The absence of alcohol in one's system would preclude any positive reading of any alcohol during testing. Also, a 0.05% variance would, or should mean a variance in the end results. That doesn't mean that an actual 0.00 BAC would readout as 0.05 BAC. If it did, then the testing wouldn't be acceptable for use in legal proceedings.
One can already be arrested for having less than a.08% BAC in Georgia, and many other states. I'm not sure about the statue on other states, but in Georgia, according to the O.C.G.A.(Official Code of Georgia Annotated), one is considered "less safe" if law enforcement can provide proof that the driver was "under the influence" at a level below the "legal limit". I have arrested many people under this portion of the DUI statue, in Georgia.
Usually, I would establish "less safe" with video and audio recordings of the driver's inability to maintain lane and other moving violations, as well as my encounter with the driver, and the sobriety tests administered during the stop of the particular individual. "Less safe" is important, as it removes bureaucratic roadblocks from stop those that aren't capable of possessing a certain amount of alcohol in their bloodstream and operating a motor vehicle. The NTSB is doing nothing that isn't already enforced in many, possible most or all states currently.
There are people that can safely drive with 0.08% BAC, and higher. While I personally don't consume alcohol, I do consume narcotics for severe pain relief. If one took my blood and observed the levels, they would probably wish to jail me on those numbers alone. The issue is that it's safe to allow me to operate a motor vehicle, as I'm not "under the influence"(I don't experience the negative effects of narcotics, and even have a high tolerance against some of the positive effects), or my state of alertness and readiness isn't impacted in the slightest. That is what the people should be concerned with, whether the driver is "under the influence", "less safe", or simply whether the individual isn't capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.
I don't have either my PS3, or my Xbox 360 connected to the Internet, and I get sufficient enjoyment from both. Though, not having either console connected isn't by choice, as I don't have an effective, reliable, and affordable "broadband" connection. My only choice is Verizon Wireless LTE, which runs at $80 a month for 10GB, plus $10 per 1GB over the plan's allocation. My county is in(officially) the Metro Atlanta Area, but neither AT&T or Comcast give a shit, as neither will provide Internet access to the majority of the counties closest to me.
These rumors about an Internet connection being a requirement, until proven, are total bullshit. If such a requirement were put into place, it would raise Sony as the near-inherent winner, by pushing away the massive amount of people that hate DRM(well, further DRM; consoles are already heavily laden with DRM) and those without broadband, or those, like myself, that are severely limited. If Microsoft makes such a decision, I will refuse to purchase the system, as will many others, irregardless of whether others believe the contrary.
Microsoft has shown us, many times over, that it will make monumentally stupid decisions(Windows 8 relatively being one of the most current of such decisions), so nothing will surprise me. Regardless, I would hope that those with the ability to veto such a requirement would do so, as the overall market won't support such a move. Internet access, especially broadband Internet access that will support such bloated services, isn't as ubiquitous as so many here, and elsewhere, believe it to be.
I must have missed the portion of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution that requires me to encrypt my "...papers, and effects..." In order to receive protection against "...unreasonable searches and seizures...". I always had to obtain a warrant, and would never have acted otherwise, regardless of whatever unconstitutional laws or orders from superiors, when I was pursuing any person I suspected of committing the violation, or violations, that I was investigating. The issue is that agents and officers are yet another check in the system, and said people are required to refuse illegal orders and not utilize any authority that violated the Constitution, or the law.
There are punishments for violating an individual's rights, including Title 18 U.S.C., Section 242.
Yet, I doubt it's anywhere near what an employee of a non-government run/controlled organization and/or education complex pays to eat lunch, either within their organization or at a third-party provider.
As another addition: Speeding violations can't be written, legally, for speeds over 10 MPH the posted limit and under(i.e. 1 to 10 MPH in excess) by all law enforcement in Georgia, save for e Georgia State Patrol and/or other state agencies that monitor speed on public roadways. This restriction is specifically listed in the O.C.G.A.(Official Code of Georgia Annotated, or Georgia law), when speed detection equipment is used. The problem is that speeds can be estimated by sight, as trained in Georgia, so this restriction isn't as strong as it seems, in some circumstances. Also, this restriction doesn't affect school speed zones(speed reductions zones), nor residential neighborhoods not located on Georgia highways, which are specifically speed restricted.
You can be stopped, but a summons can't be issued for speeds of 10 MPH, or less, on highways, interstates, or other, non-specific roads, caveats listed above. Most agencies will give at least 10, sometimes 15 over, especially is light traffic areas, or times(late night, very early morning).
I don't know the laws that govern speed detection devices in Ohio, but in Georgia(where I live), speed detection devices are tightly controlled, when used by the State, or any political subdivisions(cities and counties, or non-sovereign entities). In fact, all traffic violations are tightly controlled, as to whom may enforce them. I have a feeling that there are more than a few states that handle the situation in similar fashion.
Only law enforcement may "arrest"(arrests included signed traffic summons, which is why the summons has posted "in lieu of arrest" at the signature) on personally viewed traffic violations. That means that if the violations isn't personally view by sworn, active law enforcement(can be on or off duty), then no "arrest" can be made. In other words, any random person, or non-Georgia law enforcement citizen, can't view a violation(most of which are misdemeanor crimes, in Georgia, which is dumb), report said violation(s), and have law enforcement act. Such violation reports don't even provide "reasonable, articulable suspicion(RAS).
As far as speed detection equipment, the equipment must, and I do mean must, be calibrated each day. With radar, two tuning forks are used, each fork representing a specific speed, the number specified by unremovable mark on the tuning fork(if I remember correctly, the speeds were 60-something MPH and 44, or 40-something MPH, or miles per hour). The operator, who had to be a certified peace officer(through Georgia POST, or Peace Officers Standards and Training Council), and hold a certification on operating speed detection equipment(usually a week, or five days, long; speed detection equipment can be purchased and operated by anyone, but if one wishes to do so as law enforcement, then certifications are a requirement), activated each fork in front of each antenna, then held both in he same path(to check moving radar capabilities). I can't remember the requirements on laser and other technologies, as I didn't use the at the agency I worked at, and quit doing road enforcement when I took a different position elsewhere.
