Oh yeah, Spark? I like my graph better.Spark wrote:
This is something that I found.
Good explanation of what I think explains why this summer is so cool compared to last, and why the next 6-12 months will be cooler than usual. Before getting hot again.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … Record.png
Notice how warmer times correlate with El Nino's. Cooler times with La Nina's. We've just gone into a La Nina (considering how 150mm of rain has fallen in two months here) hence cooler times til the next El Nino. The only anomaly is 1993-1994, but big, big volcanic eruptions will do that. Pinatubo hasn't seemed to had a major effect beyond that year or two.
Notice, however, the trend is always up.
Search
Search results: 610 found, showing up to 50
anecdote + anecdote + anecdote != data.ELITE-UK wrote:
Ive got to say something right now because ive about had enough of this ' Global warming isnt happening shit', i obviously dont want it to happen but it IS happening and if you fucking lived in europe your whole bastard life you would know SOMETHING IS UP, Its getting to warm now for snow fall and we have barely scraped any snow this year...i mean scraped as in its just a little more than ground frost!
So fuck you (I dont care if its from the solar flares or pollution, but the world is definately warming!).
Or, for the purists:
ANECDOTE+ANECDOTE+ANECDOTE<>DATA
Just the poor ones with little to no military strength. I'll be fine.PureFodder wrote:
It's just the little matter of potentially most of the world population being wiped out and society as we know it being destroyed.Superior Mind wrote:
I think it's safe to say that no matter what happens, we or our far off decedents will manage. If humans can survive in the Kalahari Desert and in fucking Siberia then we're good no matter what. It's nothing a little evolution can't handle.
There's lots of data out there, and lots of studies. They point all different directions.
I'll respond to your postulations in reverse order:Spark wrote:
Heavy metal/wooden object will do nicely. The space in my house is such that you can never be further than 3 metres away while still being in sight.
In any case guns aren't exactly a common commodity here.
One thing: Which 'God' explicitly gave you the right to use guns?
The "God" that gave me a right to arms is defined as "our Creator." It doesn't get any more specific than that:
Mr. Jefferson and company go on to enumerate these rights in a later document.IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America wrote:
...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
...
Second point: In your home, you can never be more than 3 meters from your attacker and still be in sight.
Are you aware of the 7 meter rule?
It states that an attacker armed with a cutting implement within 7 meters of you can attack and kill you before you can draw a weapon from a holster and fire it. You might have a bat. If I have a knife, I can deflect your initial blow, and still kill you with ease. Score: me - broken arm.... you - dead.
edited because I can't spell
That might have something to do with the fact that anyone who takes the time to acquire a CHL is going to be a person who can be termed a "gun enthusist." I would fall under that category.RAIMIUS wrote:
Who is advocating that EVERYONE be armed?...certainly not me.
I wouldn't trust some of my friends to carry. They also don't trust themselves, so it is fairly self-regulating, in this case.What do you suggest? Single-shot tazers have a maximum range of about 21ft (usually less). Kimber's high-powered 2-shot mace has a similar range. I have heard people suggest hat-pins (sadly, I'm being serious). I know of no tool better able to do the job of stopping an attacker. 12 rounds of .45ACP can stop several attackers, whereas, you are screwed with the tazer.Spark wrote:
I still (personally) think that guns are not necessary for self-defence
Also, the average defense shooting involves 3 rounds. LEOs often expend 2 or 3 magazines for the same number of hits. I'd actually trust the CCW holder to be more accurate in shooting at an attacker.
I practice with my carry weapon about once a week. Sometimes more.
Most police officers practice in the week that leads up to their requalification. In other words, twice a year.
I'm a medic. I serve as TEC (tail end charlie) on our SWAT team. WE only get to practice, on government funds, once a month. And from what I've learned from conferences, that's about average for SWAT outside of huge cities that have fulltime SWAT units.
Short term (2001-2002), I took about a 20% loss. Long term (1994 - present), I'm averaging about 16% a year. I don't diversify very well. My stocks are mostly technology based. I did manage to get into google at IPO, and got out of yahoo the same time. I've held Apple for about 6 years now. I had some in oil, but I sold out of my oils earlier this year to buy a duplex rental property.Pierre wrote:
Completely forgot about it. Maybe because in 2001 I bought my condo, and my jag (my BMW was in 2002), and made lots of money which I didn't invest in some dubious dot com companies. L&H anyone? So it didn't affect me in any way. Were you hurt badly?blisteringsilence wrote:
Good lord, how old are you?Pierre wrote:
In 2001? I did not know that. Link?
Dot Com Bust, anyone?
Seriously. I want to know how old you are. How ANYONE who was alive and thinking in 2000 could forget this bubble bust, I just don't know.
The rest of my investments are gold, and my 10 shares of Berkshire Hathaway. That's my retirement fund right there. Thanks, grandpa.
This is an eminently logical statement. Thank you.PureFodder wrote:
I'm all for Britains gun ban laws, but I fully agree that most gun free zones in a country with widespread gun ownership are moronic.
If the country's populace can own guns, then the problems of gun ownership (a vast increase in the number of armed criminals) is already in place and gun free zones are obviously going to do nothing to stop it unless the gun free zone is securely fenced off and everyone who enters has to go through a rigourous safety check and it is filled with armed patrols just in case. So the White house for example is a sensible gun free zone. Having all the white house staff armed is likely to result in a large number of dead members of the executive branch.
Places like university campuses, you're only restricting the law abiding citizens who can have the potential to stop criminals. There's nothing in particular stopping armed people from entering most campuses, hence nothing to prevent a violation of the gun free zone.
1. Yes, concealed carry laws do have a positive correlation to the decrease of violent crime. According to published data (that I only have in hard copy, pm me for citations), after enacting a concealed carry statute, a state's murder rates fall 8%, rape falls 6%, aggrivated assault falls 11%, and robbery falls 14%.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
What I don't get is this insanely illogical (yet emotive) idea that allowing concealed weapons and allowing guns anywhere and everywhere will magically reduce crime rates. Does gun ownership automatically turn you into a hero with no possibility of shooting up the place? Do these concealed weapons come with a morality switch that allows the person to only do the right thing, every time?
