lost_n_confuzd

"100% Dixie. Is General Lee your grandfather?!"

Looks like that cop has a history of threatening to kill people. For some reason I think these are not the only two cases of him "overreacting".

I know a few Americans who work full time in Japan, UK, France and other nice places for American companies working on U.S. contracts, embassies, etc.. that don't pay taxes on the first 90-ish grand. However, U.S. Military stantioned overseas still must pay taxes on that first (as if there's a second) 90-ish grand. Yes, I understand the whole combat zone = tax free. I'm all for that for both Military and civilians.

I just got off a long night shift and can't see straight or type for shit. I think it comes down to wether or not the noun (November) is grouped (w/in a year). Like people at the ATM are not grouped, so "he is next in line" is refering to the person who is next, after the person who is currently at the ATM. But when referring to days and months that are grouped together, saying "this November" means the November within this year (group). Where as "next November" means the November after this current Year's November, in the "next" group. Does that make sense?

"What's happening next November?" That would be November 2012.

- This Christmas I have to work, but next Christmas I have off. - I should go to the cinema this weekend because next weekend I have to mow my lawn.

Out of all the girls there are only 12 I wouldn't have in the sack.

I think this cop in the vid would probably handle it the same, assumung the "average brother" handled himself well.

I find that hard to believe

You're right, the hooker situation is different. But some assume that condining the driver is supporting the cop. That is not the case. The cop was way out of line - case closed. "innocent until proven guilty" - that's true. Doesn't mean I can't have an opinion and state the obvious. Dude was up to no good. I doubt he was asking for directions, unless asking directions involves having a pimp sit in your backseat and a hooker leaning in your passenger window. Yes, yes, he is still innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean he wasn't pickin' up hoes.

Well . . . let's see . . . the pimp and the hooker? The pimp was also in the backseat of his car (collecting payment?). The driver was obviously up to no good and is now on some sort of *high* from all the gun owners backing him up. Dude's an idiot and should push for the charges against him to be dropped and leave it at that.

What happened to #6? That's a secret Yeah..... secret

Did you watch the video, quade? You keep sating that the subject did not attempt to inform the cop that he was carrying with a CCW. Watch the video again. Or reread my previous posts directed at you pointing out that the subject tried a few times to tell the cop that he was carrying but was told to shutup each time by the cop before he could finish anything. After you watch the video again, quade, now do you see that he tried to tell the cop he was carrying? So he didn't break that law (in Ohio you must tell the cop you are carrying). That we agree on. The dude should be charged with soliciting prostitutes and that's it. No gun charges should be brought up. 1) The male pimp was in his backseat 2) The lady outside the passenger window is a known whore 3) He tried multiple tims to tell the cop that he had a gun and CCW. 4) The initial stop was justified (see numbers 1 and 2) 5) In Ohio you must inform an officer that you are carrying with a CCW. 7) The cop was outraged when he "realized" that the subject had a gun w/o informing the officers. But see #3. With that said, the basis for the cop's reaction to him "not informing" is hogwash. Watch the video again. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4155220#4155220

Banning guns worked? Right? How about if some one at the camp had a loaded weapon ? Could that have minimized the numbers? I dont know where your reality is but, I dont want to be there They probably should have charged him an extra dollar per bullet. He might have run out of ammo sooner. Maybe he would've aimed better and killed more people because of not wanting to waste any expensive ammo

I agree and I usually side with the officer or at least give them the benefit of doubt, but with the video showing the officer was out-of-line, it really is hard for me side for him. Again, the driver was wrong putting himself in that situation, but the cop was not even concernced with him picking up a whore, he was concerned that the dude had a gun w/o him being informed about it. But the driver tried multiple times to inform the cop, but was told to shutup each time. So why did the driver get a misdemeanor (in Ohio) for not informing the cop that he was carrying?

Banning [insert here] in [insert country name] may have prevented the massacre Banning his right/priviledge to discuss his views online may have prevented the massacre and saved the lives of many.

quade, he tried a few times to inform the cop that was he legally carrying a weapon with a CCW, but was pretty much told to shutup by the cop. You must have missed that part in the video. With that said, the premise for the cop's reaction and your arguement is null.

AggieDave, is it SOP or good security practice to search the back seat (either sticking your head through the window or entire body) before searching, clearing or getting a warm and fuzzy from the driver? This is not a 4th Amendment question, it is a is it a smart idea question. Seems pretty stupid to me considering the guy was obviously up to no good.

Did you watch the video? He tried a few times to inform the cop, but was pretty much told to shutup. The cop was a huge douche, but I don't feel for the guy either, he was definately up to no good. Leaving the cop's actions out of this, as far as the driver goes, if the DA wanted to really press the issue could the CCW holder be charged with a felony because he was carrying a gun while (from the looks of things) commiting a crime? Assuming that was a pimp 'n hoe he was picking up. I'm not saying the cop should not get punished or anything, but as far as the driver is concerned he should get the police dept. to drop the current charges, get back his CCW and leave it at that. I wouldn't push it if I were him -- the whole pimps 'n hoes thing might come back to get 'em.

My neighbor who's a Harley guy once asked why I wear all that gear. My answer... ...while riding my motorcycle to and from work on I-95 the chances of me being hit by soccer-mom flapping her jaw on the cell are very slim. However, in the event she does side swipe me at 60+ mph, my chances of survival without my protective gear are even lower. That's why no matter what the weather is I wear a full face helmet, leather jacket with armor and back protector, kevlar pants with knee/shin guards, gloves, and riding boots. I doubt soccer-mom will hit me anytime soon, probably never will. I'm not scared of her, I don't ride in fear, but in the event that she does side swipe or hit me from the back, I want to be protected. Of course, if you're stupid and ride on the street like you do on the track, you'll greatly increase your chances of getting hit by soccer-mom. So, even though you're wearing gear, don't be stupid and rely on it to save your ass. Use your brain first and avoid soccer-mom.

29/33

Yeah, I just caught that. That really blows, I was stoked about robin Williams being in the film I wouldn't say it's ALL stuff from other movies. Some of that was/is footage from the Batman 3.

English is already the only official language in California.

I should've worded my previous post better. Thanks for adding on. Mike is right, "You can only shoot till they pose no threat" is correct; however, you still shoot to kill, just don't think you should shoot until they're dead, if that makes sense. There's a reason why you're taught to aim centermass and maybe the head, that for all intents and purposes is intended to kill the bad guy. If they happen to live and survive your gun shots that are intended to kill them, then good for them, assuming they're no longer a threat, if they're still a threat, fire more kill shots. There's a reason why it's called the "kill zone" and "kill shots". The person is intended to die after being shot there. Back to the OP's link. I wonder why the pharmacist thought his life was still in danger? I guess the robber that was killed did not have a gun and we'll never know what the pharamcist was thinking or saw, or thought he saw. Tragic case all around.