Seeing as I doubt these cameras were checked for proper functionality daily, if that is a requirement under Ohio law(how could Ohio bring cases, when the "arresting" officer can't verify the basic functionality of the equipment he or she is using?), that is one of many problems with that equipment. Hell, even speedometers on law enforcement vehicles are calibrated twice a month, or more, as the speedometers are also used in speed detection, and it is a very simplistic piece of equipment, relatively speaking.
For those that aren't aware, I was in law enforcement and I have used speed detection devices. I wouldn't trust the readings from I monitored equipment, run by corporations seeking profit.
No, nonprofit hospitals in the US have every right to maintain a technical "profit", or maintain their accounting "in the black"(as opposed to "in the red", like the US and most state governments). The positive income is held for expansion and/or improvement plans(i.e. remodeling of current structures, expanding the building(s), building new offices, and doing whatever else to improve service to those the nonprofit offers service to. To say that nonprofits can't maintain positive cash flow, while also saving that positive income for future profits is disingenuous, and bordering, no, it is an outright lie. Save the demonization for those that deserve it.
I will admit that CEO for nonprofit hospitals, among other areas, has been sharply increasing, while all other areas, save for specialize medical doctors and the like(even their pay hasn't increased that much, relatively speaking), has continued to stagnate, or slightly revert compared to inflation. Regardless, the hospitals have to compete, and in order to do so, the salaries have to be able to compete with similar positions in other nonprofits and for-profit organizations. If you are truly blind to that reality, you should reconsider whether or not you are capable of maintaining the discussion at hand.
I fail to see how government shortfalls have anything to do with a private nonprofit hospital. Government isn't the only entity that exists as a nonprofit. While the main goal of a nonprofit organization isn't to achieve or maintain a technical "profit", it is the goal of a nonprofit to offer benefits at an effective price point, while maintaining capital to continue operating and realizing new funding to expand operations. The new funding is, practically, a profit, if the organization is run efficiently.
Many family members of mine have worked, or currently work at a nonprofit hospital in Georgia. While I believe its CEO is paid quite a lot of money, given the area, I understand that the hospital pays him the salary to compete and maintain his employment contract. Seeing as the hospital continually run deep "in the black", or a technical "profit"(costs are less than revenue generated), I see no reason to argue against the hospital's decisions.
Perhaps there is a dislike of people being extremely successful?
No, the United States of America is a democratic republic(started as a republic, but the 17th Amendment, including how states, which are sovereign entities and thus equal to the national government, hold referendums and such). We elect representatives, who hold authority to make governmental decisions on out behalf. It is a generally held, but false belief that the US is a democracy; democracies are a farce, at best(read Federalist number 10).
Authority and power are derived from the citizens of the US, but we allow our representatives make decisions that aren't strictly forbidden in the US Constitution, and to a lesser extent, federal/state laws(the US Constitution is the ultimate legal document in the entire US system of governments).
Yeah, the previous poster would be wise to read Warren v D.C., Castle Rock v. Gonzales, and DeShaney v Winnebago County(just to start, DeShaney and Gonzales really applies more to the events in Connecticut, though Warren does cover failures to act, or act "quickly"). Law enforcement, nor any government actor/agency has any duty to protect any individual, or respond to any calls for assistance,
I "own" 417 select-fire/full-automatic capable firearms( call them assault...firearms, if you must, as not all are rifles, such as the wo Glock 18s), but I refuse to use the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon"(in my state(Georgia), an assault is a term that describes a threat, not a physical interaction, so those two terms have always seemed dumb). I am a 07/02 FFL/SOT(federal firearm licensed manufacturer that has paid his 02 Special Occupational Tax; don't dare call it "class 3", as that is a bullshit term, too. I manufacturer Title II firearms, which included suppressors, short barrel rifles/shotguns, and "machine guns". Title I covers most all others, such as semi-automatic handguns and rifles), so my ownership of all "post samples"(select-fire firearm made after 19 May 1986, which is a stupid provision) ends when I stop sending checks towards the BATFE(well, sort of towards that agency) for $500 a year($1,000, if I exceed $500,000 a year in sales).
After that, I have to destroy my post samples, sell them to another FFL/SOT(which almost always requires a demonstration letter, save for special dispensations, which can be rare), or give them away to a law enforcement agency/qualified(export authorized, save for our own) military organization. It is thoughts like that which make me dislike our national government.
No, it is our job to defend ourselves and defend our rights. Government has no responsibility to respond to any calls of assistance from you, no matter how many movies and TV shows lie to you. Read the abundant case law to clear this up.
You are dismissing a lot of history and many instances of current events in making your point(which fails). There are many examples of less forces taking greater one, and many examples of the opposite. There is no guaranteed outcome in the meeting any two forces, no matter how well one side prepared.
Also, a firearm is a force equalizer. When you add in training(self or professional, both working about as well), a firearm will fend off even the most well experienced criminal, or criminal government. I guess your argument appears more valid, to you, by rehashing the falsities(mostly, as you spread a little truth you really drive your point) you posted.
No, that would be an authority or power, not a right. An individual has rights, government and its actors have authority. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Humans are living beings, and living beings have rights. Government exists because the citizenry allows it. We citizens grant that existence through an allocation of authority. While we do so, no government has the right to exist; the existence of any government is perpetuated through the continual authorization of the populace it have goverance over.
Anyone that believes a government has any rights doesn't understand the definition of the word, in the given context.
The definitions of all the words in any legal document only matter at the time of the writing of said legal document. That is why we keep track of the various dialects, and the "proper" form of various languages. That way, should a difference of opinion occur, the difference can be cleared in court(should that be needed).
Still, a militia doesn't exist solely to defend the wishes of those in power, but the state(any state or the US Government, which are the only two forms of sovereignty in the United States and both of which derive power from the same source) and the people(us, not the disconnected entity "The People"). The militia is comprised of all "able bodied" males, of a certain age(normally 16 to 18, through 60, or older, if needed and depending) and is to act to ensure the security of the citizenry, should the manpower of the official, uniformed forced fail to meet expectations, and/or to act in defense of the citizenry against any corrupt or tyrannical government within one or many states, or the Union of our states.
If our potential militia members aren't "well regulated", as is currently the case, then we, as citizens and as a larger body, have failed to meet our own expectations. All militia members have been and currently would be required to arm themselves. Even the US Government, the most well armed government that exists, couldn't equip a half of the US militia body, nor should it be expected to. Hence part of the reason the Second Amendment exists.