2. No, gun ownership does not turn you into a hero. Quit being melodramatic. That being said, anyone who is willing to go through the hassle of obtaining a concealed carry license is going to be a law-abiding citizen. You get photographed, fingerprinted, sit through a class, pass a written test, sit through another class, pass a firearms proficency test, and then get an in-depth background check.
And it's expensive.
One who has a concealed carry license already has a morality switch. And it's always on. Are there a few bad apples? Yes. There always are.
Pro-gun people do support laws. The NRA and its members were VERY supportive of the bill that passed after the VT shootings, requiring states to submit mental health data to the NCIC. Additionally, pro-gun people support the expansion of wildlife reserves, wetlands, and other wilderness areas.IRONCHEF wrote:
Are there even any laws passed by pro-gun people? Come to think of it, I can't recall a pro-gun law..just pro-gun people trying to curtail or stop anti-gun legislation. Heller, microstamping, led ammo ban, AW PC, SF prop H, defending gun shows, Kasler, etc...all defensive items that become precedent, but no new laws made by gun owners that I can think of.DBBrinson1 wrote:
What in your opinion is some of the "retarded legislation" passed by the pro-guns people then?
We're also big fans of anti-crime legislation that works. Want to read about a real miscarriage of justice? Spend a little time researching Project Exile. Clinton killed it.
Again, only a fool brings anything other than a gun to a gun fight. Tasers have limited range. And are expensive. EXPENSIVE. Much more than the avgerage college student can afford.Turquoise wrote:
I support all college campuses allowing air tasers on school grounds. I think allowing guns would be a bit much, but air tasers serve as excellent defensive weapons.
He abstains from drugs, but that man could drink you and I under a table. Matching us 2 for 1.DBBrinson1 wrote:
I dunno man. I remember seeing a BIO about him on tv. They interviewed his band mates or people close to him and they all said he was a straight edge.Turquoise wrote:
Ted makes a lot of sense about guns, but he's pretty incoherent on most other things -- like drug policy. He claims to never have done any drugs, but the cover of one of his albums has paraphernalia on it.
Florida enacted their shall-issue CCW permit in 1987. Since then the state has issued 1,311,747 licenses. Of those, 3,418 were revoked for the accusation of a crime being committed whilst a license holder. Of those, 497 were reinstated after the holder had been cleared of the crime.chittydog wrote:
Anyone have the statistic on what percentage of all of Florida's residents have engaged in illegal action in that same time period?blisteringsilence wrote:
You know how many of FL's CCW holders have engaged in illegal action since the inception of the law? 0.02%
So, 2,921 permit holders had their permit revoked for committing a crime. This represents 0.0018% of license holders, OVER THE 20 YEAR PERIOD.
For the period of July 2006 to July 2007,
- There were approximatly 480,000 valid licenses.
- Of those, 368 were revoked.
- Giving you an offender rate of .00076%Keep in mind that a simple arrest for any felony, or misdemeanor domestic abuse, is enough to revoke a license. For the calendar year 2006
- There were approximatly 18,100,000 people living in Florida.
- Of those, there were 1,110,000 felony arrests. Mind you, this doesn't account for multiple arrests. So, we'll be generous and say that everyone arrested in FL was arrested twice.
- Giving you an offender rate of 0.03%
They're fine, so long as you're within 15 feet or so of the gunman.Turquoise wrote:
I think tasers are better for this sort of thing, but I'm still willing to support this move given today's current dangers.
Utah is actually progressive about something... wow....
That being said, anyone who takes anything OTHER than a gun to a gunfight is a fool.
Good lord, how old are you?Pierre wrote:
In 2001? I did not know that. Link?IRONCHEF wrote:
When Bush took over we were in a recession ALREADY
Dot Com Bust, anyone?
Seriously. I want to know how old you are. How ANYONE who was alive and thinking in 2000 could forget this bubble bust, I just don't know.
People in FL said the same thing when they passed their CCW provisions in the early 90's.Poseidon wrote:
Not a good idea. Even someone in the most normal state of mind can get into the heat of an argument and lose his cool.
However, as long as the requirements stay as they are, I don't really mind.
You know how many of FL's CCW holders have engaged in illegal action since the inception of the law? 0.02%
And communications satellites... and video transmission satellites... and manned space missions...RAIMIUS wrote:
Hydrazine and top secret technology are two good reasons to shoot it down. The US can take out satellites with air launched missiles, if we want to. That technology has been around since the 1980s. The US got pissed at China because they left a bunch of debris in a low-earth orbit...which is where we like to fly spy satellites.
I am well familiar with the golden rule. It's not been that long since university philosophy. The golden rule implies altruism, and a trust of others. The Paine quote is all about self preservation.rdx-fx wrote:
That you do not see the similarity between Paine's quote, your paraphrases, and the Golden Rule is ... astonishing
Here, have some light reading;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
I agree.rdx-fx wrote:
The whole point of my explanation (what you consider a "rant") was that even though something is technically legal, does not make it ethical, moral, or tasteful.
1st Amendment allows that you could possibly post such pictures. A properly functioning moral/ethical sense would tell you whether you should post such pictures. And, the rest of the population still has their freedoms to think whatever they like of someone so morally deficient that they would post such pictures.
Freedom of Speech doesn't entail Freedom from Responsibility for your Speech
Point one: posting pics from an accident scene (that are available through legal means) fails the Brandenburg Test for the restriction of Free Speech.rdx-fx wrote:
Actually, no we don't have to "protect the right of any crazy asshole to say whatever he wants".
Shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater isn't protected speech, threatening another person isn't protected, spreading Top Secret government information is not protected, child porn is not protected, etc..
1st Amendment allows that you could possibly post such pictures. A properly functioning moral/ethical sense would tell you whether you should post such pictures. And, the rest of the population still has their freedoms to think whatever they like of someone so morally deficient that they would post such pictures.
Freedom of Speech doesn't entail Freedom from Responsibility for your Speech
And, putting Dr. King on equal footing with someone who posted (for lack of a better term) "death-porn" on the internet?
Are you serious?
One gave his life in the cause of equal treatment, fairness, and non-violent protest. The other posted photos of a gruesomely mutilated young woman on the internet for amusement.
As long as what you're saying doesn't violate all three tenets of this test, I will defend your right to say it. I likely won't condone it. I will defend it.
