AndyBoyd

Yes, I was serious. I stated that it was arguable he should have received a higher sentence. Then I explained his life had permanently changed for the worse. Much worse. What's your problem with those comments?

It's arguable that he should have received a longer term of incarceration. Mr. Turner, however, did not "win" anything. I'm not sure people realize what a harsh, life long penalty it is to have to live as a registered sex offender. It will be virtually impossible for him to find a decent paying job. He will be restricted as to where he can live. In Illinois, he would not be allowed in schools or public parks, or forest preserves. He could not have unsupervised contact with children. Every time he moves, he'll have to re-register with the police, or be subject to arrest. If he moves from one state to another and fails to re-register, he's subject to federal prosecution. In other words, life as he knew it is over for him. Forever. Maybe that's what he deserves. That's a topic, perhaps, for another thread. But he did not get off lightly. Living permanently as a convicted, registered sex offender is a tough life.

Drop zones classify their instructors as independent contractors for tax purposes. This article identifies instructors as "employees" in the last paragraph, and advocates that drop zones assume even more control over their instructors than they already have. It's really not a great idea to publish this article on an open internet forum. Drop zones are right on the edge of the employee/independent contractor line as it is. Articles like this make it seem even more like instructors are employees. The moderators might want to think about removing this article.

Christopher Irwin (former Airspeed and FX) used to run 4-way tunnel camps with radio coaching. I never liked it much because my ear buds kept falling out, and the sound of the tunnel got painful with my ears exposed. When it worked, though, it was great. It could help you correct your mistakes immediately.

Unless you're in a massively underfunded and understaffed PDs office and the only thing you have time to do in most cases is pressure the accused into taking a plea deal. I'm responding to a couple of different things here, not just Jakee's. I'll just take his first. Most PD's offices are underfunded and understaffed. I should point out that the office I work for focuses exclusively on appeals, so I have never taken a case to trial. The trial PD's I've met would never pressure a defendant to take a deal for the sake of expediency. Most cases get plea-bargained, but if a case needs to go to trial, it goes to trial. As far as the pension thing, anyone who lives in Illinois knows the pension system has some problems. I won't say anything more than that on an open forum using my real name.

How did Daley get away with it in Chicago? He used bulldozers to tear huge X's on the runway in the middle of the night. End of story. He wasn't one for legal formalities. Actually, he claimed to be using emergency police powers to stop potential terrorists from using Meigs as a launching area for terrorist attacks. In reality, his wife wanted to build a park there, so he just did it the Chicago way. Just take what you want and worry about the legalities later. He got away with it. Meigs Field is now a public park. http://willystreetblog.com/wp/2013/03/31/the-day-meigs-field-died/

IMO, the legal profession is on top of the heap. Attorneys make a living from the chaos. What chaos? What is it you are so terribly afraid of? BTW, I'm just a public defender. Compared to most attorneys, I don't make that great a living. Thanks for the kind words, though.

America doesn't need saving. It's doing just fine. And it will continue to do just fine going forward. Relax.

So, you think like this because some other people who you don't agree with do this, too, and it frustrates you. Well, OK. I guess I can understand that.

It looks like the State tried something to help solve crimes. Both liberals and conservatives want to solve crimes, right? When they figured out it wasn't working, they stopped doing it. Somehow, to you, this turns into a whole "liberals don't think right" thing. Why do you think like this? Why do you feel this constant need to categorize everyone who doesn't share your views as a "liberal" who can't think properly? Does it make you feel better about yourself? Is it somehow comforting or reassuring to you to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is just a "liberal" who is out of touch with logical thinking and reality? I've met plenty of people at both ends of the political spectrum who were bright and had a firm grasp on reality. My disagreement with those folks further to the right than I am is just that -- disagreement. I don't believe that conservatives have lost their grip on reality. I don't get how you take this simple issue and blow it up into an attack on an entire group of people. Get a grip on yourself.

Why bother to post here if you don't care what the people on this site think and you don't care about their opinions? What are you trying to accomplish? Are you just ranting for no particular reason?

Human beings are not set up for intense, prolonged, ground combat.

Sigh. That's a normal first jump altitude. That's a normal altitude for almost everyone who skydives. You have stated more than once that you have been checked by a Dr. and that you are cleared to skydive. I am going to respectfully suggest that you stop asking strangers on the internet for advice and go skydive. Or, if you are too anxious to skydive, go to the bowling alley and have a few beers and toss a few balls down the lane. The answer you are looking for is not on any internet forum. It's in the mirror.