I have heard and read that some believe that some people that altered the intended meaning over the last few decades, to rationalize citizen access to firearms, but that pure bullshit. There have been many people that have discussed the meaning of that amendment for about as long as it has existed, and many have discussed how it applies to individuals, not a collective. Of course, if one read this, or any other portion of the US Constitution, and reads it rationally, it would be understood as it is supposed to be.
One must also be aware that, in the United States and the various states, government has no rights, only limited authority. As such, with the U.S. Constitution's "Bill of Rights", amendments that reinforce an individual's rights(again, remember that the Bill of Rights didn't create any rights; it only served to protect rights that already existed. The Founders understood, rightly, that no government has the power or authority to give anyone rights. Our rights exists naturally, and many of us have lost sight of this important fact.) will refer to them as "a right" or "rights". Government authority will be referred to as "authority" or "power(s)"(though there could be variation on the exact term, depending).
I don't want to read any comment about a "living constitution", as to attempt to have other believe the interpretation is open to change, whenever it suits a group. That isn't how the US Constitution works. It is a "living document", in that it can be altered, per the terms set out in the document(support of two-thirds of Congress for the amendment, then three-fourths of the state legislatures or the special state conventions, as decided by the US Congress, must agree or disagree for the amendment to come into effect). 10,000, or so, amendments have been proposed and we have 27. Otherwise, the US Constitution doesn't change and the mean of any portion of the US Constitution doesn't change(that would require an amendment, see 18th and 21st Amendments).
Government has no rights. It most certainly doesn't have any right to know what I own or possess, until said government obtains a warrant. That is why we have the Fourth Amendment. So, until some asshole obtains a warrant, you best believe I will never register my property, nor seek a license to exercise any of my rights.
There are no known threats. The FBI has laughed off the bullshit claims by the idiots that posted people's information. The newspaper is looking to demonize people exercising their rights. Fuck them.
The irony is that the newspaper, looking to demonize people exercising their rights, is looking to armed guards to protect them. The irony is extremely thick.
So you are in favor of violating an explicitly stated amendment(the Second Amendment explicitly protects citizens' rights to arms equal to our military, considering the portions "A well regulated militia..."(the word regulated meaning equally or well equipped, as used during the inception and passing of the Second Amendment) and "...the right of the people..."(while "The People" and "the people" both refer to the citizenry, from whence the authority of the various government is derived from, "The People" is termed to discuss the wider authority(our governments); "the people" directly refer to the citizenry). The whole "...shall not be infringed." part would cause any bans to be severe violations of the Second Amendment) to the US Constitution, for a protection that isn't explicitly stated but decided through case law? While both protections are important, and I support both, I fail to see how anyone, of any intelligence, would advocate violating the highest and most important document in the United States.
There were close to 100 million firearm owners in the United States that have not used their firearms to commit any crimes, nor knowingly commit any crimes, of any kind, either recently, nor at any time in the past. So, considering the odds, legal firearm owners are the most law abiding citizens that exists. Those are the people that should have arms, considering the reason our rights were protected(The Second Amendment protected an already existing right; that Amendment didn't create any new right.).
What gun show "loop hole"? Oh, you mean the part of the federal firearm laws that states that non-Federal Firearm Licensees(FFL) individuals that sell to other individuals are not required to fill out an ATF Form 4473(this is the form filled out on all purchased from FFL dealers/manufacturers, generally), or run a background check through NICS(National Instant Criminal Background Check System) on the purchaser? Well, that isn't a "loop hole", nor does it have anything to do with gun shows.
Access to the NICS is restricted to FFL dealer/exporter/importer/manufacturers/other. Giving access to anyone that wants to sell firearms to other individuals, outside of a commercial setting, would create a nightmare, as well as put more controls on what is already a rather tightly controlled activity. I wouldn't want to put all that extra strain on the FBI, indivuduals(tens of millions of which are firearm carriers/owners, none of which committed any crimes that day, and are the most law abiding and respectful group of people on the planet), or FFL holders.
There is no law, or groups of laws that will change the real problem: Evil human behavior. The moment everyone starts to realize that bad events happen all the time, and that we do not have the power to avoid such events, the easier(though slightly, and without consolation) life will become. Less restrictions, especially on those that have already passed multiple background checks and might have some of the best training(though, training should never be mandatory on the exercising of any of our rights), is the only viable option to offer up any solution that might have any measurable results. Even that doesn't guarantee the result we hope for.
Feel free to post any of te convoluted data you wish, which you believe "proves" your point. Allow me to save you some time and tell you that none of the data, most of which is bullshit, proves anything. Also, save the tired clichés, on both sides of the argument. Using cliches makes the user, especially the ones that use cliches multiple time in a single post, look infantile, uneducated, and desperate. I would also refrain from stating(well, lying, actually) that you are "pro-gun"("rabidly", or not), then set about expounding thoughts that are "rabidly" "anti-gun".
I don't give a shit about statistics, or any other data on this particular subject. Providing firearms, or access to firearms, doesn't guarantee any result. Regardless, it is stupid to use that, or any other excuse to not give the individual access to whatever options he or she wishes to effect an efficient and reasonable self-defense. It is offensive to the highest order to try and claim that "gun-free zones" have any positive impact on anyone's safety, aside from, maybe, authorized government actors and criminals.
Everyone that died at Sandy Hook might have still died if all adults at that school were armed, but those people lacked any viable option to defend themselves and the students. I would rather that people make their own choice on what firearm(s) to carry, as well as when and where to carry, than to see the choice taken away from them. Giving people a chance a surviving such a horrible event is infinitely better than proving easy targets for evil, vile, and disgusting assholes seeking to harm and/or kill.
Do you not understand(obviously, you don't) that Social Security Disability(SSD or SSDI) is funded by, and only paid to, those that have worked and paired into that system? Do you not understand that the amount received each month is based off of how much you paid into the system? You need to actually learn about the topics you attempt to discuss, prior to making yourself appear unintelligent.
I am on disability myself. I previously worked in law enforcement, where I was hurt while working, and I cannot walk without a cane. I also live in an immense amount of pain. On good days, I am hovering around a seven, on a one(least, or no pain) to ten(intolerable, excruciating pain, the worst possible pain) scale, and on bad days, I cannot come down from ten. Today is a good day. I tend to have far more bad days.
Just because I worked in government does not make me more deserving of receiving benefits from one of the programs I paid into. There are a lot of people that need to be receiving SSD benefits, and there are many gaming the system. That is the failure of government, not our receiving benefits from a program we gave a lot of money to.
