AndyBoyd

I totally agree. That's the reason you need to carry at least three guns on you at all times. I've carried guns all of my life, i've only had to "throw down" one time. Be aware of your situation at all times. Do not put yourself in the position of having one of your weapons taken from you. There are tactics where if this does happen and it's the only weapon you have on you to keep them from pulling the trigger, get a finger behind the trigger and trigger guard. Always carry mace with you if you are going somewhere that's questionable. There's a dozen ways to keep this from happening. Personally if someone threatens me and i concieve it as an immenent danger to my life, property or someone else's property or life, i'll shoot to kill from a distance to where my primary cannot be taken from me and answer questions later. Thus the old adage: "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" Just out of curiosity, what do you do for a living that puts you at what you seem to perceive is a constant state of danger? I do understand that some jobs are dangerous by nature, ie. cop in an urban area, combat infantry, etc. If you are serious in your comment about being ready to shoot anyone you perceive as a threat, I recommend having a good criminal defense attorney on retainer. You are going to need one sooner or later.

Is this story real? Sounds like a hoax. At least, I am hoping that it is. Can anyone really be that out of it? If it is real, is the woman mentally disturbed?

Jesus, that was fucking pretty good! dude if you like that find the album "ashes of the wake" BY FAR my fav LOG cd. you should really check it out. Absolutely agree. Awesome metal album. Their newest album "Wrath" is also strong stuff.

One more: Lamb of God, Walk with me in Hell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHdopiRlgyA

The heavyweight champions: Slayer, Raining Blood. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUDWLp1yIWw The challengers: High on Fire, Rumors of War. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89h-X-tZa_w

I cannot believe this is a serious issue. When did this corporate America bullshit become so prevalent? As a competitor at this year's event, I find this entire situation and the resulting uproar embarassing to the sport. Has everyone forgotten why it is we jump out of airplanes? Or has everyone's motivation changed when I wasn't looking?

Here's my two cents, as someone with 20 years in the sport and a good weekend away from 6,000 jumps. I will accept a pin check if someone I trust asks. I strongly prefer that low or inexperienced jumpers not fool around with my gear in the airplane. I always check my main and reserve pin before putting gear on, and I will ask for a pin check if I lean up against something in a strange way or if my rig has been pushed or shoved from behind in the airplane. Usually, I just check with my hand to see if the main flap is securely closed before I exit. My reasoning is that I have checked the gear on the ground, and if nothing unusual has happened to my rig on the way to altitude, and the flap is securely closed, that is all I need to know that the pin is secure. I do see a potential downside to pin checks. Some jumpers' flaps are very tight. I have been asked to do pin check on these folks' gear, and I have struggled to get the flap open and closed. I am always afraid that in these cases I might inadvertently dislodge a pin that was securely set, or that I might not completely secure a flap, causing it to come loose in freefall. These pin checks could end up doing much more harm than good. I have seen one very experienced jumper inadvertently dislodge a main pin on the ground during a pin check of another jumper's gear. So it can happen. I will now await my flaming from the "always get a pin check or you're an idiot" crowd.

Casualties of War the movie was a very faithful rendition of the book. Michael J. Fox was very good, I thought. Cormac McCarthy's The Road is one of the most amazing things I've ever read. Almost poetic. If the upcoming movie is half as good as the book, it will be incredible. Here's the trailer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbLgszfXTAY

Then when is it ok to kill someone? I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you want me to list the circumstances under which I find it morally or legally acceptable to take a human life? I'm not sure what your point is, but I will repeat that I do not find it acceptable to execute innocent people. I would hope you don't either. Absolutely not. That is why I hate Planned Parenthood. Then by all means, start a new thread on abortion. This ties into it. Why is it NOT ok to destroy a person that has destroyed the lives of others while at the same time you can take a way life of one that has done nothing to anyone? Kallend's OP concerned the issue of an apparently innocent man who was executed. He didn't destroy anyone's life. You have already agreed that it is wrong to execute innocent people. Yet you continue to argue. What is the point of this post, exactly?

Then when is it ok to kill someone? I don't understand what you are getting at. Do you want me to list the circumstances under which I find it morally or legally acceptable to take a human life? I'm not sure what your point is, but I will repeat that I do not find it acceptable to execute innocent people. I would hope you don't either.

Justice Scalia thinks it OK. He also thinks its OK to arrest consenting adults for having sex. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Careful -- potential thread drift.

At least he had a chance. So what? The fact that a murder victim had no chance doesn't diminish the wrong of executing an innocent person. Define innocent. Are you serious? Yes. Legal definition: innocence = insufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Everyday, common language definition: innocence = defendant actually did not commit the crime. I'm going to go out on a limb here and argue that it's wrong to execute someone who is innocent under either definition.