This is absolutely magnificent political theater. I would love to see Mr. Trump win the Republican nomination for the presidential election. There would be popcorn and laughs every night. The media would be crazy with delight. Hell, he might even win the whole thing. Then we'd have four years of this spectacular show. Go all in on this guy, red states. Let's start this party.

Yeah, I get that. The standard family Dr. may not want the liability that goes with telling someone it's OK for them to skydive. Frakking lawyers.

You know how that conversation goes. "Hey doc! I need you to OK me physically to go skydiving!" "NOOOOPE!" ?? I chucked drogues for a long time, and had no trouble whatsoever finding a Dr. to check me out for my FAA Class 3 medical certificate.

Before you make any more jumps, you must get checked out by a doctor to make sure the symptoms you described are not due to some sort of medical condition that would make it unsafe for you to skydive. You will not get competent medical advice on an internet forum, especially this one. For what it's worth, what you are describing sounds to me like normal first jump anxiety. But you indicated that you have medically related anxiety issues. Do not take my word for it, or anyone else's word for it on this forum. Go get checked out by a doctor, and specifically ask the doctor if it is safe for you to skydive.

He cites precedent for the logic of the majority. You haven't provided any for yours. Anyhow, the GOP must be relieved that they are off the hook for making any actual decisions beyond sniping. In fairness to Lawrocket, there are a few judges left out there who agree with him. Scalia is one, and Frank Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit is another. This is from an old law review article of Easterbrook's that I stumbled across after looking at this thread today. "The words of the statute, not the intent of the drafters, are 'the law'." The idea does carry a certain logical force, but it is a very conservative view that is losing steam, for the reasons quoted in Kallend's earlier post. Had the conservatives won this one, 8.2 million people would have lost their heath insurance over a very small error in drafting a very large and complex law. The more moderate conservatives like Roberts weren't willing to do that kind of damage to that many people, so they interpreted the statute in a way they though the drafters would have wanted. As Kallend points out, there is plenty of precedent for that view. It is a longstanding debate, and the interpreters won this one.

You seemed to argue he was not sane in post # 201. Did I misinterpret that post? What I was trying to point out was that I suspect that you would like to see the gunman here prosecuted and either sentenced to a very long time in prison, or death. If that's what you want, you shouldn't be arguing that he was not sane. You'd want to argue that he was fully able to discern right from wrong, and appreciate the consequences of his actions. Just trying to help you out here.

The reason I'm asking is that, generally, if someone is truly insane, the law says that the person isn't responsible for their actions. If the shooter here were genuinely insane, he might get sent to a mental institution instead of a prison, and might be released if he ever regained his sanity. I'm not sure exactly what S.C. would be on that. But would you have argued that the shooter here had to have been insane to do what he did. Would you be comfortable with him going to a mental institution instead of prison, with the possibility that he might be released some day?

Just tossing this into the mix for fun. If you were this guy's defense attorney, would you try to present an insanity defense, or argue that he was unfit to be convicted? I'm not sure about the law in S.C., but these would be options in Illinois.

I'm firmly against the death penalty regardless of how horrible the crime was. I am against the DP in this case. I suspect the reason the folks who are against the DP haven't chimed in here is because you have to pick your battles. DP opponents know they will have more success arguing a case like Willingham in Texas than this one. As far as the side-issue Turtle and I raised about loud music as torture, some posters noted that this has been done in Git-mo. I looked into it and, yeah, this has been done. Apparently, they are blasting hard-core death-metal (i.e., Deicide) at these prisoners. I dig that stuff, but too much of that at too loud a volume would drive anyone off their rocker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1d2rzm8w1A

I suspect this is just angry talk, which I understand. This was a horrible crime. But just wondering, would you really support the United States government injecting this guy with chemicals and then cutting off body parts to make him suffer? Should this punishment be codified into law? I wasn't really serious. But I would like to see him subjected to Brittany spears songs at high volume for long periods of time. Now that's brutal. I might prefer dismemberment

I suspect this is just angry talk, which I understand. This was a horrible crime. But just wondering, would you really support the United States government injecting this guy with chemicals and then cutting off body parts to make him suffer? Should this punishment be codified into law?

I can see that you don't like the guy's work. Ok, I don't care enough to fight with you on this one.