Point two: Yep, I am. In 1959, not a white man in Alabama, or Mississippi, or Georgia, or Arkansas, wanted to hear a thing that Dr. King wanted to say. They wanted him shut up. He was "stirring up the coloreds." His speech was considered just as bad as yelling fire in a crowded theater. And those who were there beside him stood up with him and defended his right to say it, in the face of fire hoses, police dogs, teargas, and everything else. They were LITERALLY throwing stones at this man because of what he had to say.
We agree with it now. We did NOT agree with it then. How quickly times change. But I'm not a fan of revisionist history that seeks to portray the actions of white america as honorable and just toward Dr. King. He advocated change for which white america wasn't ready.
Now, I don't agree with the actions of this asshat that posted the pics on the internet. I likely will NEVER agree with his actions. But does that make them any less worth protecting? The answer cannot be no. Too much is at stake. What happens when the next Dr. King comes along? When he has unpopular things to say?
Point three: Dr. King didn't give up his life. His life was callously taken from him. He didn't sacrifice himself. He was gunned down in cold blood. Sorry, I'm a stickler for nuance. It's the difference between conscious choice (the fireman gave his life by running into the burning building to save the last two kids) and actions by others.
My point is that you're making a whole lot of assumptions based on a few lines in TWO web articles. And you know what they say about assumptions.rdx-fx wrote:
Without specifics?
hmm.. then I must've just dreamed up the part in the OP where it says "Reich and co-defendant Thomas O'Donnell, who reportedly still works as a CHP dispatcher, cite in court papers their First Amendment rights to free speech in being responsible for the worldwide distribution of the photos through cyberspace."
, or the link in the article that says
"The CHP would not talk on camera but says one of its workers released the pictures. The CHP released the following statement to CBS13.
"The investigation has concluded that there was an unauthorized release of the photos taken.""
Again, I agree. But you are assuming (there's that assumption word again) that the police were responsible for the internet posting.rdx-fx wrote:
Man, I'm an Army veteran. Don't try and play the "they have a hard job, they don't get paid enough, you wouldn't understand" card.
I understand venting at stupidity. I understand wanting to just scream at the senseless waste of life that happens - and that most of the population will never open their eyes to see.
A little anonymous venting about "some stupid girl" might be okay - posting pictures of her (identifiable?) mutilated corpse on the internet crosses a moral and ethical line.
It might be moral and ethical, if it were to bring attention to something important (drunk driving, genocide, drug use, whatever) - but NOT strictly for amusement.
You know how viral the internet is. I send you an email. You send it to 5 friends. They send it to 5 friends each. One of those dudes, who I likely don't even know, takes the pics from the email and places them on a website.
Not to mention, we don't know why the images were originally forwarded. They very well could be part of a VERY graphic portrayal of speed kills.
Point: the presumption of guilt is by itself a denial of due process.rdx-fx wrote:
Did I mention them by name? NO
Did I say they HAD PTSD or sociopathic disorders? NO - "suggest them for psychological evaluation" was the phrase I used. Let a professional decide.
Did I say anything about denying them "due process"? no
Now, who's trying to get a job with Dan Rather or Fox News now?
Point: If you print an editorial in a newspaper attacking the person on the front page, you can be sued for libel regardless of whether you mention that person's name directly. If it's obvious who you're referencing (and let's not split hairs here, it's obvious), then you're responsible.
Point: When you summarily fire someone for an action committed for which you have no indication of motive, and which apparently didn't violate your agency's written policies, you are abridging due process. See the first point above.
I agree.rdx-fx wrote:
My point exactly.blisteringsilence wrote:
The freedom to say what you want is precious. It's so precious that we need to be sure what we're saying is really, really important to us if it's going to piss a lot of people off. It should be cherished and protected by all. Especially when it's really unpopular.
Use it wisely, not to post "snuff-smut" on the internet.
OK, let's go here.rdx-fx wrote:
Reread that Thomas Paine quote. It's basically a reformulation of the Golden Rule : Treat others as you would wish to be treated. If your daughter were to be gruesomely killed in a car wreck, would you want pictures of that floating around for sick fucks to get a laugh out of?blisteringsilence wrote:
See, that's where you and I seperate. The whole point of the freedom of speech part of the first amendment is to protect UNPOPULAR speech. After all, if it's popular, there's no reason to protect it. People WANT to hear it.ATG wrote:
There has to be sane limits.
“He that would make his own
liberty secure, must guard even his
enemy from oppression, for if he
violates this duty, he establishes a
precedent that will reach to
himself.”
—Thomas Paine
1st Amendment allows that you could possibly post such pictures. A properly functioning moral/ethical sense would tell you whether you should post such pictures. And, the rest of the population still has their freedoms to think whatever they like of someone so morally deficient that they would post such pictures.
Freedom of Speech doesn't entail Freedom from Responsibility for your Speech
Where is the reasoning behind posting such pictures?
Is there some political injustice exposed by showing such pictures? (ex. Nazi death camp pictures, Saddam's chemical attacks, etc)
Is there some literary or poetic content to the pictures?
Or, is it just posting of a gruesome picture for sick sociopaths to get their rocks off and/or make stupid jokes about?
Personally, if I were a supervisor of those policemen, I'd have to fire them (or at least suspend them): Lack of proper professional demeanor, lack of ethical reasoning necessary for safe interaction with the public, and possibly suggest them for psychological evaluation for PTSD and/or sociopathic disorders.
I've had to personally judge that limit here recently. In a previous thread, it would've been easy for me to post pictures of victims of Saddam's chemical warfare attacks on the Kurds, to make a point in a very sharp manner. I chose not to for a couple reasons: 1) Too many sick fucks here that'd get off on pictures of real suffering and such and 2) Too many minor children [regardless of actual age] here, that don't have the mental foundation to properly process such things yet.
Here, 1st Amendment, US Constitution;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons … endment01/
First off, the Thomas Paine quote has nothing whatsoever to do with the golden rule. I don't know where you get that. If I were to paraphrase it, it would read:
If you are willing to step up to defend what you believe, you should also defend your enemy's right to be heard also, for if you don't, when your opinion falls out of favor, you yourself will have set the precedent by which your opinions are suppressed.
Or you could just say you get your just deserts. Whatever.
Then you go on a rant about morality and ethics. NEITHER OF WHICH HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH LAW.