The people who only qualify for Medicaid(free, Mdicare is not free), Supplimental Income(free, for those not meeting a minimum, which is $678 a month), and other non-paid programs, are the problem. I understand that people fall on hard times, but far too many people "game" the system, and take advantage of money and programs they shouldn't have access to. If you want to target your angst somewhere, target it there.
I worked hard, and paid into the Social Security program by age 26 that most people will not have paid until age 45 to 50. So, spare me the uneducated angst over a topic you obviously have no business discussing.
Ask Berry College(located in Rome, GA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_College ) how their college campus ended up when Florida Rock dug a huge hole on campus property. Though the site was out of site to people on campus, one of the lakes on campus(Victory Lake) almost completely dried up(sink hole) and buildings, some very old(Ford Buildings, paid for by Henry Ford and given continued assistance by the Ford Corporation), started having problems from sink holes, the watertable started to be displaced, and it hurt the college far more than the help Berry College got from Florida Rock.
The rock quarry is now a large lake, which is also extremely deep. Would you fall in(which you should survive the fall), and cannot get out, you will drown and never have your body retrieved. Sadly, this place is well known to be an excellent place(one of a few in the area) to dump a body, or other items you do not want found, or ever retrieved by anyone(including the person that dump the body or item). Yes, Martha Berry would be proud.
There are other buildings that have had problems from the bad decision of Berry Colege's administration. These colleges may end up in a similar situation.
Excise tax is only required when one manufactures or imports more than 50 firearms or related, taxable articles in a given year. If one imports or manufactures 51 firearms or applicable articles, then the excise tax is due on 51 such items.
I will agree with the "subjective and changing" determinations that the ATF comes up with. Why is it that a pistol(less then 16 nch barrel, no shoulder stock, no forward grip, etc) can be converted into a rifle(16 inch barrel or greater, shoulder stock, forward grip, etc), but a rifle cannot be, legally, converted into a pistol? Why is a forward grip, similar to a broom handle design, not allowed on a pistol(that makes it an AOW, or "any other weapon", requiring an initial $200 tax, then a $5 transfer tax afterwards), but a Magpul AFG(angled forward grip) is allowed?
That is just the beginning of the ATF's buffoonery. Don't get me started on the GCA(Gun Control Act of 1968) and what the hell "sporting purpose" is, or should be. It seems like the ATF constantly is faultering one what is "sporting" and what allegedly isn't.
Yes, they can. A FFL(federal firearms license) holder, who has paid the SOT(special Occupation Tax), either the 03(dealer) or 02(dealer/manufacturer; can do both), can sell or manufacturer and sell, all Title II, or NFA(National Frearm Act; suppressors/silencers, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, select-fire or full auto(there is a slight difference) firearms, or any other firearms that are not "destructive devices") firearms and parts/accessories. The caveat is that one needs a demonstration letter from a law enforcement agency and/or the military(not from both, just from the government arm that is requesting the demonstration prior to purchase) to purchase a "post-1986"(Firearm Owner's "Protection" Act), or "dealer sample"(select-fire, or full auto firearm). Manufacturers can produce post samples without a letter, but neither of the SOTs can purchase from a third-party without a demonstration letter, unless the ATF allows an exemption(i.e. dealers going out of business and needing to dump samples/stock).
The SOT costs $1,000, per year, and is cut to $500 for those selling under $500,000 of inventory a year. Of course, you have to have a 01(dealer/gunsmith, which costs $200 when first obtaining, for thre years, then $90 for renewal)) FFL to obtain a 03 SOT. A manufacturer of NFA, or Class II firearms must have a 07(firearms manufacturer, which costs $150 per three years, which makes no sense, as you one can deal on a 07 license) and then may obtain either a 02(manufacturing) SOT or a 03(dealing only) SOT, if the manufacturer doesn't wish to manufacturer Class II, or NFA firearms.
Manufacturers also have to register with the US State Department, pay an annual $2,250 ITAR(International Traffic In Arms Regulation; a ripoff) fee, or seek an exemption, if you are not planning to export. The exemption is possible, but not the easiest act to achieve.
By the way, I possess a 07/02 FFL. I run my business from my home, and I mostly deal in arms for law enforcement, or NFA arms for citizens. I do a little manufacturing, but I mostly do pre-purchase alterations. A 01 FFL runs too much of a risk of being accused of being a manufacturer, if me is not aware of the potential pitfalls and the law. In reality, the laws covering what a 01 and a 07 FFL holder can do is ridiculous and should be altered. Thou, that is another discussion, for another time.
Oh, and, most states have not registration. The ATF is specifically not allowed to enact a registry of firearms and owners by legislation, among other controls. Sadly, the ATF has been skirting these restrictions.
Producing a firearm for personal use is not a "grey" matter. Such production is completely legal, and, in certain instances, can be sold, if it adheres to the law. One cannot build firearms, with the intent to sell, without a 07 FFL(or 02, for NFA arms). Quit spreading false information.
Training people to aim for anything other than centermass is blatantly stupid and a sign that the trainer is bad at his or her job. There is too great a risk that aiming for extremities, especially with rifles that shoot rifle-caliber rounds, will penetrate the intended target, and continue down range. Any respectable firearms instructor knows this.
The problem in this instance is that we have a person intent on committing several crimes that used a common tool commit said crimes. Instead of people blaming the criminal, they want to blame the tool. I'm sorry, but the firearm(s) used is(are) no more to blame than the movies and music is to blame.
Bad things happen. Even if all firearms and bad thoughts were banned, we would still have criminal activity to deal with and still experience the death of people that were innocent of any wrong doing. Oh, but, yeah blame the firearms. And terrorist. PEDOPHILES AND DRUGS!!!!!!111111 TERRORIST!!!!!!
I have carried a firearm, everyday, for the past 12 years. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people that are just like me. Guess how many of us have committed crimes against other people while carrying? None. Oh, but let's draw a correlation between the lawfully amongst us that do carry and the criminals that commit atrocities like above.
Had a few people in that crowd been carrying, the criminal piece of shit would have been dead moments after the canister carrying the smoke breached the doorway(situational awareness is a must, both when carrying and when one doesn't carry a firearm).