QuoteIsn't it funny how all the moral crusaders against the death penalty only show up after someone is executed? If they really cared about innocent human life, they would spend their time getting retrials and appeals for people they believe to be innocent, so that the death penalty would no longer be an issue. But instead, they just let the men die, then prance and scream about how unjust it is. The fact is, these anti-death penalty folks are just using these men to further their personal political goals, and really don't give a damn about the human being who sits in prison. You are badly misinformed. There are numerous groups out there right now advocating on behalf of death row inmates. http://www.innocenceproject.org/ http://www.fdrag.org/ Look, I understand you are a conservative and in favor of the death penalty. I don't care to argue about the merits of the death penalty with you. But you have got to get your facts straight.

What a ridiculously ignorant notion of how the criminal justice system works. No criminal defendant is required to prove his innocence. Also an incredibly callous statement from a moral point of view. Do you actually approve of executing innocent people???

Not "will not" fullfill the obligations - Won't BE ALLOWED to fulfill their obligations. The military's obligations are what the C-I-C says they are. This is the case whether the military happens to like the C-I-C or not.

Does being a Pussy democrat make you not the kind of leader that gets you military support? Yes. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan now that we have a new "Pussy" President and C-I-C. And as far as I can tell, the military is still doing its job. Are you suggesting that our military will not fulfill its obligations because the C-I-C is now a democrat? If so, I find that incredibly insulting to the men & women the military, and I've never even been in the military. If you are suggesting that many people in the military do not like the new President, my response is, who cares? As long as the military does what it's told by the C-I-C, I could give a rat's ass what they think of him.

I could care less if the people in the military like Obama or not. Their job is to do as they are told by their Commander-in-Chief, who, of course, is Obama. Whether the troops like Obama on a personal level, or agree with his politics, is (or should be) meaningless. I have not been in the military, but my guess is that there are soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines of all political persuasions. What matters is that these folks do their jobs (which, for the most part they do very well). Their politics is a non-issue.

Yes. Born December 13, 1989.

It's time to stop with this nonsense. The debate on this issue is over. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090728/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_birth_certificate;_ylt=AloxgRLoHfPPYgS_mcUW0dCCfNdF

It is impossible to have a rational discussion with conspiracy nuts. There is no point in trying. The rest of us can only laugh at the absurdity. http://www.oddee.com/item_92285.aspx Actually, the Alien reptile theory does make some sense when you think about it...

The better question to ask, and the one the OP was driving at (I think) was: how do you want the police to act? Do you want the police to have the power to physically restrain someone, haul him or her (presumably handcuffed and/or with ankle cuffs) to the hospital and have their blood drawn against their will? If I was not guilty of DUI and I was treated like that by the cops I would be infuriated. Do you really want the police to have that much power? I would think even people who never drink would think twice about allowing the police to act like that. It's not just the "guilty" who object to this. And anyhow, the cops do not get to decide who is guilty and who is not. Cops just arrest people they think have committed crimes.

Shoot, I tried to make the link clickly but I guess I screwed it up. A little help, please.

Kane County in Illinois has started some "no-refusal" weekend DUI enforcement similar to what you are describing. But as I understand it, law enforcement will not physically force someone to give a blood sample. So, the problem is that even when presented with a warrant, if someone still refuses, a contempt of court charge is the only recourse. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/07/dui-crackdown-in-kane-county-leads-to-8-arrests.html To answer the OP's question, I am very uneasy with the idea of cops dragging some guy to the hospital, strapping him down, so that blood can be taken against the person's will. Seems a bit over the top to me.

Sure. It's also pretty unfair (and arrogant) to assume that someone with "more" life experiences is likely to come to a particular set of views. Sonia Sotomayor definitely had some challenges growing up. But compare her biography with Clarence Thomas, and you'll notice that assuming a particular set of life experiences will lead you to specific conclusions (or even that they will somehow make you "wiser" or "better") is likely erroneous. I agree. I was simply trying to point out that everyone has their views and biases, and that these will inevitably creep into any Judge's decisions. Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remarks make me very uneasy. But Scalia thinks he's smarter than everyone, too. :)

Every Judge, whether he or she is on SCOTUS or is a trial court judge in jerkwater Montana, applies the law according to his or her life experiences, point of view, and yes, biases. There is NO Judge out there anywhere who simply applies the law in a machine-like manner. SCOTUS Judges have run the political spectrum from Scalia to Thurgood Marshall. Each one has interpreted the law through the prism of his or her life and viewpoints. Of course Sotomayor will do this. Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito do as well. To insist that Sotomayor leave her views and biases out of her judicial philosophy is simply ridiculous. No Judge does this, and no Judge is able to do this. To the conservatives who oppose Sotomayor, my question would be, would you really want Scalia et al. to leave their views and biases out of their judicial philosophy? My point is that it is unfair to insist that more liberal justices leave their life experiences at the door, but to applaud vigorously when conservative justices rule according to their biases.