For the love of God, when are you going to figure out that I don't want these pics floating about anymore than anyone else? They're repugnant, disgusting, reprehensible, terrible, insensitive, (I could find some more adjectives to go here, but hopefull you get the point).
So's the KKK.
But I think that those assholes still have the right to have a parade and spew their nonsense.
Because the laws that give them that right are the same ones that let Dr King lead the black men and women of this country from oppression in the 1950's and 1960's.
We, as a people, MUST protect the right of any crazy asshole to say whatever he wants. We must cherish it. We must embrace it.
What we don't have to do is agree with him. Hell, we should have counter parades and demonstrations to show just how crazy he is.
But there is no better disinfectant to crazy than sunshine. Ask the scientologists.
But I digress.
The point is that you all are laying blame without knowing any specifics. You are casting stones at whatever target hits your fancy. Well, the police took the pictures, so let's blame them.
Lets blame the officer who's making $15 an hour to get cursed at, spat at, and scrape the brains of stupid 18 year old girls off the pavement.
"Personally, if I were a supervisor of those policemen, I'd have to fire them (or at least suspend them): Lack of proper professional demeanor, lack of ethical reasoning necessary for safe interaction with the public, and possibly suggest them for psychological evaluation for PTSD and/or sociopathic disorders."
You seem to know an awful lot about what happened from an internet post about the subject. How do you have any idea what their professional demeanor is? Or their ethics? How do you know that they're suffering from PTSD or a sociopathic disorder?
The answer is, you don't. But that's not going to stop you from smearing their names.
Hell, you could work for Fox News. Or Dan Rather.
Let me boil it down to this, for everyone here:
- This is a terrible tragedy for the family of the girl that died.
- Regardless of how they got there, people should have more respect for the dead than to post images of them on the internet.
- We all need to take a deep breath and think before we speak.
- We all should be sure of our facts before we go on a wild rampage of accusations that borders on Libel.
- Our legal system is based on a presumption of innocence. Why not offer that to those involved?
- The freedom to say what you want is precious. It's so precious that we need to be sure what we're saying is really, really important to us if it's going to piss a lot of people off. It should be cherished and protected by all. Especially when it's really unpopular.
See, that's where you and I seperate. The whole point of the freedom of speech part of the first amendment is to protect UNPOPULAR speech. After all, if it's popular, there's no reason to protect it. People WANT to hear it.ATG wrote:
There has to be sane limits.
“He that would make his own
liberty secure, must guard even his
enemy from oppression, for if he
violates this duty, he establishes a
precedent that will reach to
himself.”
—Thomas Paine
So I'm apparently not the only one who's not that up in arms about this.topthrill05 wrote:
Hiding behind?
Christ people calm down, this is nowhere near the most disgusting thing to happen to a family. How about the 80 killed in a car bomb today, 8 year olds being sold for sex and that genocide going on in Darfur. While it may seem like I am going in a different direction I hope someone can see my point.
Damn Nyqil.
It's a tragedy. Of that there is no doubt.
That being said, it's also a lesson of why it's not a good idea to drive your daddy's porsche 110 miles an hour down the highway.
What would have made this tragedy even worse is if this girl's bad decision had ended with her hitting someone else. She crossed over the median and 2 lanes of oncoming traffic. On HALLOWEEN. Can you imagine the outcome if she'd hit a minivan full of moms and kids?
I guess I'm just getting hardened. I feel terrible for her parents, terrible for her sisters. But her death, while senseless, was of her own making.
Pretty much. Kinda crazy, eh?GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
but all of it theater specific. Are you saying that different branches of the government foot the bill for their day to day non wartime activities, news to me.blisteringsilence wrote:
Depends on where they were operating. They were originally Treasury, and then were Transportation, but operational control for many functions was transferred to the DOD.... vietnam, persian gulf, etc.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
when were they a part of the DoD? Thought they were DoT before.
They can also be seconded to the DOJ for drug interdiction, but op control still comes from the DOD.
Part of their budget comes from DOD, and part from DHS. The important distinction is that they're exempt from Posse Comatitus.
Confused yet?
Most of their money comes from DHS. BUT, they get (some) money for ships, helicopters, and training from the Navy. And the DOJ kicks in money to help out with drug interdiction.
I agree that it's morally wrong, yes. I'm with you 100% percent.RoosterCantrell wrote:
Well, it was in his legal right.
But it was sooooooooooo Morally wrong. Scumbag. What's worse is people E-mail those pics to the parents. WTF? WHY?!
I don't see why there can't be a law that, while those pictures were taken for the investigation, there should be some kind of Law that covers a dead person's dignity. LEaving those pictures under an umbrella where mere possesion is like having child porn on your computer. Is that too much to ask? I don't think it would be a censoring of the first amendment unreasonably really.
But I think that making these pics, distasteful as they are, immune to the FOIA is a bad idea. It's a very dangerous slippery slope. They tried it in FL when Earnhardt died in the Daytona 500 some years back. It didn't hold up.
No.SgtSlauther wrote:
pls GTFO of my internets
I would never protest a funeral, and I find those that do to be as morally distasteful as they come. Morally distasteful does NOT mean illegal. Immoral does NOT mean illegal. I'm a patriot guard member, with at least 25 rides under my belt. And while I disagree with the decision to do morally distasteful things, I still defend the doer's right to free speech.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
fuck that. Go protest a funeral.
I know a police officer who loved to show everyone in the unit pictures off of his laptop from accidents he had to respond too. I think thats an asshole, immoral thing to do.
It's called being a principled libertarian.
Nope. Think we're overtaxed as hell. Like I said, I'm a principled libertarian. Have both an ACLU and a NRA card. I support ALL the rights in the Constitution, not just the ones that benefit me directly. ATG, you and I agree a hell of a lot more than we disagree.ATG wrote:
you probably think we are under taxed as well.
Nope. Cop and paramedic. I've seen worse. But I also have an understanding of what goes on behind the scenes. That's what I was trying to explain.twiistaaa wrote:
your awfully quick to defend it. twisted fuck much?
I guess I should have included my moral condemnation of the actions of the dispatcher that put those pics out there. THAT action is inexcusable.
What I wanted to say is that if you really wanted to see them, there's a perfectly legal way to do it. And you could choose to put them on the internet if you were so inclined.
