? You want that on you? Rather you than me, Joe.

" Indianapolis police say a gunman who opened fire at a FedEx warehouse killing eight people had legally bought the two assault rifles he used, despite having a shotgun confiscated months earlier. Brandon Hole's mother had warned about his mental state last March and police had taken a gun he owned away from him. But he was subsequently able to buy two assault rifles in July and September." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56791321 This is why there should be no sales allowed by unlicensed dealers. This is why there needs to be a database that includes mental health. You could hardly dream up more of a gimmie to identify someone who shouldn't have been able to buy a gun. Yet this guy could, and did. The entire concept of an industry that is federally regulated by having licenses to sell a product, but then also allows sales by unlicensed people as well is insane. It's an all or nothing thing. You either require regulation or you don't.

I missed that post. They were selling inserts that held a mask AWAY from the face? Way to miss the point, Florida. *golf clap

The degrees of murder thing always seems strange to me. Either you meant to kill someone or you didn’t, but that might be my UK showing through. I still don’t believe Chauvin meant to kill Floyd but didn’t care if he did. Which for me is manslaughter with some sort of insanity attached.

Finally got my J&J vaccine yesterday. That’s a weight off the mind. Felt a bit foggy that afternoon but am fine now. I’m sure Bill Gates will enjoy knowing what my left arm is doing from now on.

It really REALLY does. You don’t get to state a cause of death just because it wasn’t mentioned in a coroners report. That’s a new level of crazy.

Your own mental fiction ensures you’re not going to be happy about the outcome of this trial, and that’s because the trial is based on a different set of facts, not your personal belief. And the FACTS are the official report of the medical examiner. Personally I think he’ll get done for manslaughter, unless something comes up showing a prior relationship and hostility. And I also think that if that’s the charge he’s gotten off light. I don’t think he MEANT to kill Floyd, I just don’t think he gave a shit if he did. And that’s an issue.

I honestly didn't see that thread (or at least I don't remember reading it) but what tells me is that if we can come up with something so close, independently, there MUST be a reasonable consensus that is able to be reached.

BIGUN's posts on the matter seem reasonable to me. There are two things that people need to agree to for any movement to be made on this. First - the 2nd Amendment isn't going away. There is zero chance of a constitutional amendment being written to ban guns. A gunman could storm the capitol, wipe out the sitting government and the next one STILL wouldn't pass that legislation. Even talking about it does nothing more than generate resistance to any sort of future legislation in gun owners minds. It's self defeating. Second - what we're doing isn't working. Every law passed gets watered down so much as to be basically ineffectual, while at the same time making future laws more difficult to pass. This is the entire function of the NRA. (well, that and defrauding members). I've long thought there are a number of changes that would make a difference without limiting the rights granted by the constitution and having some chance of adoption in a meaningful way. 1 - The background checks and gun show / private seller loopholes. These need to change. Every gun purchase must go through a dealer who does the appropriate checks. You can order a gun at a show, or buy one from your buddy, but the actual firearm effectively goes through a licensed escrow before you can get it. 2 - The waiting period for all guns needs to be expanded. There should be no possible way that if you're pissed off on a Monday then you can go on a killing spree on the Tuesday. Give everyone a month to cool off at least. Those two are easy to write into legislation. Now for some tougher ones. 3 - While you have a right own guns, that right CAN be removed from you under specific and detailed circumstances. This would require a database of who owns what guns, which comes with complications of its own, but these are not insurmountable. Commit a class 'x' felony and get convicted? Part of your sentence is that you have to give up all of the guns registered in your name or face an extension of your sentence. You get them back 2 years after your sentence is complete under the condition that you haven't been arrested again (or something like this) - the precise wording would need to be worked out. Use your weapon in a dangerous way (misfire in your house, threaten a spouse etc) - you lose them for a period of time. *Some sort of provision for mental health has to go in here, and the discussion what constitutes a red flag I think could be a different thread in itself. Things like this. 4 - You have to have completed a training course suitable for the type of weapons you own, and you have to stay current on it. Now, both of these come with some serious logistical and admin issues, so they're harder to implement. Now for the realm of fantasy. 5- Guns MUST be secured to a particular standard. Your teenage son can't be able to get hold of it when he's had a bad day. 6 - New guns must come with a device that simply prevents them from firing outside of approved areas. Take a gun to a cinema? It isn't going to work. Someone breaks into your home, it will. The technology to do this isn't that complicated if we WANTED to. But I don't see it happening. I've talked in more detail about how this could work before. If this solution was implemented then you could remove ALL limitations on gun ownership - own any gun or ammunition you want.

I meant it rhetorically, not as a direct question of your idea. I could have worded it much better.

What do tandem students or even skydivers know about FAA paperwork? What paperwork should they be able to see? What should they be looking for?

Hey. Good charcoal is a serious thing. I’ve still got a little bintochan charcoal from a previous purchase. I use it sparingly, but it’s fantastic. It’s a wierd material - almost crystalline. If you tap two pieces together it rings like ceramic.

As usual, Wendy expresses my thoughts exactly. STOP READING MY MIND! It’s creepy.

A whole 7 semesters, huh? Wow. Truly. Your expertise on science is unparalleled.

There’s some anecdotal evidence coming out of my friends in the uk who are working in the vaccine Programme that the reactions with the astra-Zeneca seem worse after the first shot, while those with Pfizer seem worse after the second. There’s a lot of variability from person to person though.