Slashdot Mirror
The absence of alcohol in one's system would preclude any positive reading of any alcohol during testing. Also, a 0.05% variance would, or should mean a variance in the end results. That doesn't mean that an actual 0.00 BAC would readout as 0.05 BAC. If it did, then the testing wouldn't be acceptable for use in legal proceedings.
One can already be arrested for having less than a .08% BAC in Georgia, and many other states. I'm not sure about the statue on other states, but in Georgia, according to the O.C.G.A.(Official Code of Georgia Annotated), one is considered "less safe" if law enforcement can provide proof that the driver was "under the influence" at a level below the "legal limit". I have arrested many people under this portion of the DUI statue, in Georgia.
Usually, I would establish "less safe" with video and audio recordings of the driver's inability to maintain lane and other moving violations, as well as my encounter with the driver, and the sobriety tests administered during the stop of the particular individual. "Less safe" is important, as it removes bureaucratic roadblocks from stop those that aren't capable of possessing a certain amount of alcohol in their bloodstream and operating a motor vehicle. The NTSB is doing nothing that isn't already enforced in many, possible most or all states currently.
There are people that can safely drive with 0.08% BAC, and higher. While I personally don't consume alcohol, I do consume narcotics for severe pain relief. If one took my blood and observed the levels, they would probably wish to jail me on those numbers alone. The issue is that it's safe to allow me to operate a motor vehicle, as I'm not "under the influence"(I don't experience the negative effects of narcotics, and even have a high tolerance against some of the positive effects), or my state of alertness and readiness isn't impacted in the slightest. That is what the people should be concerned with, whether the driver is "under the influence", "less safe", or simply whether the individual isn't capable of safely operating a motor vehicle.
I don't have either my PS3, or my Xbox 360 connected to the Internet, and I get sufficient enjoyment from both. Though, not having either console connected isn't by choice, as I don't have an effective, reliable, and affordable "broadband" connection. My only choice is Verizon Wireless LTE, which runs at $80 a month for 10GB, plus $10 per 1GB over the plan's allocation. My county is in(officially) the Metro Atlanta Area, but neither AT&T or Comcast give a shit, as neither will provide Internet access to the majority of the counties closest to me.
These rumors about an Internet connection being a requirement, until proven, are total bullshit. If such a requirement were put into place, it would raise Sony as the near-inherent winner, by pushing away the massive amount of people that hate DRM(well, further DRM; consoles are already heavily laden with DRM) and those without broadband, or those, like myself, that are severely limited. If Microsoft makes such a decision, I will refuse to purchase the system, as will many others, irregardless of whether others believe the contrary.
Microsoft has shown us, many times over, that it will make monumentally stupid decisions(Windows 8 relatively being one of the most current of such decisions), so nothing will surprise me. Regardless, I would hope that those with the ability to veto such a requirement would do so, as the overall market won't support such a move. Internet access, especially broadband Internet access that will support such bloated services, isn't as ubiquitous as so many here, and elsewhere, believe it to be.
I must have missed the portion of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution that requires me to encrypt my "...papers, and effects..." In order to receive protection against "...unreasonable searches and seizures...". I always had to obtain a warrant, and would never have acted otherwise, regardless of whatever unconstitutional laws or orders from superiors, when I was pursuing any person I suspected of committing the violation, or violations, that I was investigating. The issue is that agents and officers are yet another check in the system, and said people are required to refuse illegal orders and not utilize any authority that violated the Constitution, or the law.
There are punishments for violating an individual's rights, including Title 18 U.S.C., Section 242.
Yet, I doubt it's anywhere near what an employee of a non-government run/controlled organization and/or education complex pays to eat lunch, either within their organization or at a third-party provider.
As another addition: Speeding violations can't be written, legally, for speeds over 10 MPH the posted limit and under(i.e. 1 to 10 MPH in excess) by all law enforcement in Georgia, save for e Georgia State Patrol and/or other state agencies that monitor speed on public roadways. This restriction is specifically listed in the O.C.G.A.(Official Code of Georgia Annotated, or Georgia law), when speed detection equipment is used. The problem is that speeds can be estimated by sight, as trained in Georgia, so this restriction isn't as strong as it seems, in some circumstances. Also, this restriction doesn't affect school speed zones(speed reductions zones), nor residential neighborhoods not located on Georgia highways, which are specifically speed restricted.
You can be stopped, but a summons can't be issued for speeds of 10 MPH, or less, on highways, interstates, or other, non-specific roads, caveats listed above. Most agencies will give at least 10, sometimes 15 over, especially is light traffic areas, or times(late night, very early morning).
I meant to post "Unmonitored equipment" towards the end of my post, but autocorrect screwed it up.
I don't know the laws that govern speed detection devices in Ohio, but in Georgia(where I live), speed detection devices are tightly controlled, when used by the State, or any political subdivisions(cities and counties, or non-sovereign entities). In fact, all traffic violations are tightly controlled, as to whom may enforce them. I have a feeling that there are more than a few states that handle the situation in similar fashion.
Only law enforcement may "arrest"(arrests included signed traffic summons, which is why the summons has posted "in lieu of arrest" at the signature) on personally viewed traffic violations. That means that if the violations isn't personally view by sworn, active law enforcement(can be on or off duty), then no "arrest" can be made. In other words, any random person, or non-Georgia law enforcement citizen, can't view a violation(most of which are misdemeanor crimes, in Georgia, which is dumb), report said violation(s), and have law enforcement act. Such violation reports don't even provide "reasonable, articulable suspicion(RAS).
As far as speed detection equipment, the equipment must, and I do mean must, be calibrated each day. With radar, two tuning forks are used, each fork representing a specific speed, the number specified by unremovable mark on the tuning fork(if I remember correctly, the speeds were 60-something MPH and 44, or 40-something MPH, or miles per hour). The operator, who had to be a certified peace officer(through Georgia POST, or Peace Officers Standards and Training Council), and hold a certification on operating speed detection equipment(usually a week, or five days, long; speed detection equipment can be purchased and operated by anyone, but if one wishes to do so as law enforcement, then certifications are a requirement), activated each fork in front of each antenna, then held both in he same path(to check moving radar capabilities). I can't remember the requirements on laser and other technologies, as I didn't use the at the agency I worked at, and quit doing road enforcement when I took a different position elsewhere.