Who you should be really pissed at are the folks that are emailing the grieving parents pictures of their dead child. Why not take your anger out on them?
TOS much?daddyofdeath wrote:
Yeah blistering fuckface stfu. How can you defend that Police officer?
I'm not going to report you. I'll give you the opportunity to revise your statement. Let me point out some of that TOS for you, in case you've never read it:
To finish up, I'm sorry if I offended someone. That was not my intent. This is a tragedy all the way around.Chuy's eminently sensible and not so hard to follow rules, abbreviated wrote:
While using the BF2S.com forums, you WILL:
1. Respect the site, staff, and members.
2. Refrain from posting messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or are otherwise of questionable content (if you have to ask, the answer is 'No.')
...
4. Positively contribute to the forums with useful posts and information relevant to the section being posted under.
...
15. Never engage in personal attacks. Ever.
Depends on where they were operating. They were originally Treasury, and then were Transportation, but operational control for many functions was transferred to the DOD.... vietnam, persian gulf, etc.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
when were they a part of the DoD? Thought they were DoT before.blisteringsilence wrote:
That's cause you coasties aren't under the DOD anymore. You're homeland security. And the official weapon of Homeland Security is the SigSauer p229DAK.spcespff wrote:
We got rid of the M9 in the Coast Guard a couple years ago. Been carrying the Sig p229DAK in .40 SW. Great gun.
And the official beer is Bud Light.
They can also be seconded to the DOJ for drug interdiction, but op control still comes from the DOD.
Part of their budget comes from DOD, and part from DHS. The important distinction is that they're exempt from Posse Comatitus.
Confused yet?
1. You're legally obligated to take pictures of any fatality accident as part of the investigation.
2. Those pictures, once taken, are entered into the public record, and can be accessed by the public with a FOIA request, just like any other document.
3. Dead people have no right to privacy. As an 18 year old (legal adult), there are no controls or restrictions on posthumus pics taken of her. If you wanted to work at it a little bit, you could get her autopsy reports and pictures too.
You are condemning an officer for emailing the pictures out. You don't know what the original context was. You don't know what the original purpose was. All you DO know is that they got emailed around inside CHP, and then leaked out. The IO could have been emailing them to a SI for comment, to get assistance explaining why something happened, all kinds of things.
You all sure are awfully quick to judge based on a television report, myspace page, and an article from the freaking NY Post.
2. Those pictures, once taken, are entered into the public record, and can be accessed by the public with a FOIA request, just like any other document.
3. Dead people have no right to privacy. As an 18 year old (legal adult), there are no controls or restrictions on posthumus pics taken of her. If you wanted to work at it a little bit, you could get her autopsy reports and pictures too.
You are condemning an officer for emailing the pictures out. You don't know what the original context was. You don't know what the original purpose was. All you DO know is that they got emailed around inside CHP, and then leaked out. The IO could have been emailing them to a SI for comment, to get assistance explaining why something happened, all kinds of things.
You all sure are awfully quick to judge based on a television report, myspace page, and an article from the freaking NY Post.
Option "C"
Whenever members of a religious group perpatrate an act of terror, unless the community as a whole condemns the attack, we bomb one of your religious shrines.
Christian extremists bomb a crowded theater? If the Christian community at large doesn't condemn their actions, we take out Jerusalem.
Jewish extremists bomb a mosque? If the Jews don't rise against their nutters, say goodbye to the wailing wall and temple mount.
Muslim extremists blow up a subway tunnel? If I see so much as one street video of thanks and celebration, Mr. Mecca gets to meet Mr. Carpet Bombs from Mr. B-52.
Until we get rid of the glamour, there will be no end.
Whenever members of a religious group perpatrate an act of terror, unless the community as a whole condemns the attack, we bomb one of your religious shrines.
Christian extremists bomb a crowded theater? If the Christian community at large doesn't condemn their actions, we take out Jerusalem.
Jewish extremists bomb a mosque? If the Jews don't rise against their nutters, say goodbye to the wailing wall and temple mount.
Muslim extremists blow up a subway tunnel? If I see so much as one street video of thanks and celebration, Mr. Mecca gets to meet Mr. Carpet Bombs from Mr. B-52.
Until we get rid of the glamour, there will be no end.
That's cause you coasties aren't under the DOD anymore. You're homeland security. And the official weapon of Homeland Security is the SigSauer p229DAK.spcespff wrote:
We got rid of the M9 in the Coast Guard a couple years ago. Been carrying the Sig p229DAK in .40 SW. Great gun.
And the official beer is Bud Light.
To your first point: Honestly, I think that we can lay a lot of the blame for the spree killings at the feet of CNN/FOX/NBC and their 24 hour news channels. If it bleeds, it leads. And they devote hours and hours of airtime to these events, which really are isolated incidents that really aren't of any consequence to the vast majority of the country (just like that stupid *rich white* girl that got killed or abducted somewhere in the Cariibean).B.Schuss wrote:
Still, I have one question that maybe some of the US guys here can answer. Where do you think those high numbers of school shootings come from ? I mean, this is the fourth or fifth shooting in a month or so. Wouldn't you agree that the high number of guns in circulation and the easy availability play a role here ?
I mean, we have our share of crazy teenagers in germany, too, but a lot less school shootings.
Someone here said that an armed society is a polite society. Personally, I find it ironic that one would think that adding more guns to an already violent society would help make that society less violent.
We glamorize them. We give them the attention they want and need. They want to be remembered, and we give them a glorious finale.
I think the news should be like baseball. When a fan gets on the field, cut to the talking heads who discuss stats, the weather, anything other than the dude on the field. Why do you think no one streaks the Superbowl, or the World Series, the same way they do the World Cup Championships?
If we deny them the one thing they want (fame), there's no point to it. And maybe, just maybe, they'd go back to hanging themselves, or shooting themselves, and leave us alone.
And I point out again that this shooting took place in a Gun Free Zone. Or, as I like to call it, a Government-Approved Slaughter Zone.
Nope. If we're going for easy, cheap, and effective, we're much better off to kill them all and let God sort it out.Dilbert_X wrote:
Wouldn't it be a lot easier, cheaper and more effective to re-educate them?
It's for the greater good. Of the US, anyway.
Sure I have. By no means do I "racially profile," but you'd better believe every time I get on an airplane, the guy's I'm staring at are the ones with big beards and turbans.
You are most certainly forgiven.Reciprocity wrote:
oops, sorry, I was thinking of the Sig pro series. I hope you can forgive me.blisteringsilence wrote:
A Sig p226 is a steel frame / steel slide firearm. I don't really know how that qualifies for tupperware. That moniker's normally reserved for glocks and xD's.
or not.
The Sig pro series is plastic metal composite, as is the new p250. And as far as composites, its hard to find one that shoots as well stock as a Sig Pro.IRONCHEF wrote:
Sig doesn't even make a plastic gun, do they? Be nice if someone didn't jump the bandwagon.
And can I just say how excited I am for the p250? Someone has finally taken the idea of the composite to somewhere useful. One action, 3 grip sizes, 4 calibers, 3 frame sizes. 36 possible weapons from one action.
Wow.
Ummmmmmmmmm........Reciprocity wrote:
nice piece of tupperware. all I have right now in sidearms is a ruger P94 in .40. heavy as hell, ugly as hell, reliable as hell. i bought it from a guy who needed the money more than i needed the gun, but it was a good deal.
A Sig p226 is a steel frame / steel slide firearm. I don't really know how that qualifies for tupperware. That moniker's normally reserved for glocks and xD's.
They have IPSC in Belgium? I thought handguns were verboten in the EU.Pierre wrote:
Good for you! You will like it, it's one of the best 9mm out on the market. But in self defence, nothing matches a .45Try 200 x .45 during a practice session on an IPSC course. At the time I was practicing 3 times a week, nearly bankrupted me, and I made my own ammo at the time. Ahh good times, I remember I could do an el presidente under 8 seconds...CoronadoSEAL wrote:
how quickly i can shoot 100 rounds/30 dollars of ammo[/list]
Sorry man, I have to disagree. A taser is not a last resort. Certainly not for me. I'll use my taser before I get my pepper spray off my belt. Despite what you see on the internet, there have been hundreds of thousand taser deployments, and only a handful of deaths, most of which were incidental to drug use.Turquoise wrote:
Tasers > Guns
Sure, they might kill occasionally, but they're less lethal than guns.
On the flipside, we should make it very clear to law enforcement (whether in the U.K. or elsewhere) that tasers should be used just as often as guns -- in other words, as a last resort. We've already seen one Utah cop in a clip posted here abuse the use of one on one particularly unlucky sap.
20 years ago, these deaths were blamed on pepper spray. Now, they're blamed on tasers. Really, the COD is stimulant overdose. ANY stress-inducing activity (including running from the cops) is enough to enduce a lethal arrythmia while high on coke, or meth, or any other upper. Blaming the death on a taser is a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.
Tasers are used safely and effectively every day. They're a better pain compliance device than anything else on the market (not disfiguring like batons, no officer danger like pepper spray).
The moral of the story is that no matter what, some asshole will make the news by doing something stupid, be it driving a car into a crowd, or abusing his authority with a taser. It sucks, but from extreme cases come bad law. Ask any lawyer.
I love the night sights I put on my 229R.CoconutBlitz wrote:
I find them very usual in low light / no light sight acquisition.... sometimes in bright light as in sun or flashlight pointing at you its a little hard to find the front dot sight, other then that I couldn't imagine not having them on a handgun.CoronadoSEAL wrote:
how do you like the night sights?CoconutBlitz wrote:
Sig Sauer make a fine handgun I have the p220r Carry, SigLite night sights w/ Crimson Trace grips.
Even worse is the higher cost of burning through 45 acp ammo.
It's accurate like a bastard right out of the box and easy to tuck in a concealed holster, and downright sexy too.
Combine it with the crimson trace grips and a rail mounted or handheld tac white light it's a winning combo.
Trijicon for the win. The white circle around the tritium makes daytime aqusition a breeze, and with green on the front and orange on the back, I know the alignment of the 3 dots I'm lining up on my target.
And I'm about to order a p250. Bud's has the nitron for $550, and the two-tone for $630. Delivered.
_j5689_ wrote:
Gun ownership is very tightly restricted in Britain, everybody that legally owns one is one is on record, and I imagine there's not a whole lot of people there anyway that do have one. This means that the likelihood of encountering someone with a gun is much much lower than it would be in other places. So cops with non-lethal deterrents are for the most part quite effective, and if, in that rare situation, someone is encountered with a gun, there is always the armed police.
Everything in pink I added.Noobeater wrote:
They already have lightweight stab proof vests that they have to wear all the time when on duty. (they won't stop a bullet. Though, a bullet resistant vest won't stop a knife either) Thought I don't think it could stop a bullet. As you said it is very hard to legally get a gun here as its only legal to have a .22 (not true) if you have had the required training tto use it (also not true)(normally through the military) and other than that only shotguns are legally allowed and even then its only birdshot firing ones as pump actions are illegal (birdshot is an ammo description. Any shotgun can fire birdshot, or slugs, or buckshot, or fletchettes, etc. The restriction is on "sporting" shotguns. eg, no SPAS 12 shotguns. Pump shotguns are indeed still legal to anyone who holds a shotgun certificate.) . The problem has always been that crimal gangs have simple taken the ferry to say holland or france then drove into eastern europe where it is still relatively easily to get guns on the black market, they then buy one or two then go back and I don't think there are any contriband checks so they can do it relatively easily. Or so I have gathered by several BBC news articles.
Personally I think that the police should only be armed with tasers if they area that they patrol is very rough e.g. some parts of south london or the worst area's in manchester.
I would also go along with the idea that the police should have at least 3 officers who have firearms training in each station and a small cache of weapons under lock and key in the station just in case.
I know some UK officers from a message board that I'm on, and they're enthused about the prospect of being issued a taser. And the aussie officers make fun of them for not having "a real weapon."
We Americans just hold back and watch the slings and arrows fly.
Hey, I saw Queens of the Stone Age last night, and I approve even more than before.too_money2007 wrote:
I stick to classic rock mostly. Nothing's better than Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Rush, etc etcBraddock wrote:
Grunge may over and done with but there's fuck all good music around these days to take its place. Except for the odd good band here and there.too_money2007 wrote:
Peral Jam still sings? God, they suck now. I used to like, maybe, 2 of their songs, but really. The whole gay grunge band thing is over with.
http://www.learningfromlyrics.org/22Jeremy%5B1%5D.jpg
Hmmm.... you can't get into war college until you're an O-5.....so you've got some time on your hands......Genera|-Idea. wrote:
I would go to War College to become a tactition.