Seeing as I doubt these cameras were checked for proper functionality daily, if that is a requirement under Ohio law(how could Ohio bring cases, when the "arresting" officer can't verify the basic functionality of the equipment he or she is using?), that is one of many problems with that equipment. Hell, even speedometers on law enforcement vehicles are calibrated twice a month, or more, as the speedometers are also used in speed detection, and it is a very simplistic piece of equipment, relatively speaking.
For those that aren't aware, I was in law enforcement and I have used speed detection devices. I wouldn't trust the readings from I monitored equipment, run by corporations seeking profit.
No, nonprofit hospitals in the US have every right to maintain a technical "profit", or maintain their accounting "in the black"(as opposed to "in the red", like the US and most state governments). The positive income is held for expansion and/or improvement plans(i.e. remodeling of current structures, expanding the building(s), building new offices, and doing whatever else to improve service to those the nonprofit offers service to. To say that nonprofits can't maintain positive cash flow, while also saving that positive income for future profits is disingenuous, and bordering, no, it is an outright lie. Save the demonization for those that deserve it.
I will admit that CEO for nonprofit hospitals, among other areas, has been sharply increasing, while all other areas, save for specialize medical doctors and the like(even their pay hasn't increased that much, relatively speaking), has continued to stagnate, or slightly revert compared to inflation. Regardless, the hospitals have to compete, and in order to do so, the salaries have to be able to compete with similar positions in other nonprofits and for-profit organizations. If you are truly blind to that reality, you should reconsider whether or not you are capable of maintaining the discussion at hand.
I fail to see how government shortfalls have anything to do with a private nonprofit hospital. Government isn't the only entity that exists as a nonprofit. While the main goal of a nonprofit organization isn't to achieve or maintain a technical "profit", it is the goal of a nonprofit to offer benefits at an effective price point, while maintaining capital to continue operating and realizing new funding to expand operations. The new funding is, practically, a profit, if the organization is run efficiently.
Many family members of mine have worked, or currently work at a nonprofit hospital in Georgia. While I believe its CEO is paid quite a lot of money, given the area, I understand that the hospital pays him the salary to compete and maintain his employment contract. Seeing as the hospital continually run deep "in the black", or a technical "profit"(costs are less than revenue generated), I see no reason to argue against the hospital's decisions.
Perhaps there is a dislike of people being extremely successful?
No, the United States of America is a democratic republic(started as a republic, but the 17th Amendment, including how states, which are sovereign entities and thus equal to the national government, hold referendums and such). We elect representatives, who hold authority to make governmental decisions on out behalf. It is a generally held, but false belief that the US is a democracy; democracies are a farce, at best(read Federalist number 10).
Authority and power are derived from the citizens of the US, but we allow our representatives make decisions that aren't strictly forbidden in the US Constitution, and to a lesser extent, federal/state laws(the US Constitution is the ultimate legal document in the entire US system of governments).
Yeah, the previous poster would be wise to read Warren v D.C., Castle Rock v. Gonzales, and DeShaney v Winnebago County(just to start, DeShaney and Gonzales really applies more to the events in Connecticut, though Warren does cover failures to act, or act "quickly"). Law enforcement, nor any government actor/agency has any duty to protect any individual, or respond to any calls for assistance,
I "own" 417 select-fire/full-automatic capable firearms( call them assault...firearms, if you must, as not all are rifles, such as the wo Glock 18s), but I refuse to use the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon"(in my state(Georgia), an assault is a term that describes a threat, not a physical interaction, so those two terms have always seemed dumb). I am a 07/02 FFL/SOT(federal firearm licensed manufacturer that has paid his 02 Special Occupational Tax; don't dare call it "class 3", as that is a bullshit term, too. I manufacturer Title II firearms, which included suppressors, short barrel rifles/shotguns, and "machine guns". Title I covers most all others, such as semi-automatic handguns and rifles), so my ownership of all "post samples"(select-fire firearm made after 19 May 1986, which is a stupid provision) ends when I stop sending checks towards the BATFE(well, sort of towards that agency) for $500 a year($1,000, if I exceed $500,000 a year in sales).
After that, I have to destroy my post samples, sell them to another FFL/SOT(which almost always requires a demonstration letter, save for special dispensations, which can be rare), or give them away to a law enforcement agency/qualified(export authorized, save for our own) military organization. It is thoughts like that which make me dislike our national government.
No, it is our job to defend ourselves and defend our rights. Government has no responsibility to respond to any calls of assistance from you, no matter how many movies and TV shows lie to you. Read the abundant case law to clear this up.
You are dismissing a lot of history and many instances of current events in making your point(which fails). There are many examples of less forces taking greater one, and many examples of the opposite. There is no guaranteed outcome in the meeting any two forces, no matter how well one side prepared.
Also, a firearm is a force equalizer. When you add in training(self or professional, both working about as well), a firearm will fend off even the most well experienced criminal, or criminal government. I guess your argument appears more valid, to you, by rehashing the falsities(mostly, as you spread a little truth you really drive your point) you posted.
No, that would be an authority or power, not a right. An individual has rights, government and its actors have authority. This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Humans are living beings, and living beings have rights. Government exists because the citizenry allows it. We citizens grant that existence through an allocation of authority. While we do so, no government has the right to exist; the existence of any government is perpetuated through the continual authorization of the populace it have goverance over.
Anyone that believes a government has any rights doesn't understand the definition of the word, in the given context.
The definitions of all the words in any legal document only matter at the time of the writing of said legal document. That is why we keep track of the various dialects, and the "proper" form of various languages. That way, should a difference of opinion occur, the difference can be cleared in court(should that be needed).
Still, a militia doesn't exist solely to defend the wishes of those in power, but the state(any state or the US Government, which are the only two forms of sovereignty in the United States and both of which derive power from the same source) and the people(us, not the disconnected entity "The People"). The militia is comprised of all "able bodied" males, of a certain age(normally 16 to 18, through 60, or older, if needed and depending) and is to act to ensure the security of the citizenry, should the manpower of the official, uniformed forced fail to meet expectations, and/or to act in defense of the citizenry against any corrupt or tyrannical government within one or many states, or the Union of our states.
If our potential militia members aren't "well regulated", as is currently the case, then we, as citizens and as a larger body, have failed to meet our own expectations. All militia members have been and currently would be required to arm themselves. Even the US Government, the most well armed government that exists, couldn't equip a half of the US militia body, nor should it be expected to. Hence part of the reason the Second Amendment exists.