Yeah, flying planes is pretty demanding. That whole colorblind thing, as well as the dyslexic thing, those would both be pretty big disqualifiers. In the US, AFAIK, the only MOS you'd qualify for is some sort of Admin.mcminty wrote:
Are you serious? Woah...^*AlphA*^ wrote:
Royal Dutch Airforce for sure.
can't become a pilot because I'm dyslectic tho
As for me, I wouldn't hesitate joining the RAAF as an Engineer or Pilot... but that would require the AFD to relax their standards regarding red/green colour blindness (the fuck I'd become an Admino or something like that ).
Me, I'd go CG. Rescue Swimmer for the win. Hell, that's part of what I do now. If I can't get it, a medic somewhere. Why learn new skillz?
Some context would be helpful.......TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
I am so confused right now.
Man, there are only three that agree with me on Mahler? That's too bad. His Kindertotenlieder is one of the coolest pieces of music I've ever heard.
Personally, I also like Oroff, Puccini, Rossini, Bizet, Verdi. Bach's cello suites. Mozart for his piano sonatas. Ditto for Beethoven, as well as his symphonies. Copeland. Williams. Wagner.
But seriously guys. Give Mahler a chance.
Personally, I also like Oroff, Puccini, Rossini, Bizet, Verdi. Bach's cello suites. Mozart for his piano sonatas. Ditto for Beethoven, as well as his symphonies. Copeland. Williams. Wagner.
But seriously guys. Give Mahler a chance.
The new slate of candidates:
President: Kmarion
Vice President: ATG
Secretary of State: Lowing
Secretary of the Treasury: Turquoise
Secretary of Defense: usmarine
Secretary of War: gunslinger
Attorney General: blisteringsilence
Secretary of the Interior: Liberal-Sl@yer
Secretary of Agriculture: GorillaTicTacs
Secretary of Commerce: unnamednewbie13
Secretary of Labor: Cougar
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Commie Killer
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: doctastrangelove1964
Secretary of Transportation: KEN-JENNINGS
Secretary of Energy: Major.League.Infidel
Secretary of Education: M.O.A.B.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: DesertFox
Secretary of Homeland Security: Topal
President: Kmarion
Vice President: ATG
Secretary of State: Lowing
Secretary of the Treasury: Turquoise
Secretary of Defense: usmarine
Secretary of War: gunslinger
Attorney General: blisteringsilence
Secretary of the Interior: Liberal-Sl@yer
Secretary of Agriculture: GorillaTicTacs
Secretary of Commerce: unnamednewbie13
Secretary of Labor: Cougar
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Commie Killer
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: doctastrangelove1964
Secretary of Transportation: KEN-JENNINGS
Secretary of Energy: Major.League.Infidel
Secretary of Education: M.O.A.B.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: DesertFox
Secretary of Homeland Security: Topal
i still need agriculture and HUD..... who wants them?
President: Kmarion
Vice President: ATG
Secretary of State: Lowing
Secretary of the Treasury: Turquoise
Secretary of Defense: usmarine
Secretary of War: gunslinger
Attorney General: blisteringsilence
Secretary of the Interior: Liberal-Sl@yer
Secretary of Agriculture:
Secretary of Commerce: unnamednewbie13
Secretary of Labor: Cougar
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Commie Killer
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development:
Secretary of Transportation: KEN-JENNINGS
Secretary of Energy: Major.League.Infidel
Secretary of Education: M.O.A.B.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: DesertFox
Secretary of Homeland Security: Topal
Vice President: ATG
Secretary of State: Lowing
Secretary of the Treasury: Turquoise
Secretary of Defense: usmarine
Secretary of War: gunslinger
Attorney General: blisteringsilence
Secretary of the Interior: Liberal-Sl@yer
Secretary of Agriculture:
Secretary of Commerce: unnamednewbie13
Secretary of Labor: Cougar
Secretary of Health and Human Services: Commie Killer
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development:
Secretary of Transportation: KEN-JENNINGS
Secretary of Energy: Major.League.Infidel
Secretary of Education: M.O.A.B.
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: DesertFox
Secretary of Homeland Security: Topal
OLD.ScOrPiOn1189 wrote:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fRZSzdQuOqM&mode=related&search=
this whole thing is pretty f*cked up if u ask me.
Not to mention, it started off with a reference to Operation Northwoods.
Do some of your own research. Don't blindly accept what youtube tells you. Good Lord. One of these days, I'm going to make a video that proves, with no evidence whatsoever, the earth is the center of the universe. And put it on youtube. And what makes me sick is that there are people who are gullible enough to believe it. Hell, if I blame it on Bush, I might have a new religion.
You are trying to compare a democrat of 1945 to a democrat of today, as well as a republican of 1953 to one of today. It doesn't work like that. The terms liberal and conserative, which are so bandied about today, have no historical associations with Republican and Democratic parties. Lincoln's republicans have nothing to do with Eisenhower's republicans, and even less to do with Bush's republicans. The same can be said for the democratic party through time.Smithereener wrote:
Neville Chamberlain, the guy who negotiated the appeasement of Hitler, was actually a conservative. Eastern Europe suffered under Communism because the Soviet Union had a tight grasp on them. Blame the liberals for not wanting another major war right after WWII? That's outrageous. Not the mention that Harry Truman (Democrat, but you know, Democrat=liberal right?) had a part in the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuilt Europe after WWII, preventing Communist sentiment from pervading too much, and the Truman Doctrine, which contained Communism, and NATO. But, pffft, he didn't do anything to rid/stop Communism right? Yeah, that war in my home country during his presidency had nothing to do with Communism. Let's look at the next President during the Cold War - Dwight D. Eisenhower. (Republican, which means he was conservative) Oh yeah, he's conservative, that means he didn't let Eastern Europe suffer under the Soviet Union. Oh wait, it's not 1991 yet. Whoops. Seriously (I'll say this again), this whole hatred of liberals and conservatives is total bollocks that detracts from the potential solutions to problems plaguing our society.
Please, no more of this in at least this thread...
Why is arguing on the internet just like competing in the special olympics?Spark wrote:
I call that Check, mate, good game.HunterOfSkulls wrote:
I'm not dumb. That's why I don't have any problems with reading comprehension, as you appear to. See below.David.P wrote:
(My god ilberals are dumb)
</truncated>
I'll bet you see yourself as a real tough customer. I'll bet you also don't see how people look at you, a big blowhard parody of the people you claim to support, people who live lives of honor, distinction and duty while you sit safe on the sidelines imagining that you have even an ounce of what it takes to be like them, imagining that you know what honor, distinction and duty even are. You've got as much of a grasp on those concepts as a gorilla would on Nietzsche's entire body of work. You're a bully, a brute, someone who would use force to impose his will on other people simply because you could and I thank everything good and decent in this world that you're not a uniformed soldier of this country.
Even if you win, you're still retarted.
An aussie who doesn't understand why we carry knives!!!! ahahahahahahahahahahahahah.mcminty wrote:
So you are allowed to carry a knife, designed for killing, 5 years before you are allowed to consume alchohol?!??lavadisk wrote:
-I'm 16
In my opinion, no 'civillain' should be allowed to carry around a weapon. Especially knives.Jesus christ. Your knife is based off a combat knife. A COMBAT KNIFE!The KA-BAR is a 12-inch fighting and utility knife (7 inches making up the blade) first used by the US Marines in World War II, and carried into battle by generations of Marines since that conflict.
I don't get your country...
lemmie explain:
It's a useful tool, no matter what your trade. While I would disagree with his particular choice of knife, I use mine everyday. Hell, that's why I have so many. Different tools for different situations.Dimeyard wrote:
I thinks it´s fucking mental that you´re allowed to carry a knife in public.
You would never be allowed to do that in sweden, unless you needed a knife in your daily work, such as a carpet knife or something.
At any given time, you'll find at least two knives on me, along with my duty weapon.agent146 wrote:
don't see why you need to carry a knife...unless your in a really really bad neighbourhood. robbers and thieves will carry knifes so if you want go ahead carry a knife; but remeber you still have to learn how to use it . and besides who needs a knife when you got.....BEAR MACe because hey if it can take out a bear...image what it can do to a human
I carry this every day:
http://www.benchmade.com/products/produ … ?model=940
I wouldn't trade it for the world. Though, now that they make it with a new steel, I've been considering getting a new one.
I keep this in my car, in a mount on the center console:
http://www.benchmade.com/products/produ … odel=10105
I keep this in my belt pouch, along with a welch allyn penlight, and a pair of trauma shears:
http://www.thecollectorsedge.com/prodin … CT0101ORSB
When I'm diving, or engaged in a swiftwater rescue, I keep one of these on the left side of my BC/Vest, and one strapped to my right leg:
http://www.agrussell.com/knives/by_make … bc_er.html
I keep one of these in my glovebox. It's damn useful:
http://www.agrussell.com/knives/by_make … egend.html
And when I go camping or hiking, this is what I wear on my belt:
http://www.agrussell.com/knives/by_make … nessy.html
In short, knives are damn useful tools. But you don't need to stroll around like Jim Bowie. That's just silly. A nice, expensive pocket folder (benchmade, spyder, al mar, boker, some SOG) will last you the rest of your life if you take care of it. My dad has carried the same boker pocket folder for the last 6 years, and the only problem he's had with it is that the brass gets a little tarnished, and he has to get it cleaned.
With knives, you really do get what you pay for. Ask parker.
Hell, now he's going to make fun of me for my choices, so that's only fair.
Murder: 25 years to life without parole. If committed with malice aforethought, death.
Animal Cruelty: $10K fine, 1 year in jail
Rape: 10 to 20 years. If committed alongside another violent felony, 25 to life.
Grand Theft: restitution, $5K fine, 5 years
Treason: death by hanging or public shooting
Robbery: restitution, 5 years
Child Molestation: 25 to life, lifetime monitering via electronic bracelet, weekly parole checks, no further contact with children
Child Neglect: 3 to 20 years, depending on severity, no further contact with children
Perjury: max 3 years, unless said perjury results in another felony.
Defacating in Public: 1500 hours community service, or 500 hours on a chain gang
Streaking: 250 hours community service
Possession of marijuana: small amount: 2500 hours community service, or 1000 hours on a chain gang, rehab, mandatory urine tests for 5 years. If the test pops positive, 10 years..... large amount, 15 years, $100K fine
Possession of other narcotics besides marijuana: 2500 hours community service, or 1000 hours on a chain gang, rehab, mandatory urine tests for 5 years. If the test pops positive, 10 years..... large amount, 15 years, $100K fine
Driving under the influence: Suspended license for 1 year, 90 days in jail, $5000 fine, mandatory iginition interlock, alcohol treatment. If repeat offender, 10 years in prison
Manslaughter: too many degrees to make a blanket statement
Destruction of Private Property: restitution, $1000 fine, 500 hours community service
Assisted Euthenasia: no punishment
Animal Cruelty: $10K fine, 1 year in jail
Rape: 10 to 20 years. If committed alongside another violent felony, 25 to life.
Grand Theft: restitution, $5K fine, 5 years
Treason: death by hanging or public shooting
Robbery: restitution, 5 years
Child Molestation: 25 to life, lifetime monitering via electronic bracelet, weekly parole checks, no further contact with children
Child Neglect: 3 to 20 years, depending on severity, no further contact with children
Perjury: max 3 years, unless said perjury results in another felony.
Defacating in Public: 1500 hours community service, or 500 hours on a chain gang
Streaking: 250 hours community service
Possession of marijuana: small amount: 2500 hours community service, or 1000 hours on a chain gang, rehab, mandatory urine tests for 5 years. If the test pops positive, 10 years..... large amount, 15 years, $100K fine
Possession of other narcotics besides marijuana: 2500 hours community service, or 1000 hours on a chain gang, rehab, mandatory urine tests for 5 years. If the test pops positive, 10 years..... large amount, 15 years, $100K fine
Driving under the influence: Suspended license for 1 year, 90 days in jail, $5000 fine, mandatory iginition interlock, alcohol treatment. If repeat offender, 10 years in prison
Manslaughter: too many degrees to make a blanket statement
Destruction of Private Property: restitution, $1000 fine, 500 hours community service
Assisted Euthenasia: no punishment