I have heard and read that some believe that some people that altered the intended meaning over the last few decades, to rationalize citizen access to firearms, but that pure bullshit. There have been many people that have discussed the meaning of that amendment for about as long as it has existed, and many have discussed how it applies to individuals, not a collective. Of course, if one read this, or any other portion of the US Constitution, and reads it rationally, it would be understood as it is supposed to be.
One must also be aware that, in the United States and the various states, government has no rights, only limited authority. As such, with the U.S. Constitution's "Bill of Rights", amendments that reinforce an individual's rights(again, remember that the Bill of Rights didn't create any rights; it only served to protect rights that already existed. The Founders understood, rightly, that no government has the power or authority to give anyone rights. Our rights exists naturally, and many of us have lost sight of this important fact.) will refer to them as "a right" or "rights". Government authority will be referred to as "authority" or "power(s)"(though there could be variation on the exact term, depending).
I don't want to read any comment about a "living constitution", as to attempt to have other believe the interpretation is open to change, whenever it suits a group. That isn't how the US Constitution works. It is a "living document", in that it can be altered, per the terms set out in the document(support of two-thirds of Congress for the amendment, then three-fourths of the state legislatures or the special state conventions, as decided by the US Congress, must agree or disagree for the amendment to come into effect). 10,000, or so, amendments have been proposed and we have 27. Otherwise, the US Constitution doesn't change and the mean of any portion of the US Constitution doesn't change(that would require an amendment, see 18th and 21st Amendments).
Government has no rights. It most certainly doesn't have any right to know what I own or possess, until said government obtains a warrant. That is why we have the Fourth Amendment. So, until some asshole obtains a warrant, you best believe I will never register my property, nor seek a license to exercise any of my rights.
There are no known threats. The FBI has laughed off the bullshit claims by the idiots that posted people's information. The newspaper is looking to demonize people exercising their rights. Fuck them.
The irony is that the newspaper, looking to demonize people exercising their rights, is looking to armed guards to protect them. The irony is extremely thick.
So you are in favor of violating an explicitly stated amendment(the Second Amendment explicitly protects citizens' rights to arms equal to our military, considering the portions "A well regulated militia..."(the word regulated meaning equally or well equipped, as used during the inception and passing of the Second Amendment) and "...the right of the people..."(while "The People" and "the people" both refer to the citizenry, from whence the authority of the various government is derived from, "The People" is termed to discuss the wider authority(our governments); "the people" directly refer to the citizenry). The whole "...shall not be infringed." part would cause any bans to be severe violations of the Second Amendment) to the US Constitution, for a protection that isn't explicitly stated but decided through case law? While both protections are important, and I support both, I fail to see how anyone, of any intelligence, would advocate violating the highest and most important document in the United States.
There were close to 100 million firearm owners in the United States that have not used their firearms to commit any crimes, nor knowingly commit any crimes, of any kind, either recently, nor at any time in the past. So, considering the odds, legal firearm owners are the most law abiding citizens that exists. Those are the people that should have arms, considering the reason our rights were protected(The Second Amendment protected an already existing right; that Amendment didn't create any new right.).
What gun show "loop hole"? Oh, you mean the part of the federal firearm laws that states that non-Federal Firearm Licensees(FFL) individuals that sell to other individuals are not required to fill out an ATF Form 4473(this is the form filled out on all purchased from FFL dealers/manufacturers, generally), or run a background check through NICS(National Instant Criminal Background Check System) on the purchaser? Well, that isn't a "loop hole", nor does it have anything to do with gun shows.
Access to the NICS is restricted to FFL dealer/exporter/importer/manufacturers/other. Giving access to anyone that wants to sell firearms to other individuals, outside of a commercial setting, would create a nightmare, as well as put more controls on what is already a rather tightly controlled activity. I wouldn't want to put all that extra strain on the FBI, indivuduals(tens of millions of which are firearm carriers/owners, none of which committed any crimes that day, and are the most law abiding and respectful group of people on the planet), or FFL holders.
There is no law, or groups of laws that will change the real problem: Evil human behavior. The moment everyone starts to realize that bad events happen all the time, and that we do not have the power to avoid such events, the easier(though slightly, and without consolation) life will become. Less restrictions, especially on those that have already passed multiple background checks and might have some of the best training(though, training should never be mandatory on the exercising of any of our rights), is the only viable option to offer up any solution that might have any measurable results. Even that doesn't guarantee the result we hope for.
Feel free to post any of te convoluted data you wish, which you believe "proves" your point. Allow me to save you some time and tell you that none of the data, most of which is bullshit, proves anything. Also, save the tired clichés, on both sides of the argument. Using cliches makes the user, especially the ones that use cliches multiple time in a single post, look infantile, uneducated, and desperate. I would also refrain from stating(well, lying, actually) that you are "pro-gun"("rabidly", or not), then set about expounding thoughts that are "rabidly" "anti-gun".
I don't give a shit about statistics, or any other data on this particular subject. Providing firearms, or access to firearms, doesn't guarantee any result. Regardless, it is stupid to use that, or any other excuse to not give the individual access to whatever options he or she wishes to effect an efficient and reasonable self-defense. It is offensive to the highest order to try and claim that "gun-free zones" have any positive impact on anyone's safety, aside from, maybe, authorized government actors and criminals.
Everyone that died at Sandy Hook might have still died if all adults at that school were armed, but those people lacked any viable option to defend themselves and the students. I would rather that people make their own choice on what firearm(s) to carry, as well as when and where to carry, than to see the choice taken away from them. Giving people a chance a surviving such a horrible event is infinitely better than proving easy targets for evil, vile, and disgusting assholes seeking to harm and/or kill.
Do you not understand(obviously, you don't) that Social Security Disability(SSD or SSDI) is funded by, and only paid to, those that have worked and paired into that system? Do you not understand that the amount received each month is based off of how much you paid into the system? You need to actually learn about the topics you attempt to discuss, prior to making yourself appear unintelligent.
I am on disability myself. I previously worked in law enforcement, where I was hurt while working, and I cannot walk without a cane. I also live in an immense amount of pain. On good days, I am hovering around a seven, on a one(least, or no pain) to ten(intolerable, excruciating pain, the worst possible pain) scale, and on bad days, I cannot come down from ten. Today is a good day. I tend to have far more bad days.
Just because I worked in government does not make me more deserving of receiving benefits from one of the programs I paid into. There are a lot of people that need to be receiving SSD benefits, and there are many gaming the system. That is the failure of government, not our receiving benefits from a program we gave a lot of money to.
The people who only qualify for Medicaid(free, Mdicare is not free), Supplimental Income(free, for those not meeting a minimum, which is $678 a month), and other non-paid programs, are the problem. I understand that people fall on hard times, but far too many people "game" the system, and take advantage of money and programs they shouldn't have access to. If you want to target your angst somewhere, target it there.
I worked hard, and paid into the Social Security program by age 26 that most people will not have paid until age 45 to 50. So, spare me the uneducated angst over a topic you obviously have no business discussing.
Ask Berry College(located in Rome, GA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_College ) how their college campus ended up when Florida Rock dug a huge hole on campus property. Though the site was out of site to people on campus, one of the lakes on campus(Victory Lake) almost completely dried up(sink hole) and buildings, some very old(Ford Buildings, paid for by Henry Ford and given continued assistance by the Ford Corporation), started having problems from sink holes, the watertable started to be displaced, and it hurt the college far more than the help Berry College got from Florida Rock.
The rock quarry is now a large lake, which is also extremely deep. Would you fall in(which you should survive the fall), and cannot get out, you will drown and never have your body retrieved. Sadly, this place is well known to be an excellent place(one of a few in the area) to dump a body, or other items you do not want found, or ever retrieved by anyone(including the person that dump the body or item). Yes, Martha Berry would be proud.
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2011SE/finalprogram/abstract_183994.htm
There are other buildings that have had problems from the bad decision of Berry Colege's administration. These colleges may end up in a similar situation.
Excise tax is only required when one manufactures or imports more than 50 firearms or related, taxable articles in a given year. If one imports or manufactures 51 firearms or applicable articles, then the excise tax is due on 51 such items.
I will agree with the "subjective and changing" determinations that the ATF comes up with. Why is it that a pistol(less then 16 nch barrel, no shoulder stock, no forward grip, etc) can be converted into a rifle(16 inch barrel or greater, shoulder stock, forward grip, etc), but a rifle cannot be, legally, converted into a pistol? Why is a forward grip, similar to a broom handle design, not allowed on a pistol(that makes it an AOW, or "any other weapon", requiring an initial $200 tax, then a $5 transfer tax afterwards), but a Magpul AFG(angled forward grip) is allowed?
That is just the beginning of the ATF's buffoonery. Don't get me started on the GCA(Gun Control Act of 1968) and what the hell "sporting purpose" is, or should be. It seems like the ATF constantly is faultering one what is "sporting" and what allegedly isn't.
Yes, they can. A FFL(federal firearms license) holder, who has paid the SOT(special Occupation Tax), either the 03(dealer) or 02(dealer/manufacturer; can do both), can sell or manufacturer and sell, all Title II, or NFA(National Frearm Act; suppressors/silencers, short-barreled rifles/shotguns, select-fire or full auto(there is a slight difference) firearms, or any other firearms that are not "destructive devices") firearms and parts/accessories. The caveat is that one needs a demonstration letter from a law enforcement agency and/or the military(not from both, just from the government arm that is requesting the demonstration prior to purchase) to purchase a "post-1986"(Firearm Owner's "Protection" Act), or "dealer sample"(select-fire, or full auto firearm). Manufacturers can produce post samples without a letter, but neither of the SOTs can purchase from a third-party without a demonstration letter, unless the ATF allows an exemption(i.e. dealers going out of business and needing to dump samples/stock).
The SOT costs $1,000, per year, and is cut to $500 for those selling under $500,000 of inventory a year. Of course, you have to have a 01(dealer/gunsmith, which costs $200 when first obtaining, for thre years, then $90 for renewal)) FFL to obtain a 03 SOT. A manufacturer of NFA, or Class II firearms must have a 07(firearms manufacturer, which costs $150 per three years, which makes no sense, as you one can deal on a 07 license) and then may obtain either a 02(manufacturing) SOT or a 03(dealing only) SOT, if the manufacturer doesn't wish to manufacturer Class II, or NFA firearms.
Manufacturers also have to register with the US State Department, pay an annual $2,250 ITAR(International Traffic In Arms Regulation; a ripoff) fee, or seek an exemption, if you are not planning to export. The exemption is possible, but not the easiest act to achieve.
By the way, I possess a 07/02 FFL. I run my business from my home, and I mostly deal in arms for law enforcement, or NFA arms for citizens. I do a little manufacturing, but I mostly do pre-purchase alterations. A 01 FFL runs too much of a risk of being accused of being a manufacturer, if me is not aware of the potential pitfalls and the law. In reality, the laws covering what a 01 and a 07 FFL holder can do is ridiculous and should be altered. Thou, that is another discussion, for another time.
Oh, and, most states have not registration. The ATF is specifically not allowed to enact a registry of firearms and owners by legislation, among other controls. Sadly, the ATF has been skirting these restrictions.
Producing a firearm for personal use is not a "grey" matter. Such production is completely legal, and, in certain instances, can be sold, if it adheres to the law. One cannot build firearms, with the intent to sell, without a 07 FFL(or 02, for NFA arms). Quit spreading false information.
Training people to aim for anything other than centermass is blatantly stupid and a sign that the trainer is bad at his or her job. There is too great a risk that aiming for extremities, especially with rifles that shoot rifle-caliber rounds, will penetrate the intended target, and continue down range. Any respectable firearms instructor knows this.
The problem in this instance is that we have a person intent on committing several crimes that used a common tool commit said crimes. Instead of people blaming the criminal, they want to blame the tool. I'm sorry, but the firearm(s) used is(are) no more to blame than the movies and music is to blame.
Bad things happen. Even if all firearms and bad thoughts were banned, we would still have criminal activity to deal with and still experience the death of people that were innocent of any wrong doing. Oh, but, yeah blame the firearms. And terrorist. PEDOPHILES AND DRUGS!!!!!!111111 TERRORIST!!!!!!
I have carried a firearm, everyday, for the past 12 years. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people that are just like me. Guess how many of us have committed crimes against other people while carrying? None. Oh, but let's draw a correlation between the lawfully amongst us that do carry and the criminals that commit atrocities like above.
Had a few people in that crowd been carrying, the criminal piece of shit would have been dead moments after the canister carrying the smoke breached the doorway(situational awareness is a must, both when carrying and when one doesn't carry a firearm).